Justice for Meredith A Summary of the Evidence

Click to return to Index Introduction Let’s look at the overall picture in the

Click to return to Index INDEX Introduction 1. How to handle the evidence. 2.

Click to return to Index • 1. How To Handle The Evidence It will

Click to return to Index • 2. The staging of a break in and

Click to return Let me introduce Delfo Berretti, a lawyer on the Sollecito team

Click to return 2. The staging of a break in and burglary in Filomena’s

Click to return to Index • 3. Analysis and Evaluation of the Alibis and

Click to return to Index • • 3. Analysis and Evaluation of the Alibis

Click to return to Index 3. Analysis and Evaluation of the Alibis and Behaviour

• Raffaele’s police statement as reflected in Judge Matteini’s initial report 3. Analysis

Click to return to Index 4. Evidence as to the time of Death and

Click to return to Index • 5. Analysis of Police Questioning, Technicalities, and Amanda’s

Click to return to Index • • • 5. Analysis of Police Questioning, Technicalities,

Click to return to Index • 6. Analysis of The Physical Evidence at the

Click to return to Index 6. Analysis of The Physical Evidence at the Cottage

Click to return to Index • 6. 1 The Knife The police were interested

Click to return to Index 6. 1 The Knife We initially thought that perhaps

(Blade image is generic, Okay, here’s the scene: You are Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, one

Click to return to Index • 6. 1 The Knife In any event the

Click to return to Index • • 6. 1 The Knife In any event

Click to return to Index • • • 6. 1 The Knife In any

Click to return to Index • 6. 2 The Bra Clasp This tested positive

Click to return to Index • 6. 3 The Luminol Results Luminol is a

Click to return to Index • 6. 3 The Luminol Results Sweat according to

Click to return to Index • 6. 4 The footprint on the bathmat This

Click to return to Index • 7. The Hypothesis of a Partial Clean-up Operation

Click to return to Index 7. The Hypothesis of a Partial Clean-up Operation And

Click to return to Index • • 7. The Hypothesis of a Partial Clean-up

Click to return to Index • 8. The Staging or Partial Staging of a

Click to return to Index • 9. How many were Involved and was there

Click to return to Index • 10. Rudy Guede’s Evidence Guede began implicating Amanda

Click to return to Index • • 10. Rudy Guede’s Evidence Guede began implicating

Click to return to Index • • • 10. Rudy Guede’s Evidence Guede began

Click to return to Index • 11. Miscellaneous Evidence Amanda and Raffaele were both

Click to return to Index • • 11. Miscellaneous Evidence Amanda and Raffaele were

Click to return to Index • • • 11. Miscellaneous Evidence Amanda and Raffaele

Click to return to Index • • • • 11. Miscellaneous Evidence Amanda and

Click to return to Index • • • • • 11. Miscellaneous Evidence Amanda

Click to return to Index • 12. SOME CONCLUSIONS The narrative is incomplete but

Slides: 155

Download presentation

Justice for Meredith A Summary of the Evidence Against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (Click to proceed)

Click to return to Index Introduction Let’s look at the overall picture in the case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as they attempt to appeal their convictions for the brutal murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia on 1 November 2007. In reviewing the charges against Knox and Sollecito, we have the benefit of a full English translation of the Massei Report and also the benefit of an excellent Summary of that Report. They are available on the True Justice for Meredith Kercher website, as well as the Perugia Murder File site. I urge you to read at least the summary of the Massei Report. In the following bullet point presentation I make the case for guilt my own way. Most of the points are of course drawn from the Report but I include observations, evidence and argument not referred to in it, and acknowledge helpful contributions from posters on the TJMK site and others. Many will be familiar with the content but the lively interactive and inclusive format has the extra dimension to unlock closed minds. "There are none so blind as those who will not see. " (Adapted from Jeremiah 5. 21) The Independent Expert’s Report on the “Double DNA Knife” and the Bra Clasp has now been released, which includes, it appears, some trenchant criticisms. The contents of the Report are being debated and clarified in court at this time. This article is subject to the court’s conclusions. However, this case is much more complex and pervasive than just the Knife and the Bra Clasp: there remains a substantial body of evidence which supports the charges against Amanda and Raffaele. As I see it the only way for the defence to rebut that evidence is to put the pair on the stand. Kermit has helped out with the inclusion of visuals and additional text to illustrate the bullet points. We can both be contacted through the TJMK site. - James Raper and Kermit (Click to proceed)

Click to return to Index INDEX Introduction 1. How to handle the evidence. 2. The staging of a break in and burglary in Filomena's bedroom. 3. Analysis and Evaluation of the Alibis and Behaviour of AK and RS. Nov. 2 - 4 4. Evidence as to time of Death and Proximity of AK and RS. 5. Analysis of Police Questioning, Technicalities and AK's Confession. 6. Analysis of Physical Evidence at the Cottage and RS's Apartment. 7. The Hypothesis of a Partial Clean - Up Operation and "No Evidence means Not There". 8. The Staging or Partial Staging of a Sex Attack. 9. How many were involved and was there more than one knife? 10. Rudy Guede's Evidence. 11. Miscellaneous Evidence. 12. Some Conclusions. User notes: If you have time, use the Page. Down button or the Right or Down arrow buttons to advance progressively through the presentation. If you want to go directly to one of the sections in the Index, move your cursor over any of the Index items, and left click. From any of the presentation pages, you can return to this Index with the “return to Index” button in the upper left of the screen.

Click to return to Index • 1. How To Handle The Evidence It will be seen from what follows that the case against Amanda and Raffaele is founded in logic, evidence and has a consistent, if not complete, narrative. The narrative would be more detailed if we had a clearer picture of the motives involved. • It is true that there are many instances where one can advance a plausible alternative explanation for a piece of evidence. But there are just as many instances where an alternative explanation becomes implausible. • I have put the evidence, evaluation and interpretation into fairly obvious categories, from which it can be seen just how it all stacks up in each, and overall, and how very unlikely it is as a consequence that just because one can argue that this or that is coincidental and may have an innocent explanation, that it is likely to be so. • Above all it is the totality of the evidence that has to be absorbed to form a considered and objective opinion, not just as to the totality but in respect of each individual item of evidence as well. “Occam’s Razor” is a principle attributed to the 14 th century English Friar William of Ockham, and can be summarised in these terms : ”Of two equivalent theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred. ” In terms of studying criminal cases, we should apply this principle, avoiding unnecessarily complicated explanations for the evidence at hand. Occam’s Razor in practise: If we observe that the suspect had toothpaste on his toothbrush, without any additional evidence at hand, the pictured scenario should not be envisioned in order to explain how it got there.

Click to return to Index • 2. The staging of a break in and burglary in Filomena’s bedroom It is evident from a simple visual inspection of the outside of the cottage that a climb up to Filomena’s window would have been an extremely difficult and hazardous enterprise for even an athletic burglar. • The shutters were not latched but Filomena had said that the shutters were swollen from the rain the day before and that she had closed them as far as they would go with the shutters rubbing against the window sill. • Four separate operations would be required to enter the cottage through Filomena’s bedroom window: climbing up to open the shutters, climbing down, throwing the rock, and then climbing up to the window again. • Furthermore anyone doing this would do so without knowing whether or not the scuri (the inner wooden blinds) were latched to the inside of the window or not. Had they been so then it would have been impossible to unlatch and open the windows in any event, The presence of the scuri (given that they are of a light colour) would have been obvious at the time of opening the shutters and/or at the time of throwing the rock.

Click to return to Index • 2. The staging of a break in and burglary in Filomena’s bedroom ( It is evident from a simple visual inspection of the outside of the cottage that a climb up to Filomena’s window would have been an extremely difficult and hazardous enterprise for even an athletic burglar. • The shutters were not latched but Filomena had said that the shutters were swollen from the rain the day before and that she had closed them as far as they would go with the shutters rubbing against the window sill. • Four separate operations would be required to enter the cottage through Filomena’s bedroom window: climbing up to open the shutters, climbing down, throwing the rock, and then climbing up to the window again. • Furthermore anyone doing this would do so without knowing whether or not the scuri (the inner wooden blinds) were latched to the inside of the window or not. Had they been so then it would have been impossible to unlatch and open the windows in any event, The presence of the scuri (given that they are of a light colour) would have been obvious at the time of opening the shutters and/or at the time of throwing the rock. • All the time the person would be clearly visible to anyone passing along the road outside the cottage. • Given the operations required, as described above, it seems highly implausible that Meredith (who was dressed at the time of the attack) would not have heard the intruder going about his business of breaking in and would not have taken such steps as appropriate to forestall the intrusion and/or protect herself. • Rudy Guede had visited the boys’ flat on the lower floor of the cottage on at least two occasions and he would have known that it would have been far simpler to have gained access to the girls’ flat via the balcony on the other side of the cottage, where the entrance to the boy’s flat is, which he could have accomplished with far less chance of being seen or heard in under a minute. From early 2008, the cottage was broken into twice via this route, and not via any other route.

Click to return to Index • 2. The staging of a break in and burglary in Filomena’s bedroom (1/2) It is evident from a simple visual inspection of the outside of the cottage that a climb up to Filomena’s window would have been an extremely difficult and hazardous enterprise for even an athletic burglar. • The shutters were not latched but Filomena had said that the shutters were swollen from the rain the day before and that she had closed them as far as they would go with the shutters rubbing against the window sill. • Four separate operations would be required to enter the cottage through Filomena’s bedroom window: climbing up to open the shutters, climbing down, throwing the rock, and then climbing up to the window again. • Furthermore anyone doing this would do so without knowing whether or not the scuri (the inner wooden blinds) were latched to the inside of the window or not. Had they been so then it would have been impossible to unlatch and open the windows in any event, The presence of the scuri (given that they are of a light colour) would have been obvious at the time of opening the shutters and/or at the time of throwing the rock. • All the time the person would be clearly visible to anyone passing along the road outside the cottage. • Given the operations required, as described above, it seems highly implausible that Meredith (who was dressed at the time of the attack) would not have heard the intruder going about his business of breaking in and would not have taken such steps as appropriate to forestall the intrusion and/or protect herself. • Rudy Guede had visited the boys’ flat on the lower floor of the cottage on at least two occasions and he would have known that it would have been far simpler to have gained access to the girls’ flat via the balcony on the other side of the cottage, where the entrance to the boy’s flat is, which he could have accomplished with far less chance of being seen or heard in under a minute. • None of the vegetation beneath Filomena’s window was damaged or flattened. The ground was wet but despite this there was no sign of any streaks or scuff marks on the wall beneath the window.

Click to return to Index • 2. The staging of a break in and burglary in Filomena’s bedroom (1/2) It is evident from a simple visual inspection of the outside of the cottage that a climb up to Filomena’s window would have been an extremely difficult and hazardous enterprise for even an athletic burglar. • The shutters were not latched but Filomena had said that the shutters were swollen from the rain the day before and that she had closed them as far as they would go with the shutters rubbing against the window sill. • Four separate operations would be required to enter the cottage through Filomena’s bedroom window: climbing up to open the shutters, climbing down, throwing the rock, and then climbing up to the window again. • Furthermore anyone doing this would do so without knowing whether or not the scuri (the inner wooden blinds) were latched to the inside of the window or not. Had they been so then it would have been impossible to unlatch and open the windows in any event, The presence of the scuri (given that they are of a light colour) would have been obvious at the time of opening the shutters and/or at the time of throwing the rock. • All the time the person would be clearly visible to anyone passing along the road outside the cottage. • Given the operations required, as described above, it seems highly implausible that Meredith (who was dressed at the time of the attack) would not have heard the intruder going about his business of breaking in and would not have taken such steps as appropriate to Nail forestall the intrusion and/or protect herself. • Rudy Guede had visited the boys’ flat on the lower floor of the cottage on at least two occasions and he would have known that it would have been far simpler to have gained access to the girls’ flat via the balcony on the other side of the cottage, where the entrance to the boy’s flat is, which he could have accomplished with far less chance of being seen or heard in under a minute. • None of the vegetation beneath Filomena’s window was damaged or flattened. The ground was wet but despite this there was no sign of any streaks or scuff marks on the wall beneath the window. • A large nail sticking out of the wall and which might have impeded or assisted a climber was unaffected.

Click to return Let me introduce Delfo Berretti, a lawyer on the Sollecito team who stands a head 2. The staging of a break in and burglary in Filomena’s bedroom to Indexother mortals and was tasked with trying to climb up to Filomena’s window. He above actually touched the stone ledge, where on the day after Meredith’s murder, broken glass had been found. He could not progress any further, what with his foot jammed • There was no broken glass on the ground outside. There was broken glass on the outer sill ledge and had a at an awkward, painful angle in the iron grate of a lower floor window. burglar climbed in through the window he would almost certainly have dislodged this glass, deliberately or Had tall Delfo (or an imaginary spiderman Lone Wolf killer) been able to actually get his accidentally, so that it would have fallen outside. hand over the ledge with the same broken glass as was found there after the murder, it would have been next to impossible to not knock some glass shards back over the Let’s take a closer look at the edge, between grabbing around trying to find a secure, safe handhold, and hauling his body over the slight overhang. However, none was found. glass on the ledge of the window frame. . . In any case, the Defence teams seem to have abandoned the Lone Wolf theory, so perhaps the implications of Delfo’s unsuccessful effort is now a moot point. There’s glass “outside” the window (that is, on the stone window sill, but inside the closed position of the Delfo green shutter), but none outside on the ground. The lie of the glass is consistent with the shutters being closed when the glass was broken - further evidence of staging from the inside.

Click to return 2. The staging of a break in and burglary in Filomena’s bedroom (2/2) to Index Evidence of Rudy is in 4 places in the house, Rudy’s DNA but not in Filomena’s room, location of the Rudy’s palm print • staged break-in and non-robbery There was no broken glass on the ground outside. There was broken glass on the outer sill ledge and had a burglar climbed in through the window he would almost certainly have dislodged this glass, deliberately or Rudy’s Nike prints accidentally, so that it would have fallen outside. • • The clothes tossed about the floor had shards of glass on top which would not be the case had the window Rudy’s feces first been broken to gain entry. This in itself is hard evidence that the break in and burglary were staged. Let’s not believe that Rudy left a calling card like this: There were items which had not been touched at all e. g clothing, personal items, the contents of drawers and cupboards, and Filomena’s laptop. Kilroy was not h ere Dear Polizia, I thought I would try to fool you, Nothing, as it later transpired, had been stolen or even assembled together for removal. by staging a crime in the other part of the house, but leaving Although the room was combed forensic evidence there was not one item of evidence whether DNA, my most intimate remains here. fingerprint or otherwise to show that Rudy Guede had ever made his way in through the window and into the room. Sincerely, Rudy • There was no other sign of forced entry to the girls’ flat. • • • Rudy Guede came into the picture later but can be discounted as a stager given that he left evidence of himself at the cottage; not just his DNA on Meredith, but his left shoe footprints leading directly from Meredith’s bedroom to the front door, a palm print in blood on a pillow and feces in the large bathroom toilet, none of which he attempted to clear up. Had he thought of himself as someone the police might suspect, then overlooking that and staging a break in makes no sense. Given that he had been involved in a recent break in elsewhere he would simply have been drawing attention to himself.

Click to return to Index • 2. The staging of a break in and burglary in Filomena’s bedroom There was no broken glass on the ground outside. There was broken glass on the outer sill ledge and had a burglar climbed in through the window he would almost certainly have dislodged this glass, deliberately or accidentally, so that it would have fallen outside. • The clothes tossed about the floor had shards of glass on top which would not be the case had the window first been broken to gain entry. This in itself is hard evidence that the break in and burglary were staged. • There were items which had not been touched at all e. g clothing, personal items, the contents of drawers and cupboards, and Filomena’s laptop. • Nothing, as it later transpired, had been stolen or even assembled together for removal. • Although the room was combed forensic evidence there was not one item of evidence whether DNA, fingerprint or otherwise to show that Rudy Guede had ever made his way in through the window and into the room. • There was no other sign of forced entry to the girls’ flat. • Rudy Guede came into the picture later but can be discounted as a stager given that he left evidence of himself at the cottage; not just his DNA on and inside Meredith, but his left shoe footprints leading directly from Meredith’s bedroom to the front door, a palm print in blood on a pillow and feces in the large bathroom toilet, none of which he attempted to clear up. Had he thought of himself as someone the police might suspect, then overlooking that and staging a break in makes no sense. Given that he had been involved in a recent break in elsewhere he would simply have been drawing attention to himself. • The only person with a possible motive to stage a break in and burglary would be one of the occupants of the flat. The immediate suspect became someone with, or with access to, a key to the flat. • Of Meredith’s flatmates Laura and Filomena had, as it turned out, rock solid alibis and Amanda Knox was the only other person with a key.

Click to return to Index • • 3. Analysis and Evaluation of the Alibis and Behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele 2 nd – 4 th November Amanda’s alibi is by and large contained in her lengthy e-mail home on the 4 th November. Meredith had two mobile phones, an Italian phone given to her by Filomena and her own UK phone. These were stolen by her killers and discarded together near Rudy’s and Raffaele’s flats. However they were found and handed in to the Postal Police who ascertained that the Italian phone was registered to Filomena and consequently two officers were dispatched to the cottage where they met Amanda and Raffaele.

Click to return to Index • 3. Analysis and Evaluation of the Alibis and Behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele 2 nd – 4 th November Amanda’s alibi is by and large contained in her lengthy e-mail home on the 4 th November. • Meredith had two mobile phones, an Italian phone given to her by Filomena and her own UK phone. These were stolen by her killers and discarded together near Rudy’s and Raffaele’s flats. However they were found and handed in to the Postal Police who ascertained that the Italian phone was registered to Filomena and consequently two officers were dispatched to the cottage where they met Amanda and Raffaele. • Amanda claims that having spent the evening and night indoors at Raffaele’s flat she returned to the cottage on her own at about 10. 30 am on the 2 nd November (before the discovery of Meredith’s body at around 1. 15 pm) to get a change of clothing, have a shower, blow dry her hair, and to collect a mop and clear up a spill of water at Raffaele’s flat the evening before – which Massei found unlikely given that by her own testimony she had arranged with Raffaele to visit Gubbio that day and had already had a shower at Raffaele’s the evening before, and that furthermore Raffaele employed a cleaner who kept a mop and cleaning equipment at his apartment block. In addition, the manager of the Conad mini-mart shop testified that he saw Amanda waiting outside the store at 7. 45 am. , apparently waiting for it to open. Photo 1: Washed and Blow-dried? Photo 2: Washed and Blow-dried Skill testing question: which of these two photos depicts Amanda with hair which washed and blow-dried just 3 hours before? In the other photo, how many hours (or days) ago does it look like her hair washed?

Click to return to Index • 3. Analysis and Evaluation of the Alibis and Behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele 2 nd – 4 th November Amanda’s alibi is by and large contained in her lengthy e-mail home on the 4 th November. • Meredith had two mobile phones, an Italian phone given to her by Filomena and her own UK phone. These were stolen by her killers and discarded together near Rudy’s and Raffaele’s flats. However they were found and handed in to the Postal Police who ascertained that the Italian phone was registered to Filomena and consequently two officers were dispatched to the cottage where they met Amanda and Raffaele. • Amanda claims that having spent the evening and night indoors at Raffaele’s flat she returned to the cottage on her own at about 10. 30 am on the 2 nd November (before the discovery of Meredith’s body at around 1. 15 pm) to get a change of clothing, have a shower, blow dry her hair, and to collect a mop and clear up a spill of water at Raffaele’s flat the evening before – which Massei found unlikely given that by her own testimony she had arranged with Raffaele to visit Gubbio that day and had already had a shower at Raffaele’s the evening before, and that furthermore Raffaele employed a cleaner who kept a mop and cleaning equipment at his apartment block. In addition, the manager of the Conad mini-mart shop testified that he saw Amanda waiting outside the store at 7. 45 am. , apparently waiting for it to open. • She says that during her 10. 30 am visit to the cottage she noticed the blood “smeared” on the sink faucet, drops in the sink, and the bloody footprint on the bathmat. “Ew, but nothing to worry about”, she says. She attributes the blood to perhaps Meredith having “menstral issues” (sic). Left: menstrual issues on the bathroom faucet. Occam would be dismayed to hear how they got there. Right: menstrual issues all over the bathmat, in the rather obvious shape of a foot

Click to return to Index 3. Analysis and Evaluation of the Alibis and Behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele 2 nd – 4 th November • Amanda’s alibi is by and large contained in her lengthy e-mail home on the 4 th November. • Meredith had two mobile phones, an Italian phone given to her by Filomena and her own UK phone. These There are situations where were stolen by her killers and discarded together elsewhere. However they were found and handed in to the showering repetitively isn’t Postal Police who ascertained that the Italian phone was registered to Filomena and consequently two such a good idea, especially officers were dispatched to the cottage where they met Amanda and Raffaele. when you already know • • something is awry when Amanda claims that having spent the evening and night indoors at Raffaele’s flat she returned to the cottage stepping into the shower. on her own at about 10. 30 am on the 2 nd November (before the discovery of Meredith’s body at around 1. 15 pm) to get a change of clothing, have a shower and to collect a mop and clear up a spill of water at Raffaele’s However, if Amanda actually flat the evening before – which Massei found unlikely given that by her own testimony she had arranged with showered again on the Raffaele to visit Gubbio that day and had already had a shower at Raffaele’s the evening before, and that morning of 2 November 2007, furthermore Raffaele employed a cleaner who kept a mop and cleaning equipment at his apartment block. she probably wasn’t in too much danger. She says that during her 10. 30 am visit to the cottage she noticed the blood “smeared” on the sink faucet, drops in the sink, and the bloody footprint on the bathmat. “Ew, but nothing to worry about”, she says. She attributes the blood to perhaps Meredith having “menstrual issues”. • If Amanda’s account of returning to the cottage at 10. 30 am is to be believed, then notwithstanding blood in the bathroom (which by Amanda’s own admission was not there when she left the cottage the day before), the front door being open, Meredith’s bedroom door being locked ( when it was usual for it to be kept unlocked), and unflushed feces in the toilet of the large bathroom ( which by her own admission then made her feel uncomfortable with the situation), Amanda did not, according to her account, think of knocking on Meredith’s door before leaving or of contacting her by phone (on the assumption that she had gone out that morning) nor take the decision to notify anyone other than Raffaele for up to an hour and a half, until (at Raffaele’s place) a 12. 07 call was made to Meredith and at 12. 08 she called Filomena. Does this seem credible?

Click to return to Index 3. Analysis and Evaluation of the Alibis and Behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele 2 nd – 4 th November • The 12. 07 call was to Meredith’s ENGLISH phone and lasted 16 seconds but oddly she does not mention that call to Filomena seconds later. Nor, before calling Filomena, does she try Meredith’s ITALIAN phone. The ITALIAN phone was, as Amanda knew, the phone with which Meredith made and received local calls. • Massei infers that there was no need for Amanda to call Meredith’s Italian phone before calling Filomena because Amanda knew that both of Meredith’s phones had been disposed of together. • When Amanda called Filomena at 12. 08 she told her about the front door being open, the blood on the bathroom mat, and Meredith’s door being locked. Naturally Filomena is worried and tells Amanda to try Meredith’s phones, which Amanda does. These two calls lasted 3 seconds and 4 seconds respectively. Does this sound like a genuine attempt to get hold of Meredith? If voicemail was activated on one or the other line, did Amanda take the time to leave a message of the sort "There seems to have been a break-in in the cottage. There's blood on the floor. Filomena and I are worried about you, please call. "? Just saying that requires more than 4 seconds, in addition to listening to the voicemail recording. 2 “attempts” by Amanda to call Meredith … Even if they were answered by voicemail, many more seconds are required to hear the recorded message then leave your own message. 2 calls by Filomena to reach Amanda. Filomena demonstrates herself to be really interested in locating Meredith, making repetitive phone calls to Amanda with urgency. Although Knox's courtroom testimony states that she returned calls to Filomena, in fact after Knox's first call, the call records show that it was only Filomena who worriedly called Knox (not vice versa)

Click to return to Index 3. Analysis and Evaluation of the Alibis and Behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele 2 nd – 4 th November • On the basis that Massei’s inference is correct, there is now an explanation for the order and length of the calls. The first call to Meredith (immediately before calling Filomena) was 16 seconds long so that Amanda could establish with some reasonable degree of satisfaction that both of Meredith’s phones had not been found, and the two subsequent calls were very short for the obvious reason that Amanda knew that Meredith was dead. One ringy dingy, two ringy dingies … oh, she’ll call back if she’s in trouble, I’m sure

Click to return to Index 3. Analysis and Evaluation of the Alibis and Behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele 2 nd – 4 th November (2/ Italian roommate gets excessively worried (avoid precipitating her return) What to do if Polizia show up unexpectedly w/ phones Memo to me: Pending development – 20 minutes more could give us time to go over Risk Management issues. Hold all incoming calls. • The 12. 08 call had alarmed Filomena sufficiently for her to call Amanda twice, at 12. 12 (36 seconds) and at 12. 20 (65 seconds) but it's not clear if Amanda picked up the calls. In addition, Amanda's confusing trial testimony about the calls doesn't clarify if she was already at the cottage, if she had seen the broken window, or if she was on her way or at Raffaele's flat when the different calls took place. (In Knox's trial testimony, search for: "Before that, when you first realized the window was broken, were you alone" and read onward. ) • A more than likely explanation for the foregoing is that Amanda and Raffaele were working to a PLAN. Meredith’s body had to be discovered at some point and Amanda and Raffaele did not wish to be associated too obviously with this and thereby make themselves the initial focus for police questions. The PLAN was to induce Filomena, with or without her boyfriend and/or friends, to do this, blundering in and probably compromising the crime scene, buying the break in scenario, calling the police and doing all the explaining. Amanda and Raffaele envisaged limiting themselves to their alibi of having been together all night and to Amanda’s story of having visited the cottage at 10. 30 am.

Click to return to Index • 3. Analysis and Evaluation of the Alibis and Behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele 2 nd – 4 th November The plan was disrupted and the pair confused by the early and unforeseen arrival of the postal police and Amanda, subsequently, had to be a little more inventive with her account when she realized she was under suspicion - hence the e-mail. • Alternatively these early phone calls have no significance. However…. . . • On the arrival of Amanda and Raffaele at the cottage Amanda professes, in her e-mail, to have been in a panic before the arrival of the postal police about the locked door and Meredith’s whereabouts (calling out her name, banging on her door, and running out on to the balcony and leaning over the rail and trying to look through Meredith’s bedroom window), but according to the witnesses showed no particular concern about Meredith when the Postal Police arrived, nor raised any concerns with them, rather quite the opposite, before the discovery of Meredith’s body. Amanda's email to the World, 4/11/2007: C NI PA at first i thought she was alseep so i knocked gently, but when she didnt respond i knocked louder and louder until i was really banging on her door and shouting her name. no response. panicing, i ran out onto our terrace to see if maybe i could see over the ledge into her room from the window, but i couldnt see in. bad angle. i then went into the bathroom where i had dried my hair and looked really quickley into the toilet. in my panic i thought i hadnt seen anything there, which to me meant whoever was in my house had been there when i had been there. as it turns out the police told me later that the toilet was full and that the shit had just fallen to the bottom of the toilet, so i didnt see it. i ran outside and down to our neighbors door. the lights were out but i banged ont he door anyway. i wanted to ask them if they had heard anything the night before, but no one was home. i ran back into the house. in the living room raffael told me he wanted to see if he could break down merediths door. he tried, and cracked the door, but we couldnt open it. it was then that we decided to call the cops. there are two types of cops in italy, carbanieri (local, dealing with traffic and domestic calls) and the police investigaters. he first called his sister for advice and then called the carbanieri. i then called filomna who said she would be on her way home immediately. while we were waiting, two ununiformed police investigaters came to our house. vs. LM CA

Click to return to Index • 3. Analysis and Evaluation of the Alibis and Behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele 2 nd – 4 th November Possibly the legs of one of the Postal policemen, at the The plan was disrupted and the pair confused by the early and unforeseen arrival of the postal police and cottage gates at 12: 41 on Amanda, subsequently, had to be a little more inventive with her account when she realized she was under the CCTV clock suspicion - hence the e-mail. • Alternatively these early phone calls have no significance. However…. . . • On the arrival of Amanda and Raffaele at the cottage Amanda professes, in her e-mail, to have been in a panic before the arrival of the postal police about the locked door and Meredith’s whereabouts (calling out her name, banging on her door, and running out on to the balcony and leaning over the rail and trying to look through Meredith’s bedroom window), but according to the witnesses showed no particular concern about Meredith when the Postal Police arrived, nor raised any concerns with them, rather quite the opposite, before the discovery of Meredith’s body. • One also has to wonder why Amanda did not attempt to call either of Meredith’s two phones when one might assume that, if Meredith was in her room, her phones would be heard ringing there. • Amanda claimed that Raffaele had rung the Carabinieri to report a burglary before the Postal Police arrived. Phone records established that he had made the first 112 call, having just before called his sister, Vanessa, at 12. 51 pm, after the arrival of the Postal Police. Indeed he said in a statement to the police later “She (Vanessa) told me to call 112 but just then the postal police arrived”. • Actually the postal police had arrived even earlier since in their own evidence they say that they arrived a little after 12. 35 pm and a video camera covering the entrance to the car park opposite the entrance to the cottage detected and timed the presence of a vehicle similar to their’s at 12. 25 pm. The video camera clock evidence was disputed by the defence (making it 10 minutes slower) but it does not seem that Massei made any finding of fact in either respect.

• Raffaele’s police statement as reflected in Judge Matteini’s initial report 3. Analysis and Evaluation of the Alibis and Behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele in November 2007: ”… Upon reaching the destination the [Postal Police] 2 nd – 4 th November agents found outside the building on Via Della Pergola 7 two youths, identified as Knox Amanda Marie, who lived at that address, and Sollecito Raffaele, who It was noted by witnesses at the scene that prior to the discovery of the body both Amanda and Raffaele said they were waiting for the Carabinieri military police, called because would disappear from the growing pack of arrivals to spend moments together in Amanda’s room with the on that morning they became aware of a window with the glass broken door closed. These additional witnesses were Marco Zaroli and Luca Altieri, and then Filomena and Paola and had suspected a theft. ” Grande. Since none of the witnesses observed the pair making phone calls it may be surmised that it was during such moments that any calls were made. • Amanda claims that she thought that the Postal Police were Carabinieri. Whilst this cannot be discounted it should be noted that, as a native Italian whose sister was in the Carabinieri, Raffaele would have been So, they dealt with instantly aware that they were not Carabinieri responding to the 112 call. Something doesn’t these new arrivals add up between as Carabinieri or as Raffaele’s words Postal Police? Raffaele seems to (above), and Striped panted Carabiniere arriving at cottage at 13: 22 on 02/11/2007 following discovery of Meredith’s body by be saying that Amanda’s words plainclothes Postal Police already on the scene indeed he did know (below) they weren’t Postal Police. One of various patrol cars to arrive at cottage on 02/11/2007 Raffaele’s Carabiniere sister Amanda’s trial testimony: “… while we were outside, two people from plainclothes police came up to us and said "Ciao, we're the police". So I immediately thought that they were the people that Raffaele had called, so I said to them, come in, there's this door that was open, there's this door that's locked, then there are these faeces which aren't there any more. … (text abridged) I explained this really fast to the police, half in English half in Italian, because at that point I didn't speak very well … (text abridged) I kept having to go through Raffaele to be understood, and to figure out what they were saying. ”

Click to return to Index • 3. Analysis and Evaluation of the Alibis and Behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele 2 nd – 4 th November It was noted by witnesses at the scene that prior to the discovery of the body both Amanda and Raffaele would disappear from the growing pack of arrivals to spend moments together in Amanda’s room with the door closed. These additional witnesses were Marco Zaroli and Luca Altieri, and then Filomena and Paola Grande. Since none of the witnesses observed the pair making phone calls it may be surmised that it was during such moments that any calls were made. • Amanda claims that she thought that the Postal Police were Carabinieri. Whilst this cannot be discounted it should be noted that Raffaele, as a native Italian whose sister was in the Carabinieri, would have been instantly aware that they were not Carabinieri. • Amanda told the Postal Police that Meredith always locked her bedroom door even when she went to the bathroom. This was flatly contradicted by Filomena who said that the only occasion when Meredith had locked her door was when she had returned to visit her mother in England. The Way We Were: Happier times, going back to the start of Amanda’s stay at the cottage. Italian roommate Filomena (left) and Amanda Knox. They each have contrasting memories of Meredith.

Click to return to Index • 3. Analysis and Evaluation of the Alibis and Behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele 2 nd – 4 th November The Macho Kick-boxer. . . It was noted by witnesses at the scene that prior to the discovery of the body both Amanda and Raffaele (as he saw himself on his personal page) would disappear from the growing pack of arrivals to spend moments together in Amanda’s room. These additional witnesses were Marco Zaroli and Luca Altieri, and then Filomena and Paola Grande. Since none of the witnesses observed the pair making phone calls it may be surmised that it was during such moments that any calls were made. • Amanda claims that she thought that the Postal Police were Carabinieri. Whilst this cannot be discounted it should be noted that Raffaele, as a native Italian whose sister was in the Carabinieri, would have been instantly aware that they were not Carabinieri. • Amanda told the Postal Police that Meredith always locked her bedroom door even when she went to the bathroom. This was flatly contradicted by Filomena who said that the only occasion when Meredith had locked her door was when she had returned to visit her mother in England. • Both Raffaele and Amanda claim that Raffaele tried to force Meredith’s door but despite being a kick boxer with years of training was unable to do so, although one of the witnesses was able to do so relatively easily. . but it took another guy to kick in this door (it must be a question of desire)

Click to return to Index • 3. Analysis and Evaluation of the Alibis and Behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele 2 nd – 4 th November It was noted by witnesses at the scene that prior to the discovery of the body both Amanda and Raffaele would disappear from the growing pack of arrivals to spend moments together in Amanda’s room. These additional witnesses were Marco Zaroli and Luca Altieri, and then Filomena and Paola Grande. Since none of the witnesses observed the pair making phone calls it may be surmised that it was during such moments that any calls were made. • • Amanda claims that she thought that the Postal Police were Carabinieri. Whilst this cannot be discounted it should be noted that Raffaele, as a native Italian whose sister was in the Carabinieri, would have been RS to Them: Everything’s right instantly aware that they were not Carabinieri. there where it should be Amanda told the Postal Police that Meredith always locked her bedroom door even when she went to the bathroom. This was flatly contradicted by Filomena who said that the only occasion when Meredith had locked her door was when she had returned to visit her mother in England. • Both Raffaele and Amanda claim that Raffaele tried to force Meredith’s door but despite being a kick boxer was unable to do so, although one of the witnesses was able to do so relatively easily. • When the Postal Police looked into Filomena’s bedroom Raffaele told them that nothing had been stolen. That was true, as Filomena subsequently confirmed, but how and why would he have known that?

Click to return to Index 3. Analysis and Evaluation of the Alibis and Behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele 2 nd – 4 th November • It was noted by witnesses at the scene that prior to the discovery of the body both Amanda and Raffaele would disappear from the growing pack of arrivals to spend moments together in Amanda’s room. These Amanda can’t seem to recall additional witnesses were Marco Zaroli and Luca Altieri, and then Filomena and Paola Grande. Since none of phoning her mother, waking up the witnesses observed the pair making phone calls it may be surmised that it was during such moments that Edda in the middle of the night any calls were made. to tell her that the cottage had supposedly been broken into. • Amanda claims that she thought that the Postal Police were Carabinieri. Whilst this cannot be discounted it should be noted that Raffaele, as a native Italian whose sister was in the Carabinieri, would have been In her trial testimony she can’t instantly aware that they were not Carabinieri. remember the first call, and in her email to the world on 4 -11 • Amanda told the Postal Police that Meredith always locked her bedroom door even when she went to the 2007 she tells about other bathroom. This was flatly contradicted by Filomena who said that the only occasion when Meredith had phone calls but leaves out the locked her door was when she had returned to visit her mother in England. first two to her mother. • Both Raffaele and Amanda claim that Raffaele tried to force Meredith’s door but despite being a kick boxer was unable to do so, although one of the witnesses was able to do so relatively easily. • When the Postal Police looked into Filomena’s bedroom Raffaele told them that nothing had been stolen. That was true, as Filomena subsequently confirmed, but how and why would he have known that? • Amanda telephoned her mother from the cottage at 12. 47 pm (4. 47 am in the morning Seattle time), before the discovery of the body. Why did Amanda wake her mother up at 4. 47 am? It clearly was not a mistake as Amanda was aware of the time zone difference. • Edda herself was puzzled as to why Amanda was unable to remember the call when, as she put it in her conversation with Amanda in Capanne Prison, “Nothing had really happened. ” Edda’s doubts probably started back in Seattle, provoking her hastily decided trans-continental and trans-Atlantic trip. • Interestingly neither this call nor the second call to her mother at 1. 24 pm (after Meredith’s door had been broken down) are mentioned in her e-mail.

Click to return to Index 3. Analysis and Evaluation of the Alibis and Behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele 2 nd – 4 th November • I venture to suggest that the first call was not some calculated ploy, as others perhaps see it, but rather that she had experienced a sudden sense of vulnerability and loss of confidence and was seeking emotional reassurance. This may have been triggered by Amanda's and Raffaele's realization that the postal police were suspicious of the "burglary" scene and by Raffaele's suspiciously "knowlegeable" remark about nothing being stolen. The experience was so damaging to her ego she later blanked it out which is why there is no reference to either call in her e-mail. • Amanda persisted in denying the 12. 47 call even with her parents, and in court, but then eventually said that she could not remember it. (see court transcript below: ) Prosecutor Manuela Commodi (MC): But if you called her before, why did you do it? Amanda Knox (AK): I don't remember, but if I did it, I would have called to-MC: You did do it. AK: Okay, fine. But I don't remember that phone call. Judge Massei (GCM): Excuse me. You don't remember, but the prosecutor just pointed out to you a phone call that your mother received in the night. MC: At three o'clock at night. GCM: So, it must have been true, it happened. Did you have the habit of calling her at that time? Did it happen on other occasions? At midday in Italy? At a time where in Seattle. . . people don't usually call each other in the middle of the night. AK: Yes, yes, of course. GCM: So either you had a particular motive, or it was a habit. AK: Yes. Well, since I don't remember this phone call, because I remember the one I made later, but obviously I made that phone call. If I did that, it's because I thought that I had something I had to tell her. Maybe I thought right then that there was something strange, because at that moment, when I went to Raffaele's place, I did think there was something strange, but I didn't know what to think. But I really don't remember this phone call, so I can't say for sure why. But I guess it was because I came home and the door was open, and then -MC: It's strange. You don't remember the phone call, but do you remember the conversation with your mother in prison? AK: I had so many. But yes. MC: This conversation must have been the one of the 10 th of November. Do you remember when your mother said "But at 12, nothing had happened yet. " AK: I don't remember that.

Click to return to Index • • 3. Analysis and Evaluation of the Alibis and Behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele Most middle-of-the-night phone calls are made for special, specific purposes. None 2 nd – 4 th November of us like to receive or make them unless they are really necessary. I venture to suggest that the first call was not some calculated ploy, as others perhaps see it, but rather that she had experienced a sudden sense of vulnerability and loss of confidence and was seeking emotional Until Amanda recovers her basic memory reassurance. This may have been triggered by Amanda's and Raffaele's realization that the postal police functions, we’ll never know much about why she first called her startled and were suspicious of the "burglary" scene and by Raffaele's suspiciously "knowlegeable" remark about nothing worried mother in Seattle. being stolen. The experience was so damaging to her ego she later blanked it out which is why there is no reference to either call in her e-mail. In her mother’s words, “nothing had happened yet”. Or maybe the truth is that Amanda persisted in denying the 12. 47 call even with her parents, and in court, but then eventually said that everything had already happened. she could not remember it. • Edda says that Amanda mentioned in the call that she thought that someone had been in the cottage and Edda says that she told Amanda to call the police. Amanda did not mention, according to Edda, that the Photo montage (postal) police were already there. • Finally, there is also a contradiction in Edda’s recollection of the contents of the 12. 47 phone call. She testified to the court that just after she told her daughter to phone the police Amanda said Raf was just finishing a call to Vanessa and then was going to call the police. It is noted that the 12. 47 call lasted 88 seconds and Raffaele called Vanessa at 12. 50, before he called the Carabinieri at 12. 51. So clearly Raffaele was not on the phone to his sister at the same time. Either Edda was mistaken or Amanda had lied. In court, after Edda described the extensive conversation that she say she and Amanda had in the 12. 47 call, Prosecutor Mignini wryly remarked “All that in 88 seconds? ”.

Click to return to Index 3. Analysis and Evaluation of the Alibis and Behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele 2 nd – 4 th November • I venture to suggest that the first call was not some calculated ploy, as others perhaps see it, but rather that she had experienced a sudden sense of vulnerability and loss of confidence and was seeking emotional reassurance. This may have been triggered by Amanda's and Raffaele's realization that the postal police were suspicious of the "burglary" scene and by Raffaele's suspiciously "knowlegeable" remark about nothing being stolen. The experience was so damaging to her ego she later blanked it out which is why there is no reference to either call in her e-mail. • Amanda persisted in denying the 12. 47 call even with her parents, and in court, but then eventually said that tension in the days following the she could not remember it. murder of Meredith Kercher. • Edda says that Amanda mentioned in the call that she thought that someone had been in the cottage and Edda says that she told Amanda to call the police. Amanda did not mention, according to Edda, that the (postal) police were already there. Letting off some unbearable • Finally, there is also a contradiction in Edda’s recollection of the contents of the 12. 47 phone call. She testified to the court that just after she told her daughter to phone the police Amanda said Raf was just finishing a call to Vanessa and then was going to call the police. It is noted that the 12. 47 call lasted 88 seconds and Raffaele called Vanessa at 12. 50, before he called the Carabinieri at 12. 51. So clearly Raffaele was not on the phone to his sister at the same time. Either Edda was mistaken or Amanda had lied. In court, after Edda described the extensive conversation that she say she and Amanda had in the 12. 47 call, Prosecutor Mignini wryly remarked “All that in 88 seconds? ”. • At the police station whilst Meredith’s English girlfriends were crying and consoling themselves, Amanda and Raffaele were observed smooching and giggling together. Callous, of course, but the simplest explanation is that were experiencing release from the earlier unbearable tension that only they shared.

Click to return to Index 3. Analysis and Evaluation of the Alibis and Behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele 2 nd – 4 th November • I venture to suggest that the first call was not some calculated ploy, as others perhaps see it, but rather that she had experienced a sudden sense of vulnerability and loss of confidence and was seeking emotional reassurance. This may have been triggered by Amanda's and Raffaele's realization that the postal police were suspicious of the "burglary" scene and by Raffaele's suspiciously "knowlegeable" remark about nothing being stolen. The experience was so damaging to her ego she later blanked it out which is why there is no reference to either call in her e-mail. • Amanda persisted in denying the 12. 47 call even with her parents, and in court, but then eventually said that she could not remember it. • Edda says that Amanda mentioned in the call that she thought that someone had been in the cottage and Edda says that she told Amanda to call the police. Amanda did not mention, according to Edda, that the (postal) police were already there. • • • Finally, there is also a contradiction in Edda’s recollection of the contents of the 12. 47 phone call. She testified to the court that just after she told her daughter to phone the police Amanda said Raf was just finishing a call to Vanessa and then was going to call the police. It is noted that the 12. 47 call lasted 88 seconds and Raffaele called Vanessa at 12. 50, before he called the Carabinieri at 12. 51. So clearly Raffaele was not on the phone to his sister at the same time. Either Edda was mistaken or Amanda had lied. In court, after Edda described the extensive conversation that she say she and Amanda had in the 12. 47 call, Prosecutor Mignini wryly remarked “All that in 88 seconds? ”. At the police station whilst Meredith’s English girlfriends were crying and consoling themselves, Amanda and Raffaele were observed smooching and giggling together. Callous, of course, but the simplest explanation is that were experiencing release from the earlier unbearable tension that only they shared. At the police station Amanda told Meredith's English friends details of the body and wounds (e. g. that Meredith's throat was cut), although but for a foot the body was covered by a quilt and despite both her and Raffaele not being in line of sight when the body was discovered, and not having been told any of the details by anybody afterwards

Click to return to Index 3. Analysis and Evaluation of the Alibis and Behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele 2 nd – 4 th November • I venture to suggest that the first call was not some calculated ploy, as others perhaps see it, but rather that she had experienced a sudden sense of vulnerability and loss of confidence and was seeking emotional reassurance. This may have been triggered by Amanda's and Raffaele's realization that the postal police were suspicious of the "burglary" scene and by Raffaele's suspiciously "knowlegeable" remark about nothing being stolen. The experience was so damaging to her ego she later blanked it out which is why there is no reference to either call in her e-mail. While Knox’s family • insist that it is her way Amanda persisted in denying the 12. 47 call even with her parents, and in court, but then eventually said that she could not remember it. to cope with stress, many people see • Edda says that Amanda mentioned in the call that she thought that someone had been in the cottage and Knox’s post-crime Edda says that she told Amanda to call the police. Amanda did not mention, according to Edda, that the behaviour as worthy (postal) police were already there. of taking into account in this case. • At the police station whilst Meredith’s English girlfriends were crying and consoling themselves, Amanda and Raffaele were observed smooching and giggling together. Callous, of course, but the simplest explanation is that were experiencing release from the earlier unbearable tension that only they shared. • Amanda told Meredith’s English friends details of the body and wounds, although but for a foot the body was covered by a quilt and despite both her and Raffaele not being in line of sight when the body was discovered, and not having been told any of the details by anybody afterwards. • Amanda, Filomena and Laura were requested by the police 3 days after the murder to accompany them to the cottage to check out some details. On being shown a drawer full of knives Amanda appeared to have a psychotic incident, covering her ears and trembling.

Click to return to Index 3. Analysis and Evaluation of the Alibis and Behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele 2 nd – 4 th November (5/ • I venture to suggest that the first call was not some calculated ploy, as others perhaps see it, but rather that she had experienced a sudden sense of vulnerability and loss of confidence and was seeking emotional reassurance. This may have been triggered by Amanda's and Raffaele's realization that the postal police were suspicious of the "burglary" scene and by Raffaele's suspiciously "knowlegeable" remark about nothing being stolen. The experience was so damaging to her ego she later blanked it out which is why there is no reference to either call in her e-mail. • Amanda persisted in denying the 12. 47 call even with her parents, and in court, but then eventually said that she could not remember it. • Edda says that Amanda mentioned in the call that she thought that someone had been in the cottage and Edda says that she told Amanda to call the police. Amanda did not mention, according to Edda, that the (postal) police were already there. • At the police station whilst Meredith’s English girlfriends were crying and consoling themselves, Amanda and Raffaele were observed smooching and giggling together. Callous, of course, but the simplest explanation is that were experiencing release from the earlier unbearable tension that only they shared. • Amanda told Meredith’s English friends details of the body and wounds, although but for a foot the body was covered by a quilt and despite both her and Raffaele not being in line of sight when the body was discovered, and not having been told any of the details by anybody afterwards. • Amanda, Filomena and Laura were requested by the police 3 days after the murder to accompany them to the cottage to check out some details. On being shown a drawer full of knives Amanda appeared to have a psychotic incident, covering her ears and trembling. • A day before his arrest, Raffaele told a British Sunday Newspaper in an exclusive interview that on the night of the murder that he was at a party with Amanda and not at his flat. He also said that Amanda had gone back to her flat the next day at midday, and not at 10. 30 am as she claimed.

Click to return to Index 3. Analysis and Evaluation of the Alibis and Behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele 2 nd – 4 th November • Having told the police that she had been with Raffaele all night on the 1 st November, sleeping with him until 10. 00 am the next morning, Raffaele then proceeded to destroy the alibi on the evening of the 5 th November by telling the police that on that night Amanda had gone out and had not returned to his flat until 1. 00 am. Translation of Judge Matteini’s report on Raffaele’s alibi - or lack thereof - for Amanda Knox: “On 5 November 2007, at 22: 40, Sollecito Raffaele was interviewed again, and he changed his version of events, saying that on the evening of 1 st November, after Meredith left the house, he was with Knox Amanda until 18: 00 when they had both left the apartment to go into the centre of town, around 20: 30 - 21: 00. Knox left him, saying to him that she would go to the Le Chic pub to meet friends while he returned to his flat, where he says he received a phone call from his father on his fixed line at 23: 00, and that he was using his computer for two hours while smoking a joint, and that the girl returned around 1 a. m. and that they both woke up at 10: 00 when Amanda left the flat to return to Via della Pergola. He retracted his previous statement and justified his conduct saying that it was Knox who convinced him to tell a false version of events. ” Judge Claudia Matteini’s original report from the initial phase of the investigation. As far as we are aware, Raffaele has never made any effort since then to formally change his lack of alibi for Amanda from a legal point of view.

Click to return to Index 3. Analysis and Evaluation of the Alibis and Behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele 2 nd – 4 th November • Having told the police that she had been with Raffaele all night on the 1 st November, sleeping with him until 10. 00 am the next morning, Raffaele then proceeded to destroy the alibi on the evening of the 5 th November by telling the police that on that night Amanda had gone out and had not returned to his flat until 1. 00 am. • Raffaele’s own alibi was not corroborated by computer evidence. He had claimed to have spent the night indoors, using his computer until late and then going to sleep. In fact all human interaction with the computer ceased around 9. 15 pm and the computer was not reactivated by him until 5. 32 am the next morning when it was used for half an hour for music to be played. • Both Amanda’s and Raffaele’s phones were switched off sometime shortly after 8. 42 pm and were not switched back on again until after 5. 32 am in the case of Raffaele who activated a text message sent to him by his father late the night before. From Prolog to “ 24/7” by Jarice Hanson: Investigators confirmed that in the days and weeks prior to Meredith’s murder, Amanda’s and Raffaele’s respective mobile phones were rarely turned off. This reflects the youth ethos and culture of modern communications where one is connected to friends 24 x 7. Specifically, in the six days that Amanda and Raffaele knew each other before the crime, they had not needed to turn off their phones for privacy, in spite of an active sex life. The night of 1/11/2007, however, something special and different was going to happen. This new “constantly connected“ ethos is treated in studies and books like the book illustrated on the left.

Click to return to Index 3. Analysis and Evaluation of the Alibis and Behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele 2 nd – 4 th November • Having told the police that she had been with Raffaele all night on the 1 st November, sleeping with him until 10. 00 am the next morning, Raffaele then proceeded to destroy the alibi on the evening of the 5 th November by telling the police that on that night Amanda had gone out and had not returned to his flat until 1. 00 am. • Raffaele’s own alibi was not corroborated by computer evidence. He had claimed to have spent the night indoors, using his computer until late and then going to sleep. In fact all human interaction with the computer ceased around 9. 15 pm and the computer was not reactivated by him until 5. 32 am the next morning when it was used for half an hour for music to be played. • Both Amanda’s and Raffaele’s phones were switched off sometime shortly after 8. 42 pm and were not switched back on again until after 5. 32 am in the case of Raffaele who activated a text message sent to him by his father late the night before. • Raffaele’s father had telephoned Raffaele at 8. 42 pm and had testified that during the conversation his son had told him that while he washing the dishes he had noticed a leak of water on the floor. This times the dinner Amanda and Raffaele had as being prior to this whereas Amanda had first claimed that dinner was a little after 9. 15 pm and then again it was quite late, perhaps 11 pm (close to the time that Meredith died). If the father is correct, that frees up the couple much earlier than in Amanda’s account. So who is telling the truth? a) Amanda v. 1 b) Amanda v. 2 c) Dr. Sollecito The other “truth” we have available is Raffaele’s. However since his arrest, and all throughout the last four years of investigation, trial and appeal, he has invoked his right to not reply to questioning, to clarify his early statements that Amanda wasn’t even in the flat.

Click to return to Index 3. Analysis and Evaluation of the Alibis and Behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele 2 nd – 4 th November (6/ • • • Having told the police that she had been with Raffaele all night on the 1 st November, sleeping with him until 10. 00 am the next morning, Raffaele then proceeded to destroy the alibi on the evening of the 5 th November by telling the police that on that night Amanda had gone out and had not returned to his flat until 1. 00 am. What is striking about Amanda and Raffaele in the Raffaele’s own alibi was not corroborated by computer evidence. He had claimed to have spent the night images and video of them on indoors, using his computer until late and then going to sleep. In fact all human interaction with the computer 2 November 2007 is that ceased around 9. 15 pm and the computer was not reactivated by him until 5. 32 am the next morning when it they don’t look in mourning was used for half an hour for music to be played. so much as totally exhausted – in spite of supposedly Both Amanda’s and Raffaele’s phones were switched of sometime shortly after 8. 42 pm and were not having slept about 10 hours switched back on again until after 5. 32 am in the case of Raffaele who activated a text message sent to him the night before. by his father late the night before. • Raffaele’s father had telephoned Raffaele at 8. 42 pm and had testified that during the conversation his son had told him that while he washing the dishes he had noticed a leak of water on the floor. This times the dinner Amanda and Raffaele had as being prior to this whereas Amanda had first claimed that dinner was a little after 9. 15 pm and the again it was quite late, perhaps 11 pm (close to the time that Meredith died). • Amanda’s claim that she slept in until 10. 00 am on 2 November does not fit easily with the fact that Raffaele was playing music on his computer for half an hour from 5. 32 am nor with the evidence of Mr Quintavalle, the mini-mart store manager, who says that he saw Amanda when he was opening up his store at 7. 45 am.

Click to return to Index 4. Evidence as to the time of Death and Proximity of Amanda and Raffaele • Although there was initially a time frame of between 8. 00 pm and 4. 00 am, 1 st – 2 nd November, Massei concluded that the pathology alone made it possible to suggest the time of death was within a range of tens of minutes either side of 10. 50 pm on November 1 st. Now you all understand why I wish that it really was true that Dad called me at 11 p. m.

Click to return to Index 4. Evidence as to the time of Death and Proximity of Amanda and Raffaele • • Although there was initially a time frame of between 8. 00 pm and 4. 00 am, 1 st – 2 nd November, Massei concluded that the pathology alone made it possible to suggest the time of death was within a range of tens of minutes either side of 10. 50 pm on November 1 st. Nara Capezzali, a resident close to the cottage, heard a women’s terrifying scream between 11. 00 pm and 11. 30 pm and heard running on the steel staircase giving access to and from the car park below her apartment and, almost immediately, running in a different direction among the leaves and gravel adjacent to the cottage. In spite of efforts by pro-Knox forces to tarnish the credibility of Sra. Capezzali, she is physically vigorous and mentally sharp. In a recent interview from the open top level of the carpark beneath her bathroom window, she indicates the two different directions that she heard noises from after a terrible scream on the night of the crime. In any case, with the multiple Defence witnesses from the appeals case drawn from the Italian penitentiary system, we can assume that the Defence strategies no longer insist on the Lone Wolf Theory which was once a pillar of their case. Unfortunately for the defendants, it’s a little late to be changing their posture. By now suggesting that maybe Rudy wasn’t alone, and that the murderous conspirators didn’t all scramble up the vertical wall beneath Filomena’s window, and through the broken shards of glass, all of that argumentative effort (including sending one of the junior Defence lawyers scrambling part way up to Filomena’s window) seems wasted in time and space. One asks oneself if the Defence teams ever did really, honestly believe that a Lone Wolf breakin into Filomena’s room ever occurred.

Click to return to Index 4. Evidence as to the time of Death and Proximity of Amanda and Raffaele • • • Although there was initially a time frame of between 8. 00 pm and 4. 00 am, 1 st – 2 nd November, Massei concluded that the pathology alone made it possible to suggest the time of death was within a range of tens of minutes either side of 10. 50 pm on November 1 st. Nara Capezzali, a resident close to the cottage, heard a women’s terrifying scream between 11. 00 pm and 11. 30 pm and heard running on the steel staircase giving access to and from the car park below her apartment and, almost immediately, running in a different direction among the leaves and gravel adjacent to the cottage. Antonella Monacchia heard a quarrel starting at about 10. 30 pm in the direction of the cottage and thereafter a woman’s scream.

Click to return to Index 4. Evidence as to the time of Death and Proximity of Amanda and Raffaele • • Although there was initially a time frame of between 8. 00 pm and 4. 00 am, 1 st – 2 nd November, Massei concluded that the pathology alone made it possible to suggest the time of death was within a range of tens of minutes either side of 10. 50 pm on November 1 st. Nara Capezzali, a resident close to the cottage, heard a women’s terrifying scream between Piazza Grimana provides an excellent 11. 00 pm and 11. 30 pm and heard running on the steel staircase giving access to and from the vantage point from which to discretely car park below her apartment and, almost immediately, running in a different direction among the monitor the access gate to the cottage. leaves and gravel adjacent to the cottage. Antonella Monacchia heard a quarrel starting at about 10. 30 pm in the direction of the cottage and thereafter a woman’s scream. Antonio Curatolo, a homeless man who also admitted to taking heroin, testified that he was in Grimana Square, as was his custom, during the evening of the 1 st November. He saw Amanda and Raffaele at various times between 9. 30 pm and 11. 00 pm. They seemed to be having a heated argument and on occasions went to the parapet at the end of the square from which the gate that gave entry to the cottage driveway could be seen. Curatolo’s evidence seemed confused in parts in that he also recollected seeing Halloween costumes (the night before being Halloween) but he was sure that it was the evening before the police and forensic teams arrived at the cottage and in the Square. He also said that the weather was dry. It had indeed not rained on the 1 st November whereas it had rained on the 31 st October.

Click to return to Index • 5. Analysis of Police Questioning, Technicalities, and Amanda’s “Confession” Amanda was interrogated at the Police Station on the 5 th November from around 11. 30 pm to 1. 45 am. • She had, of course been questioned by the police from the 2 nd November onwards as a witness as had Filomena, Meredith’s English girlfriends, Raffaele and others. • The “interrogation” was due to the fact that Raffaele had just earlier told the police that Amanda had not been with him all night but had gone out and not come back until 1. 00 am, being in direct contradiction to what Amanda had been telling the police and to what subsequently, as it turned out, was in her e-mail. Translation of Matteini’s report on Raffaele’s alibi - or lack thereof for Amanda Knox: On 5 November 2007, at 22: 40, Sollecito Raffaele was interviewed again, and he changed his version of events, saying that on the evening of 1 st November, after Meredith left the house, he was with Knox Amanda until 18: 00 when they had both left the apartment to go into the centre of town, around 20: 30 - 21: 00. Knox left him, saying to him that she would go to the Le Chic pub to meet friends while he returned to his flat, where he says he received a phone call from his father on his fixed line at 23: 00, and that he was using his computer for two hours while smoking a joint, and that the girl returned around 1 a. m. and that they both woke up at 10: 00 when Amanda left the flat to return to Via della Pergola. He retracted his previous statement and justified his conduct saying that it was Knox who convinced him to tell a false version of events. So is t a) trut elling the b) Aman h? d R a aff c) neit aele her Judge Matteini’s report with Raffaele’s admission that Amanda hadn’t been in his flat from around 9 p. m. to 1 a. m. on the night of the murder, in direct contradiction to Amanda’s words. Raffaele has never complained of police brutality forcing this statement. who The start of Knox’s rambling email to the world 4/11/2007

Click to return to Index • 5. Analysis of Police Questioning, Technicalities, and Amanda’s “Confession” Amanda was interrogated at the Police Station on the 5 th November from around 11. 30 pm to 1. 45 am. On a regular basis, pro-Knox “reporters” provide the as yet unknowledgeable new followers of this case • nd November onwards as a witness as had She had, of course been questioned by the police from the 2 with uncontrasted (at best) or perhaps even false (at worst) “news”, which follows the Knox PR talking Filomena, Meredith’s English girlfriends, Raffaele and others. points. • For example, we continue to hear of how Knox didn’t have an intrepreter during her questioning on The “interrogation” was due to the fact that Raffaele had just earlier told the police that Amanda had not been 5/11/07, in spite of Anna Donnino’s testimony in court of how she was called in for Knox’s questioning with him all night but had gone out and not come back until 1. 00 am, being in direct contradiction to what once Raffaele had unexpectedly shot holes in Knox’s alibi. Amanda had been telling the police and to what subsequently, as it turned out, was in her e-mail. • An interpreter, hired by the police, by the name of Anna Donnino, was present. h? ” t u e tr orter ist h t ng x “rep urnal i ey l l h e t t o o f j te i x had o is ro-Kn heet a h t s s o w p se t Kn rify if So attle broad a e pl ” tha tt cla tion Se onal s l r a e i rt news Prue orma or if loc rnat o p e re 011 “ rter” er inf er? ), she Th inte x o n nt 2 epo ck h pret why a) The K r pro rece uld “ o che inter n for nnino b) e o o s d th th thi r? C able t as n anatio ter Do l u Co e wi rete sn’t ere w expl rs af e l a rp a agr inte ply w hat th isome o ye e tria no sim her t orr s” tw in th w she told ore “new ared e o m is app (wh e is a ed th r h the ublis p

Click to return to Index • 5. Analysis of Police Questioning, Technicalities, and Amanda’s “Confession” Amanda was interrogated at the Police Station on the 5 th November from around 11. 30 pm to 1. 45 am. • She had, of course been questioned by the police from the 2 nd November onwards as a witness as had Filomena, Meredith’s English girlfriends, Raffaele and others. • The “interrogation” was due to the fact that Raffaele had just earlier told the police that Amanda had not been with him all night but had gone out and not come back until 1. 00 am, being in direct contradiction to what Amanda had been telling the police and to what subsequently, as it turned out, was in her e-mail. • An interpreter, hired by the police, by the name of Anna Donnino, was present. • Amanda was asked to account for an exchange of text messages on her phone. Sometime between 8. 15 and 8. 30 pm on the 1 st November she had received a text message from her boss at Le Chic, Patrick Lumumba, to tell her that she did not need to go to work that evening. He had said “See you later” and she had replied with a similar text message. The police sensed that this meant Amanda had an appointment with someone, other than Raffaele who, of course, had just told the police that Amanda had gone out late that evening. Remember our friend Occam and his principle of – all things being equal – looking for simple explanations? I have a feeling that it makes sense that if Raffaele tells police that Amanda wasn’t in his flat, and if the Police talk to Amanda to find out what she has to say about it (she’s not yet a suspect), and that Amanda has some unexplained SMS messages from an hour or so before the crime, that the Police ask her about those messages – it’s normal and they would not be doing their jobs responsibly if they didn’t. There’s no need to decry police pressure of framing Amanda and have them suggesting the black suspect’s name to her, as the pro. Knox forces would have us think. In fact, when questioned closely in her trial about how exactly she got to the point of accusing Patrick Lumumba of the crime, Amanda admitted that the Police hadn’t suggested his name.

Click to return to Index • • • 5. Analysis of Police Questioning, Technicalities, and Amanda’s “Confession” th November from around 11. 30 pm to 1. 45 am. Amanda was interrogated at the Police Station on the 5 Wouldn’t it be nice if all witness interviews could be taped? As we see on the left, it’s nd November onwards as a witness as had She had, of course been questioned by the police from the 2 not the case, nor is it practical nor opportune, within the framework of a crime Filomena, Meredith’s English girlfriends, Raffaele and others. like Meredith’s murder, where a brutal sex killer was at large in a student town, and The “interrogation” was due to the fact that Raffaele had just earlier told the police that Amanda had not been Amanda’s new witness interview could help with him all night but had gone out and not come back until 1. 00 am, being in direct contradiction to what Police questioning witness to clarify who he was. Amanda had been telling the police and to what subsequently, as it turned out, was in her e-mail. shooting of Walter P. Reuther in 1948 Of course, in spite of having Amanda just a An interpreter, hired by the police, by the name of Anna Donnino, was present. Public authorities have carried out couple of meters away in the waiting room, crime investigations without having with Raffael’s modified alibi fresh in their ears, Amanda was asked to account for an exchange of text messages on her phone. Sometime between 8. 15 and to tape witness interviews since some supporters of Amanda would prefer that st 8. 30 pm on the 1 November she had received a text message from her boss at Le Chic, Patrick Lumumba, aeons ago. on the evening of 5 November 2007, the to tell her that she did not need to go to work that evening. He had said “See you later” and she had replied police had sent her home. with a similar text message. The police sensed that this meant Amanda had an appointment with someone, other than Raffaele who, of course, had just told the police that Amanda had gone out late that evening. • The interrogation was not tape recorded and she did not have a lawyer present. Amanda subsequently claimed that it was suggested to her that she could not remember things as she was suffering the effects of a trauma, that she should try to “imagine” what had happened, that she was cuffed twice round the back of her head, and that she was told that she could do 30 years in prison.

Click to return to Index • • • 5. Analysis of Police Questioning, Technicalities, and Amanda’s “Confession” Amanda was interrogated at the Police Station on the 5 th November from around 11. 30 pm to 1. 45 am. Amanda had already had a pizza supper with Raffaele, but nevertheless once Knox confessed to being in the She had, of course been questioned by the police from the 2 nd November onwards as a witness as had cottage within the framework of the murder of Meredith, Filomena, Meredith’s English girlfriends, Raffaele and others. she was invited to the police station canteen, where she was given camomile tea and cake. The “interrogation” was due to the fact that Raffaele had just earlier told the police that Amanda had not been with him all night but had gone out and not come back until 1. 00 am, being in direct contradiction to what Knox supporters criticise that in addition to not having Amanda had been telling the police and to what subsequently, as it turned out, was in her e-mail. an interpreter (which we have seen is not true), Knox was denied food and bathroom breaks. With a pizza in her stomach, did she ever actually ask for more supper, An interpreter, hired by the police, by the name of Anna Donnino, was present. or request to go to the bathroom? Had such requests ever been made, would they have been denied? Amanda was asked to account for an exchange of text messages on her phone. Sometime between 8. 15 and 8. 30 pm on the 1 st November she had received a text message from her boss at Le Chic, Patrick Lumumba, to tell her that she did not need to go to work that evening. He had said “See you later” and she had replied with a similar text message. The police sensed that this meant Amanda had an appointment with someone, other than Raffaele who, of course, had just told the police that Amanda had gone out late that evening. • The interrogation was not tape recorded and she did not have a lawyer present. Amanda subsequently claimed that it was suggested to her that she could not remember things as she was suffering the effects of a trauma, that she should try to “imagine” what had happened, that she was cuffed twice round the back of her head, and that she was told that she could do 30 years in prison. • In any event she told the police that she now remembered that she and Lumumba had gone to the cottage together and that whilst she had been in the kitchen Lumumba had been into Meredith’s bedroom and she had heard Meredith scream. At this point the interrogation stopped as Amanda was no longer a witness and had now become a formal suspect. • She then repeated the foregoing before the Chief Prosecutor for Perugia, Giuliano Mignini, and what she said was written down and her detention/arrest was authorised subject to judicial review. The arrest of Lumumba was likewise authorised by Mignini.

Click to return to Index • 5. Analysis of Police Questioning, Technicalities, and Amanda’s “Confession” Finally, after breakfast at the police station she made a further voluntary statement in her own handwriting. This statement was admissible as evidence at her trial. In it she confirmed her previous declarations but added that what she recollected was more like a dream of which she was now unsure. • It is important to note that in the so-called confession Amanda had placed herself at the crime scene as both a critical witness and as a suspect in the murder and had implicated Lumumba as the chief suspect in the murder of Meredith Kercher. Knox continues in her voluntary handwritten statement: “However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked. . . 2. I also know that the fact that I can't fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered is incriminating. And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house. 3. I'm very confused at this time. My head is full of contrasting ideas and I know I can be frustrating to work with for this reason. But I also want to tell the truth as best I can. Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith's death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think. ” Full transcript available at: The Telegraph Excellent analysis at: True Justice for Meredith Kercher

Click to return to Index • 5. Analysis of Police Questioning, Technicalities, and Amanda’s “Confession” Finally, after breakfast at the police station she made a further voluntary statement in her own handwriting. This statement was admissible as evidence at her trial. In it she confirmed her previous declarations but added that what she recollected was more like a dream of which she was now unsure. • It is important to note that in the so-called confession Amanda had placed herself at the crime scene as both a critical witness and as a suspect in the murder and had implicated Lumumba as the chief suspect in the murder of Meredith Kercher. • None of the evidence presented at trial was gathered because of anything that happened at the police station. It would have been gathered anyway. No one has suggested that the search of Raffaele’s flat was illegal and the cottage was, of course, a crime scene. If Mignini were to have gone … … Comodi would have used the same investigation report and evidence. And If Comodi were to have gone … … Perugia ha many other fine, professional, career prosecutors ready to work. Pro-Knox forces have worked hard at attacking Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, the prosecutor who just happened to be on duty on the All Saints long weekend of 1 November 2007. Even if Mignini were to withdraw from his professional activity at some point for whatever reason, the basic body of evidence in this murder case will stand. Of course, the Defence legal experts are doing their job to question the weight of this or that piece of evidence, but the investigation and its findings are a reality. You can’t make the mixed DNA sample from Filomena’s room disappear. Sra. Nara Capezzali is not deaf and crazy, she’s is lucid and aware. Neither Mignini nor any other prosecutor can erase or modify the conflicting alibis of Amanda and Raffaele (that opportunity is solely with those convicts).

Click to return to Index • 5. Analysis of Police Questioning, Technicalities, and Amanda’s “Confession” Finally, after breakfast at the police station she made a further voluntary statement in her own handwriting. This statement was admissible as evidence at her trial. In it she confirmed her previous declarations but added that what she recollected was more like a dream of which she was now unsure. • It is important to note that in the so-called confession Amanda had placed herself at the crime scene as both a critical witness and as a suspect in the murder and had implicated Lumumba as the chief suspect in the murder of Meredith Kercher. • It is likewise important to note that even if Amanda’s allegations of impropriety by the police during the In addition to the body of evidence against interrogation were true that could have no bearing on the evidence presented at trial. Knox, Guede and Sollecito, her detention during the investigation was in part due to Examples of evidence being rendered inadmissible would be if the evidence was gathered as a result of, or if the risk of her fleeing Italy it followed on from, an illegal search, or an illegal detention and/or questioning. • • None of the evidence presented at trial was gathered because of anything that happened at the police station. It would have been gathered anyway. No one has suggested that the search of Raffaele’s flat was illegal and the cottage was, of course, a crime scene. • Furthermore if Amanda’s detention/arrest was authorised as a result of the “confession”, and that was not permissible as a result of alleged mistreatment, denial of rights etc, then it was permissible because her alibi had already been broken by Raffaele, because of the ramifications of the staged break in and burglary, and because there was already evidence from her language and behaviour that Amanda had an insider’s knowledge of what had happened to Meredith. With the “blood in the bathroom” evidence there was little chance that a court of first review would have given bail with or without conditions, especially to a non – resident in such serious circumstances.

Click to return to Index • 5. Analysis of Police Questioning, Technicalities, and Amanda’s “Confession” (2/2) Finally, after breakfast at the police station she made a further voluntary statement in her own handwriting. This statement was admissible as evidence at her trial. In it she confirmed her previous declarations but !!!!!! added that what she recollected was more like a dream which she now doubted. • • • It is important to note that in the so-called confession Amanda had placed herself at the crime scene as both a critical witness and as a suspect in the murder and had implicated Lumumba as the chief suspect in the Only once Patrick Lumumba was already free murder of Meredith Kercher. and exonerated of the murder that Amanda had accused him of almost a month earlier It is likewise important to note that even if Amanda’s allegations of impropriety by the police during the did Knox offer an apology. She did not in any interrogation were true that could have no bearing on the evidence presented at trial. way act to accelerate Patrick’s liberation before Police work and the Swiss witness got Examples of evidence being rendered inadmissible would be if the evidence was gathered as a result of, or if him out of jail. it followed on from, an illegal search, or an illegal detention and/or questioning. • None of the evidence presented at trial was gathered because of anything that happened at the police station. It would have been gathered anyway. No one has suggested that the search of Raffaele’s flat was illegal and the cottage was, of course, a crime scene. • Furthermore if Amanda’s detention/arrest was authorised as a result of the “confession”, and that was not permissible as a result of alleged mistreatment, denial of rights etc, then it was permissible because her alibi had already been broken by Raffaele, because of the ramifications of the staged break in and burglary, and because there was already evidence from her language and behaviour that Amanda had an insider’s knowledge of what had happened to Meredith. With the “blood in the bathroom” evidence there was little chance that a court of first review would have given bail with or without conditions, especially to a non – resident in such serious circumstances. • Amada never did admit to the police that her implication of Lumumba was unfounded. • Fortunately for Lumumba, of the few customers that were in his bar on the evening of the 1 st November one was a Swiss Professor who travelled all the back to Perugia from Zurich to give Lumumba his alibi.

Click to return to Index • 6. Analysis of The Physical Evidence at the Cottage and at Raffaele’s Apartment The cottage was examined by detectives and forensic teams from the 2 nd – 7 th November. There was a considerable amount of potential evidence of a visible nature. 480 items of material were bagged, collected and taken away for cataloguing and analysis. • Meredith’s body lay on the floor covered by a quilt and there were spots, pools, and swipes, of blood. Clothing and other items lay on the floor. There was, however, little, if any, sign of any breakage or damage in the room. • There was blood in the small bathroom adjacent to Meredith’s room. There was blood on the doorframe (Meredith’s), on the wall plate for the electric light switch (again Meredith’s), on the faucet to the washbasin (Amanda’s), and traces in the washbasin, on the bidet, and on a cottonbud box all of which tested positive for blood and yielded the mixed DNA of Meredith and Amanda. • There was also a partial bloody footprint on the bathroom mat, in Meredith’s blood. • The blood in the washbasin and bidet was very diluted but became more apparent with the application of pink ELI fluid. Massei explained the presence of Amanda’s DNA as coming from her scrubbing and washing Meredith’s blood off her hands. He also noted that there was a contiguous relationship between the streak in the washbasin and the other on the bidet, as if blood had fallen on to both receptacles from an object in motion. Perhaps one of Amanda’s rinsed hands being swiped sideways in a shake - dry movement? • Given Meredith’s blood on the doorframe and light switch it is hard not to agree with Massei that one of the killers entered the bathroom with her blood on their hands which were then washed in the washbasin. That accounts for Meredith’s DNA in the mixed traces there (see also reference to bidet above). Blood is particularly rich in DNA and the electropherogram results for the mixed traces show in some cases higher peaks for Amanda than for Meredith. Whilst not disagreeing with Massei’s inference that Amanda’s DNA was also there because she had been washing blood off her hands (and removing her skin cells in the process) the electropherogram results also argue that the DNA was from her own blood.

Click to return to Index • 6. Analysis of The Physical Evidence at the Cottage and at Raffaele’s Apartment As for Amanda’s blood on the faucet, this was a noticeable amount, dry, rich and recent, though she says she had noticed it (nor any other blood), despite using the bathroom before she left the cottage on the day of the murder. In her defence she tried to explain this as blood from her pierced ear. In her e-mail three days after the murder she says of the blood observed in the bathroom during, she says, her 10. 30 am visit to the cottage– • “It was on the mat I was using to dry my feet…. at first I thought the blood might have come from my ears which I had pierced extensively not too long ago, but then I knew immediately it wasn’t mine because the stains on the mat were too big for just droplets from my ear …. There was also blood smeared on the faucet. Again however I thought it was strange, because my roommates and I are very clean, and we wouldn’t leave blood in the bathroom. ” • At that time she had certainly not been told that the blood on the faucet was her blood, yet in a round-about, knowing, and unconvincing way she offers the suggestion that it could be, giving the reader a possible explanation which, on further analysis, seems dubious. She even endorses that doubt, attributing it as Meredith’s menstrual blood. I regard this as an intentionally obtuse section designed to cater for every eventuality. Such obtuseness can be found in statement after statement by Amanda. The eventuality that obviously concerns her is that she may at some time be asked to explain how her blood got there. • Piercing “not too long ago” is vague. If not too long ago, could she not remember when? If she could not remember when, was it that long ago?

Click to return to Index • 6. Analysis of The Physical Evidence at the Cottage and at Raffaele’s Apartment Finally have a look at the photograph of the bathroom that Knox and Meredith Kercher shared and ask yourself whether the close position of the faucet to the wall, and the position of the overhead shelf and mirror above, makes it likely that the blood on the faucet would be a drop from anyone’s ear. It would be far more probable that any blood from the ear would be transferred by finger to faucet which, had that happened, could not have gone unnoticed by Amanda at the time, with the consequence that she would have either rinsed it off or, if not, it would have featured as a specific explanation in her e-mail. Such action could also have left the suggestion of a print and there was none.

Click to return to Index 6. Analysis of The Physical Evidence at the Cottage and at Raffaele’s Apartment • Finally have a look at the photograph of the bathroom that Knox and Meredith Kercher shared and ask yourself whether the close position of the faucet to the wall, and the position of the overhead shelf and mirror above, makes it likely that the blood on the faucet would be a drop from anyone’s ear. It would be far more probable that any blood from the ear would be transferred by finger to faucet which, had that happened, could not have gone unnoticed by Amanda at the time, with the consequence that she would have either rinsed it off or, if not, it would have featured as a specific explanation in her e-mail. Such action could also have left the suggestion of a print and there was none. • I think any forensic expert can tell the difference between menstrual blood and blood from a cut or, say, nose bleed, and it is difficult to see how Amanda’s menstrual blood approaching that quality would be on the faucet which in any event she did not claim at any time could be the case. • From the above, and this is just my opinion, I think we may be entitled to conclude that the blood on the faucet was neither menstrual blood nor blood from her ear. It is true that Massei held that Amanda had no wound but that does not preclude that she bled from, say, her nose, in which case there was a far greater probability of a drop landing on the faucet (and a lot more in the basin, which would account for her higher DNA peaks), or that there was a wound that had healed before a medical examination took place, though had her hands been nicked or cut I would have thought that would have been noticed the next day. Amanda’s Italian house mate Laura Mezzetti noted this wound or scratch under Amanda’s chin

Click to return to Index • 6. Analysis of The Physical Evidence at the Cottage and at Raffaele’s Apartment Finally have a look at the photo of the bathroom that Knox and Meredith Kercher shared, and ask yourself whether the close position of the faucet to the wall, and the position of the overhead shelf and mirror above, makes it likely that the blood on the faucet would be a drop from anyone’s ear. And Amanda is right. It is does look like a smear or a leftover from more significant blood loss • It is still within the realms of possibility that the blood was as a result of a drop from Amanda’s ear but it is hardly a convincing explanation. • I think any forensic expert can tell the difference between menstrual blood and blood from a cut or, say, nose bleed, and it is difficult to see how anyone’s menstrual blood approaching that quality would be on the faucet which in any event she did not claim at any time could be the case. • From the above, and this is just my opinion, I think we may be entitled to conclude that the blood on the faucet was neither menstrual blood nor a drop of blood from her ear. It is true that Massei held that Amanda had no wound but that does not preclude that she bled from, say, her nose, or that there was a wound that had healed before a medical examination took place, though had her hands been nicked or cut I would have thought that would have been noticed the next day. • On the 6 th November Raffaele’s flat was searched. A knife was taken away for analysis and this later became referred to as the Double DNA Murder Weapon (which I shall refer to simply as The Knife).

Click to return to Index • 6. 1 The Knife The police were interested in The Knife because it smelt of bleach and because of it’s shape and size and the fact that it looked so clean compared to the other cutlery in Raffaele’s kitchen drawer. It was bagged and sent to Rome for analysis.

Click to return to Index 6. 1 The Knife We initially thought that perhaps Amanda’s team didn’t attend Dr. Stefanoni’s DNA testing of The Knife because there were so many • The police were interested in The Knife because it smelt of bleach and because of it’s shape and size and the items of evidence that there was no indication beforehand that the results of testing The Knife would be of any particular interest compared to other items of evidence. However, we see that in fact Amanda was indeed worried, and likely would have alerted her fact that it looked so clean compared to the other cutlery in Raffaele’s kitchen drawer. It was bagged and sent lawyers to the question of The Knife just as she did with her parents …. to Rome for analysis. • Amanda’s DNA was found on the handle and a microscopic sample of Meredith’s DNA was found in a tiny, I strongly recommend reading on TJMK the summary of the Massei report virtually invisible, scratch on the blade. The sample was so small that it was used up in the DNA testing. coordinated by Skeptical Bystander, as concerns The Knife (see below): • There is criticism of the knife. It is claimed that it is unlikely to be the murder weapon because no trace of blood was found on it and because the sample of Meredith’s DNA could be due to contamination given the Low Copy (cell count) DNA reading. Low Copy in itself, it is claimed, is unreliable. There may also be an issue as to how exactly Dr Stefanoni amplified the sample for the electropherogram reading. However there is a problem also for the defence. Italian law requires the presence of the defence experts at a testing failing which, and in the absence of any criticism at the time, there is a presumption that standards and procedure were adhered to. Raffaele did have an expert (Valter Patumi) present but not Amanda, and there was no criticism of procedure at the time. Exhibit 36 is a 31 cm long knife with a 17 cm blade and a dark handle. It was seized from the kitchen cutlery drawer at Raffaele Sollecito’s home … on 6 November, 2007…. This exhibit is important because “Sample 36 b” taken from a scratch on the knife blade yielded Meredith Kercher’s biological profile. After putting on gloves and shoe coverings, Finzi and his team entered the home. They noted a strong smell of bleach. Opening the cutlery drawer, they saw a big, “extremely clean” knife … [It was] bagged and sealed. Exhibit 36 was carried back to the police station, where it was placed in a box for shipping to the Polizia Scientifica in Rome. Dr. Stefanoni was the recipient of the box containing the knife in Rome. All parties testified that standard procedures were followed to avoid the risk of contamination. On 4 November, 2007, Meredith’s roommates Filomena Romanelli, Laura Mezzetti, and Amanda Knox had been taken by the police to look at the knives in their kitchen at the apartment in Via della Pergola. Personnel from the Questura reported Amanda’s “severe and intense emotional crisis, unlike [the reaction of] the other two girls”. This behavior was contrasted to Amanda’s behavior at Police headquarters two days earlier: “This circumstance appears significant both in its own right and also when one considers that Amanda had never previously shown signs of any particular distress and emotional involvement (in the Police headquarters, on the afternoon of November 2, Meredith’s English girlfriends, Robyn Carmel and Amy Frost in particular, according to their declarations, had been surprised by the behaviour of Amanda, who did not show emotions). ” Investigators’ attention was alerted to the Exhibit 36 knife because of Amanda’s inconsistent behavior. Later, police overheard a jail conversation between Knox and her parents on 17 November, when Knox said, “I am very, I am very worried about this thing with the knife. . . because there is a knife of Raffaele’s. . . ”.

Click to return to Index 6. 1 The Knife • The police were interested in The Knife because it smelt of bleach and because of it’s shape and size and the fact that it looked so clean compared to the other cutlery in Raffaele’s kitchen drawer. It was bagged and sent to Rome for analysis. • Amanda’s DNA was found on the handle and a microscopic sample of Meredith’s DNA was found in a tiny, virtually invisible, scratch on the blade. The sample was so small that it was used up in the DNA testing. • There is criticism of the knife. It is claimed that it is unlikely to be the murder weapon because no trace of blood was found on it and because the sample of Meredith’s DNA could be due to contamination given the Candace Dempsey (on the left of this line-up photo) Low Copy (cell count) DNA reading. Low Copy in itself, it is claimed, is unreliable. There may also be an is a well-known pro-Knox food blogger and currently issue as to how exactly Dr Stefanoni amplified the sample for the electropherogram reading. However there is blocked from continuing her Wikipedia input on this a problem also for the defence. Italian law requires the presence of the defence experts at a testing failing case. Just as The Knife got Amanda and Raffaele which, and in the absence of any criticism at the time, there is a presumption that standards and procedure Meanwhile, pro-Knox blogger Bruce Fisher works night and day proposing scrambling to contain the issue, pro-Knox forces were adhered to. Raffaele did have an expert (Valda Patumi) present but not Amanda, and there was no novel explanations for the evidence, for example that Dixan clothes made their own particular contribution to explaining washing powder contains bleach (that may be) and that could explain the criticism of procedure at the time. the possible bleaching of the knife. • bleach on The Knife (I think he got confused between cutlery and clothes) The foregoing reference to “no blood” ignores the fact that there is good reason to believe that bleach was used to wipe the blade. • Furthermore it might seem suspicious that bleach would have been used to clean an ordinary item of cutlery. • Whether bleach would have destroyed such a microscopic sample in such a tiny scratch on the blade is not something which seems ever to have been subjected to rigorous scientific testing, probably because the specific conditions in any individual case would be impossible to replicate.

(Blade image is generic, Okay, here’s the scene: You are Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, one of Italy’s foremost DNA experts. It’s a 6. 1 The Knife (1/2) for illustrative purposes) day in the middle of November 2007 at your well prepared police forensic labs in Rome, which are operating with procedures in preparation for an ISO certification. This isn’t the university, here • The police were interested in The Knife because it smelt of bleach and because of it’s shape and size and the real crimes are investigated with all the constraints and problems that entails. fact that it looked so clean compared to the other cutlery in Raffaele’s kitchen drawer. It was bagged and sent You have a sharp, cleaned knife that your Perugian colleagues have taken from a suspect’s to Rome for analysis. home. Initial testing of the knife has discovered a minute amount of biological material near the tip of the blade. Normal testing procedures aren’t sensitive enough to give meaningful results. There • Amanda’s DNA was found on the handle and a microscopic sample of Meredith’s DNA was found in a tiny, isn’t enough genetic material to repeat whatever test you do. The Knox defence team was invited virtually invisible, scratch on the blade. The sample was so small that it was used up in the DNA testing. to send their DNA expert but no one showed up. • There is criticism of the knife. It is claimed that it is unlikely to be the murder weapon because no trace of B) Write eminent American DNA specialists for help, like Bruce a problem also for the defence. Italian law requires the presence of the defence experts at a testing failing Budowle or his friend Joy Halverson (who signed a most curious which, and in the absence of any criticism at the time, there is a presumption that standards and procedure letter supposedly about DNA , but which was mostly dedicated to were adhered to. Raffaele did have an expert (Valda Patumi) present but not Amanda, and there was no describing Rudy Guede as a “drifter”, or that in spite of Rudy being convicted, the prosecutor continues to go after Amanda and criticism of procedure at the time. Raffaele … you know, the usual Knox PR talking points) You decide to do one of the following actions: blood was found on it and because the sample of Meredith’s DNA could be due to contamination given the A) Cancel today’s tests, and keep inviting Ghirga and Dalla Vedova Low Copy (cell count) DNA reading. Low Copy in itself, it is claimed, is unreliable. There may also be an until they finally send someone • C) • D) • • issue as to how exactly Dr Stefanoni amplified the sample for the electropherogram reading. However there is The foregoing reference to “no blood” ignores the fact that there is good reason to believe that bleach was Use the single test that you can do, to determine if that ethereal bit used to wipe the blade. of genetic material originally came from blood, flesh, or other precious bodily fluids. The test will tell you nothing else. Furthermore it might seem suspicious that bleach would have been used to clean an ordinary item of cutlery. Use the single test that you can do, to determine the DNA profile of that small bit of genetic material. Although the testing method is It’s understandable that Knox-Sollecito supporters would Whether bleach would have destroyed such a microscopic sample in such a tiny scratch on the blade is not prefer A), B) or C). Anyone else would be interested in D), new and the procedures are not standardised world-wide, the something which seems ever to have been subjected to rigorous scientific testing, probably because the with Dr. Stefanoni to be given the opportunity to explain her results can be useful to the investigation and to the trial when methods and results in court. And that Meredith in effect specific conditions in any individual case would be impossible to replicate. weighed in with other types of evidence. have the opportunity to testify in the trial for her murder. The foregoing also ignores the fact that although there is no evidence that the sample was blood, there is also no evidence that the sample was not blood. Dr Stefanoni did not run a specific test for blood on the presumed sample because she thought it was more important to obtain a DNA profile first. If not blood, then it could easily be a trace of other tissue compatible with the wound to Meredith’s throat.

Click to return to Index • 6. 1 The Knife In any event the graph produced by the electropherogram was a precise match for the graph for Meredith’s DNA profile. When we transpose the peaks on the right to the control sample, in spite of the presence of interferences between the peaks (from “turning up the sound”), the relation of each and every one of the control peaks is there. The speck of DNA on the Double DNA knife blade has only one possible name assigned to it: Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher. You can’t get a much better or exact DNA match than what we are witnessing here. Instead of criticising Dr. Stefanoni for doing her work in an innovative way when no other method would work, less experienced experts should recognise her skill.

Click to return to Index • • 6. 1 The Knife In any event the graph produced by the electropherogram was a precise match for the graph for Meredith’s DNA profile. LCN DNA is admissible in at least one jurisdiction in the USA and there is growing support for it with the advances in DNA forensics. It is, in any event, a matter for the Italian courts to decide on and the majority of the experts at Amanda’s trial said that it was clearly Meredith’s DNA. So, we see that: 1) LCN DNA testing is acceptable in the USA 2) If we read the judge’s opinion on accepting LCN DNA testing in this case, and establishing its use in New York, that Theresa Caragine, is the expert who has successfully advanced this technique (please read the link) 3) If we do further research on TJMK, we see that Bruce Budowle unsuccessfully argued in favour of the defense to exclude this evidence. In fact, he was criticised for failing to reveal his contractual interests and relationships, in addition to receiving technical criticism. (Where is this documented in the Conti-Vecchiotti report? ) 4) As Judge Hanophy wrote in this New York ruling accepting LCN DNA testing, “LCN DNA testing has been used worldwide for over 10 years and is currently used in many other countries, including Australia, Austria, England, New Zealand, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal and Switzerland …”. Why did Conti and Vecchiotti use controversial opinions by Bruce Budowle in their report and not research the opinions and expertise of persons like Theresa Caragine or the techniques used in other countries? Quite honestly, it’s mystifying.

Click to return to Index • • • 6. 1 The Knife In any event the graph produced by the electropherogram was a precise match for the graph for Meredith’s DNA profile. LCN DNA is admissible in at least one jurisdiction in the USA and there is growing support for it with the advances in DNA forensics. It is, in any event, a matter for the Italian courts to decide on and the majority of the experts at Amanda’s trial said that it was clearly Meredith’s DNA. Raffaele explained the existence of the sample by saying that he had accidently pricked Meredith whilst cooking at his flat. However Amanda herself ruled out that possibility by telling the court that Meredith had never been to Raffaele’s flat and there is no evidence that she had. Likewise there is no evidence – and it would seem highly unlikely in any event – that the knife had, prior to the murder, been to the cottage. (to her parents): “I am very, I am very worried about this thing with the knife. . . because there is a knife of Raffaele’s. . . ”. (17/11/2007) Amongst all the items of evidence accumulating against them as the investigation advanced in November 2007, both Amanda and Raffaele took time to underline to their close families (and perhaps to each other, indirectly stating positions to each other through third parties) that there was a particularly bothersome Knife. “Il fatto che c’è del Dna di Meredith sul coltello da cucina è perché una volta mentre cucinavamo insieme, io, spostandomi in casa maneggiando il coltello, l’ho punta sulla mano, e subito dopo le ho chiesto scusa ma lei non si era fatta niente. Quindi l’unica vera spiegazione a quel coltello da cucina è questa. “ (Raffaele's Prison Diary) "The fact that Meredith's DNA is on the kitchen knife is because once while we were cooking together, as I moved about the house handling the knife I pricked her hand, and immediately apologised but nothing happened to her. So, the only true explanation about that kitchen knife is this. " (18/11/2007)

Click to return to Index • 6. 2 The Bra Clasp This tested positive for the DNA of Meredith, Raffaele and an unknown male.

Click to return to Index • 6. 2 The Bra Clasp This tested positive for the DNA of Meredith, Raffaele and an unknown male. • In addition, in the electropherogram chart there were ten out of sixteen loci having peaks corresponding to Amanda’s profile. Though this is not as decisive as the result for Raffaele, the hypothesis is that Amanda touched the bra clasp as well. • In forensic terms the amount of Raffaele’s DNA was considered to be abundant and it is difficult for his defence to even begin to explain how it came to be on the bra clasp. • The issue of contamination was raised but Raffaele’s DNA was not found anywhere else in the cottage (other than on a cigarette stub in the kitchen, that was removed 6 weeks earlier) in anything like the quantity that was on the bra clasp. Knox family members reported that there was “chuckling” in the courtroom as Conti and Vecchiotti reviewed video of the collection of the bra clasp. Unless if it was forced chuckling by themselves on cue, there doesn’t seem much to laugh about. Forensic personnel collected the clasp on 18 -12 -2007, in appropriate attire, making in situ observations and measurements before bagging the object. Pro-Knox voices have already pointed out in the past the dark specks that appear on the right glove of the forensic technician. They have claimed for years, well before the Conti-Vecchiotti report, that this is proof of contamination. Now if those specks were green or blue or yellow, then I could entertain that thought. However, the forensic personnel, including Dr. Stefanoni, have declared that they used new gloves. In addition, if you compare the dark red specks on the right glove (hmmmm, looks like old, dry blood), to the dark, red specks and stains on the bra clasp (hmmm, also looks like old, dry blood), and if you actually look at the video, as the technician turns the clasp over with both hands, I think we can assume that what is on the right hand came from what is in the left hand, that is, the “contamination” that pro-Knox forces decry is in fact residue from the clasp, part of the abundant DNA of Sollecito, which was quickly stored away and sealed in the forensic bag.

Click to return to Index • 6. 3 The Luminol Results Luminol is a powerful presumptive test for blood. It glows if there is a reaction.

Click to return to Index • 6. 3 The Luminol Results Luminol is a powerful presumptive test for blood. It glows if there is a reaction. • The use of luminol identified five further traces.

Click to return to Index • 6. 3 The Luminol Results Luminol is a powerful presumptive test for blood. It glows if there is a reaction. • The use of luminol identified five further traces. • There were two instances of Amanda’s DNA mixed with Meredith’s DNA, one in the corridor and one in Filomena’s bedroom. • It also identified the shape of three bare footprints, one in Amanda’s bedroom and two in the corridor which tested positive for Meredith’s DNA, the footprints being comparable to the shape and size of Amanda’s right foot. • Defence teams have asserted that what the luminol revealed was not blood, and that Amanda’s DNA could have mixed with Meredith’s by innocent means given that they shared a flat together. • For instance the following biological substances react with luminol – anything vegetable, skin cells, sweat, saliva, mucus, fruit juice etc. Bleach and rust also react. In fact anything with an iron content will do so. • Defence teams have further asserted that in addition to DNA testing the traces were also tested with tetramethylbenzadine (TMB) - a specific presumptive test for blood - and the results were negative. This is true. • However TMB and luminol have the same reactive process. This is to do with the peroxidase like activity of heme. Dr Gino, Amanda’s DNA expert, was quoted by Massei giving the following evidence – “analyses performed with TMB on (blood) traces revealed by luminol give about even results : 50% negative, 50% positive. ” In other words a TMB test following the application of luminol is only helpful in establishing the presence of blood. It does not exclude the presence of blood if the test is negative. It might be negative because the luminol has fully reacted the trace.

Click to return to Index • 6. 3 The Luminol Results Luminol is a powerful presumptive test for blood. It glows if there is a reaction. • The use of luminol identified five further traces. • There were two instances of Amanda’s DNA mixed with Meredith’s DNA, one in the corridor and one in Filomena’s bedroom. • It also identified the shape of three bare footprints, one in Amanda’s bedroom and two in the corridor which tested positive for Meredith’s DNA, the footprints being comparable to the shape and size of Amanda’s right foot. • It is asserted that what the luminol revealed was not blood, and that Amanda’s DNA could have mixed with Meredith’s by innocent means given that they shared a flat together. • For instance the following biological substances react with luminol – anything vegetable, skin cells, sweat, saliva, mucus, fruit juice etc. Bleach and rust also react. In fact anything with an iron content will do so. • Defence teams have further asserted that in addition to DNA testing the traces were also tested with tetramethylbenzadine (TMB) - a specific presumptive test for blood - and the results were negative. This is true. • However TMB and luminol have the same reactive process. This is to do with the peroxidase like activity of heme. Dr Gino, Amanda’s DNA expert, was quoted by Massei giving the following evidence – “analyses performed with TMB on (blood) traces revealed by luminol give about even results : 50% negative, 50% positive. ” In other words a TMB test following the application of luminol is only helpful in establishing the presence of blood. It does not exclude the presence of blood if the test is negative. It might be negative because the luminol has fully reacted the trace. • Where rust would come from no-one has yet determined and as for bleach it dissipates and, of course, the footprints and spots were discovered by luminol some six weeks after they were made. It is not possible anyway to obtain a human DNA profile from these substances, nor vegetables or fruit juice.

Click to return to Index • 6. 3 The Luminol Results Sweat according to a scientific study that is reported on the internet contains a negligible amount of iron, and would not, as with latent bleach, produce the bright glow that the luminol produced. The iron content of saliva has not apparently been tested but the idea that Amanda or Meredith were spitting, or depositing mucus, in the corridor and in Filomena’s bedroom is, of course, ludicrous. • Skin cells that a person sheds naturally, “exfoliated skin cells” are keratinized, that is dead, and useless for the purpose of luminol or DNA tests. Otherwise the use of luminol as a forensic tool would be pointless as we shed skin cells like this everywhere. • It is still possible to leave skin cells that are not keratinized, as is probably the case with the bra clasp, but to do this it would appear that some pressure or friction is required. • In the mixed traces there were high peaks for DNA for both Meredith and Amanda (blood being rich in DNA) and so, other things considered, it is hard not to draw the conclusion that in two instances the luminol identified mixed blood belonging to Meredith and Amanda. • Together with the three mixed traces in the small bathroom this makes five mixed traces, within just feet of Meredith’s bedroom, a statistically significant quantity and unlikely to be co-incidental.

Click to return to Index • 6. 4 The footprint on the bathmat This was determined to be Raffaele’s on good expert evidence. It would appear that Rudy Guede never had his shoes off. He exited from Meredith’s bedroom and went directly to the front door as demonstrated by his shoe prints.

Click to return to Index • 7. The Hypothesis of a Partial Clean-up Operation And “No Evidence means Not There” The fact that there was a footprint in Meredith’s blood on the bathmat but no connecting bloody footprints from Meredith’s room is highly suggestive, if not proof, that there had been a partial clean up. • The discovery of Amanda’s arced reading lamp from her bedroom on Meredith’s floor is again suggestive that it was placed there later for close inspection. • The luminol identified traces. Typically luminol is used to identify traces that have been washed out or wiped up. • The evidence that Guede was there is, apart from his feces and left shoe footprints exiting in the corridor, all in Meredith’s bedroom. The latter evidence consists of his DNA from a vaginal swab, a print of the palm of his hand on the pillow, his DNA found on the sleeve of Meredith’s tracksuit top and bra, his DNA on her handbag and a left shoe print in Meredith’s blood next to her body attributed to him. • In contrast it is incontrovertibly true that there was no evidence of Amanda’s presence in that room (leaving aside for a moment The Knife and, hypothetically, on the bra clasp). Nor of Raffaele (leaving aside the bra clasp and by implication the bloody footprint on the bathmat).

Click to return to Index 7. The Hypothesis of a Partial Clean-up Operation And “No Evidence means Not There” Pro-Knox forces’ limited scope crime scene (only looking in • these indicated zones – no The fact that there was a footprint in Meredith’s blood on the bathmat but no connecting bloody footprints further investigation is required - from Meredith’s room is highly suggestive, if not proof, that there had been a partial clean up. they feel you know enough to • close the case and pass The discovery of Amanda’s arced reading lamp from her bedroom on Meredith’s floor is again suggestive that sentence) it was placed there later for close inspection. • The luminol identified traces. Typically luminol is used to identify traces that have been washed out or wiped up. • The evidence that Guede was there is, apart from his feces and left shoe footprints exiting in the corridor, all in Meredith’s bedroom. The latter evidence consists of his DNA from a vaginal swab, a print of the palm of his hand on the pillow, his DNA found on the sleeve of Meredith’s tracksuit top and bra, his DNA on her handbag and a left shoe print in Meredith’s blood next to her body attributed to him. • In contrast it is incontrovertibly true that there was no evidence of Amanda’s presence in that room (leaving aside for a moment The Knife and, hypothetically, on the bra clasp). Nor of Raffaele (leaving aside the bra clasp and by implication the bloody footprint on the bathmat). • It is argued therefore that there was nothing incriminating for Amanda and Raffaele to clean up in the bedroom, and that if there had been they would not have been able to see it ( i. e DNA) or guess where it was. Hence there was no clean up and as there was no evidence they were not there. There a number of rebuttals to this argument: • It is specious to argue as a matter of fact, without any proper evaluation of the other evidence and circumstances pertaining to the crime scene in general, that just because there is DNA evidence within a confined space as to one perpetrator, and not as to others, that there was only one perpetrator – though on the face of it that might seem a reasonable proposition.

Click to return to Index • 7. The Hypothesis of a Partial Clean-up Operation And “No Evidence means Not There” There have, since the introduction of DNA forensics, been many examples of violent and bloody murder where the DNA of the perpetrators was non-existent or, at any rate, was not found. Popular TV programmes such as CSI give quite the wrong impression. • There is some evidence for the hypothesis that the attack in the bedroom was not just vicious, but swift, limiting the window of time in which DNA would be deposited and narrowing the focus for it’s placement. DNA may have been obscured by the plentiful presence of the victim’s blood which, it seems, because of it’s quantity, was not tested foreign DNA. • The evidence relating to Guede’s presence would probably have been fairly obvious to another participant in the attack and known to be incriminating only of Guede. For instance as to the bloody palm print on the pillow and the DNA on the handbag and bra, both Amanda and Raffaele may have known that neither of them had touched these items but that Guede had or may have done so. • If the aforesaid was obvious to them the rest was at least fair play for their attention. As to the tracksuit top, it seems that nothing but blood was visible on this and as to the presence of incriminating DNA on it, or any other item of clothing or fabric, this may have been (or not in Guede’s case) just a matter of luck (or probably because of the degree of pressure or friction required to deposit DNA on fabric) and/or down to the role that each participant was playing.

Click to return to Index • 7. The Hypothesis of a Partial Clean-up Operation And “No Evidence means Not There” It is also interesting in view of the evidence of strangulation (spots inside the eyelids indicative of asphyxiation, bruising to nostrils, swelling on the neck etc) and bruising round the lips (suggesting compression by hand to silence her) that Guede’s DNA was not identified round her neck and on her face. Of course some of the evidence, if any, (i. e on the neck) would have been obliterated by the knife wounds, or by wiping blood away in the autopsy, but why no DNA elsewhere? . This surely demonstrates (as with Meredith’s jeans) that depositing DNA is not only a matter of chance but also, as likely, a matter of chance between individuals depending on disposition and what exactly it is that one is doing.

Click to return to Index • • 7. The Hypothesis of a Partial Clean-up Operation And “No Evidence means Not There” It is also interesting in view of the evidence of strangulation (spots inside the eyelids indicative of asphyxiation, bruising to nostrils, swelling on the neck etc) and bruising round the lips (suggesting compression by hand to silence her) that Guede’s DNA was not identified round her neck and on her face. Of course some of the evidence, if any, (i. e on the neck) would have been obliterated by the knife wounds, or by wiping blood away in the autopsy, but why no DNA elsewhere? . This surely demonstrates (as with Meredith’s jeans) that depositing DNA is not only a matter of chance but also, as likely, a matter of chance between individuals depending on disposition and what exactly it is that one is doing. In any event it is unlikely that Amanda and Raffaele knew much about DNA. In a clean up they would be more likely to simply pay attention to what they could see, and what they could not see would only have had their attention, if at all, from the point of view of, say, incriminating fingerprints. Such lack of awareness would account for the lack of attention to the bra clasp though this was in any event hidden by the body and pillow, if not the quilt, by that time. • There is indeed a distinct and suspicious lack of fingerprint evidence in the case. Just Guede’s one palm print in blood and one fingerprint identified as belonging to Amanda in her own bedroom, though this is only suggestive to a limited extent. • If there had been a single attacker then in the struggle which would have ensued one might expect there to be some evidence of disruption, impact, and damage to objects in the room, of which there was not much sign. Indeed (or alternatively), apart from the obvious mess engendered by the blood, and clothing and belongings strewn on the floor, the room bears some signs of objects having been tidied up afterwards. Meredith’s chair appears to have been rammed back under her desk with a piece of newspaper stuck to the bottom of a leg. A square clear patch in the blood on the floor suggests an object (the Oxford dictionary? ) having been moved afterwards. If so what was Guede’s motive for attending to these things in the immediate aftermath before leaving? Subjective observation maybe but nonetheless relevant to the hypothesis of someone paying attention to things awhile later.

Click to return to Index 7. The Hypothesis of a Partial Clean-up Operation And “No Evidence means Not There” • If Raffaele had tracked Meredith’s blood on his feet to the small bathroom (where he leaves the footprint on the mat), and Amanda likewise in the corridor, then these bloody footprints started from the bedroom and would be obvious targets for removal, there and in the corridor. Furthermore, in my submission, there should have been, but there was not, a connecting left shoe print or two for Guede bearing in mind that found next to the body under the quilt and those in the corridor. One can conceive that these were removed at the same time accidentally or unavoidably because of their juxtaposition or criss-crossing with the footprints incriminating Amanda and Raffaele. Where are the barefootprints that lead to the bathmat print? Where’s the heel to the barefootprint on the bathmat? This bathmat footprint has been demonstrated in court to be Raffaele’s. A prominent member of The Friends of Amanda group and collaborator on the Perugia Shock pro-Knox site artificially shrank an image of Rudy Guede’s foot in order to adjust it to the size of the bathmat print, and wrote a novelesque, slapstick description of how Guede surely had killed Meredith in his shoes, then went to the bathroom to take off his shoes in order to clean them, and got his barefeet bloody in the process (from what source of blood we’re not sure), made the bathmat footprint, put on his shoes, then got the cleaned shoes bloody again in order to make the hallway Nike prints as he ran out. Don’t worry. Occam also thinks that just wouldn’t convince anyone.

Click to return to Index 7. The Hypothesis of a Partial Clean-up Operation And “No Evidence means Not There” • If Raffaele had tracked Meredith’s blood on his feet to the small bathroom (where he leaves the footprint on the mat), and Amanda likewise in the corridor, then these bloody footprints started from the bedroom and would be obvious targets for removal, there and in the corridor. Furthermore, in my submission, there should have been, but there was not, a connecting left shoe print or two for Guede bearing in mind that found next to the body under the quilt and those in the corridor. One can conceive that these were removed at the same time accidentally or unavoidably because of their juxtaposition or criss-crossing with the footprints incriminating Amanda and Raffaele. • A clean up would, a priori unless the participants were idiotic, involve great care in not depositing further incriminating evidence. Some surfaces are more amenable to fingerprints than others. Glass and metal, being smooth are usually ideal, and for this reason I have found it surprising that no fingerprints were found, it would appear, or at least of which we have been informed, on Amanda's black metal reading lamp in Meredith's room. One explanation is that gloves were used in the partial cleanup and staging activities. Knox’s reading lamp, on floor behind Meredith’s door, on the day Police discover Meredith’s body

Click to return to Index 7. The Hypothesis of a Partial Clean-up Operation And “No Evidence means Not There” • If Raffaele had tracked Meredith’s blood on his feet to the small bathroom (where he leaves the footprint on the mat), and Amanda likewise in the corridor, then these bloody footprints started from the bedroom and would be obvious targets for removal, there and in the corridor. Furthermore, in my submission, there should have been, but there was not, a connecting left shoe print or two for Guede bearing in mind that found next to the body under the quilt and those in the corridor. One can conceive that these were removed at the same time accidentally or unavoidably because of their juxtaposition or criss-crossing with the footprints incriminating Amanda and Raffaele. • A clean up would, a priori unless the participants were idiotic, involve great care in not depositing further incriminating evidence. Some surfaces are more amenable to fingerprints than others. Glass and metal, being smooth are usually ideal, and for this reason I have found it surprising that no fingerprints were found, it would appear, or at least of which we have been informed, on Amanda's black metal reading lamp in Meredith's room. One explanation is that gloves were used in the partial cleanup and staging activities. • Finally, it does not appear that luminol was used in Meredith’s bedroom. If that was the case then it would be nice to know the reason why not.

Click to return to Index • 8. The Staging or Partial Staging of a Sex Attack There were blood spots, from coughing up blood as a result of the fatal knife wound to her throat, on Meredith’s chest and bra but not on her breasts. This demonstrates that the bra was removed after Meredith’s death, or at least as she lay dying. This suggests that the evidence of a sex attack is, in part at least, staged.

Click to return to Index • 9. How many were Involved and was there more than one knife? Massei concluded that the nature of the wounds and injuries sustained by Meredith meant that more than one attacker had to be present to inflict those injuries (knife wounds, strangulation, bruising to her lips and inner thighs) and to subdue her and attempt sexual intercourse. The appropriate section in the Motivation Report (or in the Summary) repays careful attention but In particular, and for our purposes, he took into account the following facts : - • The wounds and bruising were concentrated on the face and neck. Injuries elsewhere were superficial and given that Meredith was a fit girl who had trained in karate it is unlikely that in a fight or struggle with a single attacker, and particularly when it came to protecting her neck, that there would have been so few defensive injuries on her hands, arms and legs etc. This is evidence that she was being restrained by somebody at the same time as she was being attacked by another. • In addition the evidence of strangulation and the bruising to her lips is evidence that someone was also attempting to subdue her and prevent her from shouting for assistance. • In addition there wounds caused by knife blows to the right and to the left of her neck and, unless more than one person was involved, a single knife wielder would have perforce to break off restraining and subduing her in order to inflict one blow, and then change hands with the knife to inflict the other. • In addition it would be difficult for a single attacker to perform all the above functions whilst at the same time attempting to remove items of Meredith’s clothing.

Click to return to Index • 10. Rudy Guede’s Evidence Guede began implicating Amanda before even being detained by police.

Click to return to Index • • • 10. Rudy Guede’s Evidence Guede began implicating Amanda before even being detained by police. When still in Germany Guede had a Skype conversation with an old school friend called Giacomo which had been a set up by the police. In this conversation he spoke of his “tryst” with Meredith at the cottage and that Meredith was angry about missing money and her suspicions that Amanda was involved with that. He spoke of being on the toilet when Meredith was attacked by an unknown male. This, in essence, was his defence, the full details being written down by him in a statement which he handed to his lawyer on arrival back in Perugia. After his detention he told the police that at the cottage he had also seen the “outline of a woman” and when pressed further he added “Yes. I can say I identified Amanda Knox’s voice and I saw her from behind in the driveway”.

Click to return to Index • • 10. Rudy Guede’s Evidence Guede began implicating Amanda before even being detained by police. When still in Germany Guede had a Skype conversation with an old school friend called Giacomo which had been a set up by the police. In this conversation he spoke of his “tryst” with Meredith at the cottage and that Meredith was angry about missing money and her suspicions that Amanda was involved with that. He spoke of being on the toilet when Meredith was attacked by an unknown male. This, in essence, was his defence, the full details being written down by him in a statement which he handed to his lawyer on arrival back in Perugia. After his detention he told the police that at the cottage he had also seen the “outline of a woman” and when pressed further he added “Yes. I can say I identified Amanda Knox’s voice and I saw her from behind in the driveway”. In his own appeal against conviction he went further still, describing how Meredith had argued with Amanda about Meredith’s missing money and that there had been a fight between the two.

Click to return to Index • 11. Miscellaneous Evidence Amanda and Raffaele were both using drugs. There were multiple corroborating statements to that effect. Amanda’s sister has declared in newspaper interviews that Amanda tried smoking marijuana on only a couple of occasions in Seattle, before going to Europe. True? If so then Perugian student culture must be distinctively more permissive towards drug use than staid and conservative Seattle, as it was in Italy that Amanda went beyond her allegedly limited use back home of marijuana and its derivatives. From her trial testimony: “CP: On the occasion of this party [with Rudy Guede and the boys downstairs], Miss, was hashish smoked? AK: There was a spinello that was smoked, yes. CP: At that time, in October 2007, did you use drugs? AK: Every once in a while with friends. CP: Which substances were they? AK: Marijuana. ” (CP = Carlo Pacelli, lawyer for Patrick Lumumba) Raffaele in his Prison Diary, writing to his father: “I don’t know if it is fair that I should pay so much for not being able to focus on moments in time during November 1, but after this experience, believe me, I will never touch marijuana again in my life. ”

Click to return to Index • • 11. Miscellaneous Evidence Amanda and Raffaele were both using drugs. There were multiple corroborating statements to that effect. Raffaele was a knife aficionado in the habit of carrying a pocket penknife. Indeed he was carrying one when being interviewed by the police on the 5 th November. Raffaele in his Prison Diary, writing to his father: ”I can not even show them [the police] guilt, given I’m so screwed up, due to the fact that I smoke cannabis I even forget what I ate and also because I carry around a knife to mark tables and trees and take it so often that I even took it to the police station …. ” “… And this is where the different levels of my personality, are created, a personality which seeks by all means to defend itself, carrying around a knife in my pocket and sacrificing so many years to learn and take risks in a sport such as kickboxing…. ”

Click to return to Index • • • 11. Miscellaneous Evidence Amanda and Raffaele were both using drugs. There were multiple corroborating statements to that effect. Raffaele was a knife aficionado in the habit of carrying a pocket penknife. Indeed he was carrying one when being interviewed by the police on the 5 th November. Raffaele watched animal porn videos and this so concerned his university that his behaviour was monitored. Raffaele posted a picture of himself on Facebook dressed up as a mummy carrying a butcher’s meat cleaver. Amanda had also written a bizarre short story about the drugging and raping of a young girl which she posted on her web page.

Click to return to Index • • • • 11. Miscellaneous Evidence Amanda and Raffaele were both using drugs. There were multiple corroborating statements to that effect. Raffaele was a knife aficionado in the habit of carrying a pocket penknife. Indeed he was carrying one when being interviewed by the police on the 5 th November. Raffaele watched animal porn videos and this so concerned his university that his behaviour was monitored. Raffaele posted a picture of himself on Facebook dressed up as a mummy carrying a butcher’s meat cleaver. Amanda’s visible public display of her pink personal vibrator in her Amanda had also written a bizarre short story about the drugging and raping of a young girl which she posted transparent toiletries kit, was an on her web page. anecdotal example of the personality clash between her and Meredith, a clash which appeared in other Meredith’s stolen phones were found in a garden a few hundred yards from Guede’s and Raffaele’s aspects of their shared life, such as apartments. The apartments are a minute’s walking distance of each other, much closer to each other than in complying with agreed household either are to the girl’s cottage. cleaning responsibilities. According to witnesses the relationship between Meredith and Amanda had started out well enough but had started to deteriorate, be it over petty matters.

Click to return to Index • • • • 11. Miscellaneous Evidence Amanda and Raffaele were both using drugs. There were multiple corroborating statements to that effect. Raffaele was a knife aficionado in the habit of carrying a pocket penknife. Indeed he was carrying one when being interviewed by the police on the 5 th November. Raffaele watched animal porn videos and this so concerned his university that his behaviour was monitored. Raffaele posted a picture of himself on Facebook dressed up as a mummy carrying a butcher’s meat cleaver. Amanda had also written a bizarre short story about the drugging and raping of a young girl which she posted on her web page. Meredith’s stolen phones were found in a garden a few hundred yards from Guede’s and Raffaele’s apartments. The apartments are a minute’s walking distance of each other, much closer to each other than either are to the girl’s cottage. According to witnesses the relationship between Meredith and Amanda had started out well enough but had started to deteriorate, be it over petty matters. The placing of a duvet over Meredith’s corpse is indicative of a relationship between the victim and her killer.

Click to return to Index • • • • • 11. Miscellaneous Evidence Amanda and Raffaele were both using drugs. There were multiple corroborating statements to that effect. Raffaele was a knife aficionado in the habit of carrying a pocket penknife. Indeed he was carrying one when being interviewed by the police on the 5 th November. Raffaele watched animal porn videos and this so concerned his university that his behaviour was monitored. Raffaele posted a picture of himself on Facebook dressed up as a mummy carrying a butcher’s meat cleaver. Amanda had also written a bizarre short story about the drugging and raping of a young girl which she posted on her web page. Meredith’s stolen phones were found in a garden a few hundred yards from Guede’s and Raffaele’s apartments. The apartments are a minute’s walking distance of each other, much closer to each other than either are to the girl’s cottage. According to witnesses the relationship between Meredith and Amanda had started out well enough but had started to deteriorate, be it over petty matters. The placing of a duvet over Meredith’s corpse is indicative of a relationship between the victim and her killer. The postal police said that the washing machine was running on their arrival. Filomena, who arrived minutes later, said that the washing machine was still warm. Some of Meredith's clothing was in the machine. Who had turned the washing machine on and why? Remember that faded bathmat?

Click to return to Index • 12. SOME CONCLUSIONS The narrative is incomplete but we can place Rudy Guede, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito together at the cottage on the night of the murder. We can do this because the evidence and the logic of the staged break in means that Amanda let the other two in. Raffaele was there because of the evidence of the bra clasp and the bloody footprint on the bathmat. There also contradictions and discrepancies in subsequent statements and in his unsupported alibi. • The part played by Guede is, on the evidence, that he was clearly involved in a sexual assault upon Meredith. • The subsequent demonstrable lies (accusing Lumumba being a stark example), deceptions, and evasions by Amanda, the implausibilities to be found in her unsupported alibi, the mixed traces of DNA, her footprints with Meredith’s DNA, the blood on the faucet, all point to her involvement. The Knife points to her being the actual killer. • An alternative narrative that would have either or both Amanda and Raffaele being there but uninvolved in the attack and only involved in a staging and clean up, is highly implausible not least because in the three and a half years since the murder took place neither has advanced that proposition, and testified to it, in their defence.

Click to return to Index • 12. SOME CONCLUSIONS The narrative is incomplete but we can place Rudy Guede, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito together at the cottage on the night of the murder. We can do this because the evidence and the logic of the staged break in means that Amanda let the other two in. Raffaele was there because of the evidence of the bra In Memoriam – clasp and the bloody footprint on the bathmat. There also contradictions and discrepancies in subsequent Meredith Kercher statements and in his unsupported alibi. • The part played by Guede is, on the evidence, that he was clearly involved in a sexual assault upon Meredith. • The subsequent demonstrable lies (accusing Lumumba being a stark example), deceptions, and evasions by Amanda, the implausibilities to be found in her unsupported alibi, the mixed traces of DNA, her footprints with Meredith’s DNA, the blood on the faucet, all point to her involvement. The Knife points to her being the actual killer. • An alternative narrative that would have either or both Amanda and Raffaele being there but uninvolved in the attack and only involved in a staging and clean up, is highly implausible not least because in the three and a half years since the murder took place neither has advanced that proposition, and testified to it, in their defence. • In any case, it is clear that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have been less than forthcoming in helping solve the case, probably due to their involvement in it, as was recognised in their first trial's convictions.