Headsup: In “Talking To Strangers” Malcom Gladwell lied to his readers with an inaccurate and venomous attack on Italian justice that gives aid to the mafia. Below is the tenth of about a dozen posts providing the ACCURATE information Gladwell should have done. Series starts here.

Tuesday, January 21, 2020

Knox PR Shill Gladwell’s Lone-Wolf-Killer Hoax Was Abandoned By DEFENSES 10 Years Ago!

Posted by Peter Quennell



Above: Malcom Gladwell and Rudy Guede

1. Life Cycle Of The Lone Wolf Theory

The defense teams’ Guede-As-Lone-Wolf theory, if you can call it that, saw three phases.

Cooked up in mid 2008 by the floundering defenses, the theory takes knock after knock in 2009, and is quietly phased out in 2010, never to surface again - at least in an Italian court.

The defenses created it because they were trying hard to stop an enraged Sollecito and defensive Knox from very publicly pointing a finger of blame at one another. See this post and this post.

Within six months, it was dealt a near-fatal blow by Judge Micheli. See this post and this post and this post.

The theory took hit after hit in the Massei trial’s prosecution phase (see this post and this post)) and lost all impact after Knox dug a deep hole for herself on the witness stand.

More disasters followed in the defense phase (see this post and this post and this post).

Finally, the judges for both of Guede’s automatic appeals, which failed, endorsed the Micheli court and Massei court findings. Namely that massive evidence pointed to three assailants in a pack attack (see this post and this post).

Thereafter, the defenses used two alternative witnesses, Alessi and Aviello, to try to prove a pack attack that did not involve Knox or Sollecito. At the 2011 Hellman appeal both bombed miserably.

Dozens of other posts here offer more detail. See for example this post, and this post, and this post. Also this post, and this post.

And of course all previous posts in this series described evidence that proves Sollecito and Knox were involved, both in the attack and the clean-up.

2. Gladwell Revives The Zombie Theory!

Gladwell devotes the first quarter of his Knox chapter to the framing of Guede as a lone assailant and the shrill trashing of the supposedly stupid Italian prosecutors and police for supposedly misreading Knox - with zero proof, but it is used to promote Gladwell’s book anyway.

These are Gladwell’s claims about Rudy Guede, along with the first of our fact-checking, as previously posted in our series’ first post.

[1] On the night of November 1, 2007, Meredith Kercher was murdered by Rudy Guede. [The BLACK guy ALONE did it? A racist PR trope. ALL courts said the evidence proved 2 or 3 attackers. It was impossible AS DEFENSES AGREED to prove a lone attacker.]

[2] After a mountain of argumentation, speculation, and controversy, his guilt is a certainty [not his guilt ALONE].

[3] Guede was a shady character [no he wasnt] who had been hanging around the house [he had friends downstairs] in the Italian city of Perugia, where Kercher, a college student, was living during a year abroad. [She was a high performer unlike Knox, enrolled at the main university unlike Knox, and not on drugs unlike Knox.]

[4] Guede had a criminal history. [He had NONE. Only Knox & Sollecito had police records then.]

[5] He admitted to being in Kercher’s house the night of her murder—and could give only the most implausible reasons for why. [Knox and Sollecito each gave multiple alibis and contradicted one another.]

[6] The crime scene was covered in his DNA. [Covered? No it wasn’t. There was more Knox DNA.]

[7] After her body was covered [the courts all believed by Knox] he immediately fled Italy for Germany. 

[8] But Rudy Guede was not the exclusive focus of the police investigation [because Knox fingered PATRICK first] nor anything more than an afterthought [untrue] in the tsunami of media attention that followed the discovery of Kercher’s body.

[9] The focus was instead on Kercher’s roommate. [Not immediately; not till after, under no pressure, she REPEATEDLY accused Patrick of murder and admitted to being there when Meredith died.]

3. Gladwell’s Knox-PR Sources

What was the entire thrust of Gladwell’s book? A warning that strangers can fool you.  But that trap is precisely the one Gladwell has fallen into.

No wonder he sounds so incessantly paranoid - he seems to have good reason to be. It seems profoundly easy for strangers put one over on him.

Consider the sources for Gladwell’s Knox chapter. The very worst possible.

Despite the enormous body of real evidence online (this site has a word-count higher than 20 paperbacks; the Wiki’s is several times higher) it’s pretty evident that Gladwell’s sole sources were these two Knox PR hoaxes.

    (1) The Forgotten Killer ebook, a foolish and easily debunked Knox PR hoax put online in 2012.

    (2) The Netflix Amanda Knox faux documentary, a foolish and easily debunked Knox PR hoax put online in 2016.

And who was it that propagated those hoaxes? We’ve already described all the main perps, in this post: A Gullible Gladwell Was Duped By Malicious “Strangers” Actually All Vigilantes Of Knox’s PR

Typically the members of this pack exult over a supposedly saintly Knox (as Gladwell does); forget about the framing of Patrick - in fact, forget Patrick (as Gladwell does); forget that Knox rightly served three years for framing him (as Gladwell does); forget that Knox owes Patrick $100,000; forget that Sollecito was always treated similarly (as Gladwell does).

And of course they forget that all the courts without exception placed Knox and Sollecito at the scene of the crime (as Gladwell does), they forget the myriad hard evidence pointing to Knox and Sollecito (as Gladwell does), and forget the three bent courts (as Gladwell does).

Does Gladwell have a tin ear for their racism? One wonders. The Knox PR vigilantes have long reviled Guede incessantly in false terms (as Gladwell does) and the intent seethes racist remarks against him.

Guede was not a drifter or petty criminal (as Gladwell supposes). In fact, Guede had an okay upbringing, he excelled at basketball, he was socially popular, he had held a secure job near Milan (the business folded), and he had no police record (unlike either Knox or Sollecito - in other words, no record of either drug dealing or breaking and entering).

Guede was the only one of the three to attempt an apology of sorts to the Kercher family (the other two both visited Meredith’s grave unwanted), he gained a useful college degree in Viterbo, and he could well be the only one of the three to have a respectable career ahead of him. 

Bizarrely, Gladwell and Guede both have some African heritage. These various commentators (but not Gladwell) have gone to bat against the pervasive dog-whistle racism that Knox and her vigilantes still engage in and which Gladwell oddly seems tone-deaf to.

1. Why Race Matters in the Amanda Knox Case

2. Let’s Not Forget Amanda Knox’s [Racist] Lie

3. Black Lives Matter: Whitewashing the Amanda Knox Story

4. Netflix’s Amanda Knox Leaves People of Color Out of the Story

5. What Amanda Knox Taught Us About The Influence Of Racism In Court

6. Amanda Knox Blames Black Man For Sinking The Titanic

4. Thirty-Plus Questions We’d Like Gladwell To Answer

Our main poster Marcello posed all of these questions in an open letter to Knox and Sollecito. So far, nothing but a deafening silence. Perhaps Gladwell can do better.

1) Rudy Guede had been to the apartment at least twice already on prior occasions and knew the boys who lived in the lower story. Why did Guede choose to NOT break-in to the lower story where he knew (or could ascertain) that all four boys were away on holiday, and therefore could break-in and rummage with some certainty of not getting caught?

2) Why did Guede choose to break-in to the upper story of the villa when he surely knew Knox and Kercher would be staying at the villa for the holidays and could have returned at any time to “catch him in-the-act”?

3) Why did Guede not check the cottage to make sure no one was there before attempting the break-in? Surely he would have verified that no one was present by circling the cottage and checking if any lights were on in the windows.

4) If Guede did circle the cottage to make sure no one was there before attempting the break-in, why would he then choose the most visible and more difficult path of entry through a second story window, as opposed to the more hidden and easier path of break-in at the back of the villa, which he would have noticed while circling the villa?

5) Why would Guede choose to break-in through a second story window that was highly exposed to the headlights of passing cars on the street as well as exposed to night lighting from the carpark?

6) Ms. Romanelli testified that she had nearly closed the exterior shutters. Assuming her memory is correct, there is no way a burglar could easily verify if the windows were latched and if the inner scuri were latched to the window panes, which would make access to the window latch impractical unless one was armed with a core drill or an ax. Why would Guede, who was certainly familiar with such windows, choose to attempt the break-in through a window that he could not easily verify would allow him quick access?

7) Assuming the shutters were closed, Guede would have to climb up the wall and open the shutters before smashing the window with the rock. The night of the murder, the grass was wet from rain the previous day. Why was there no evidence of disturbed grass or mud on the walls?

8) Guede had Nike sneakers, not rock climbing shoes. How did he manage the climb up the wall with that type of footwear?

9) If the shutters were closed, or somewhat closed, how did Guede manage to lift himself up to the sill with only an inch of sill available to grab onto?

10) Assuming Guede opened the shutters, how did Guede verify if the inner scuri where not latched to the window panes, which would prevent access to the window latch? There was no light inside Ms. Romanelli’s room to reveal that the scuri were ajar.

11) Assuming Guede managed to check that the inner scuro behind the right-hand window was not latched, how did he manage to break the glass with a 9 lb rock with one hand while hanging on to the sill with the other?

12) Assuming Guede managed check that the right-hand inner scuro was not latched, how did he break the glass with the rock without having glass shards fly into his face?

13) If Guede climbed down to the lob the 9 lb rock at the window from 3 meters below, how would he do so to avoid glass shards raining down on him?

14) If Guede climbed down to the lob the rock at the window from below, why would he choose a 9 lb 20 cm wide rock to lob up to a window 3 meters above him, with little chance of striking the window in the correct fashion?

15) If Guede climbed down again and climbed back up to the carpark (up a steep slope with slippery wet grass and weeds) to lob the 9 lb 20 cm wide rock from the car park, why is there no evidence of this second climb down on the walls?

16) Why did Guede choose a 9 lb 20 cm wide rock to throw from the car park, given that a large, heavy rock would be difficult to lob with any precision? Especially considering that the width of the glass in the window pane is only 28 cm wide, surely anyone, experienced or not, would have chosen a smaller, lighter rock to throw with greater precision.

17) If Guede lobbed a 9 lb 20 cm rock from the car park, such a lob would require some velocity and therefore force. Guede would have been roughly 11-12 feet away from the window, in order for the lob to clear the wood railing at the carpark. If the rock was thrown with some velocity, why is the upper 1/2 of the glass in the window pane intact, without any fracture cracks at all?

18) If Guede lobbed a 9 lb 20 cm rock from the car park, such a lob would require some velocity and therefore force. Why is there so little damage to the scuro the rock hit, so little damage to the terrazzo flooring impacted by the rock, and so little damage to the rock itself, which surely would have fractured more on impact with a hard terrazzo floor?

19) Why was there no evidence of glass shards found in the grass below the window?

20) If Guede climbed the wall to open the shutters, climbed down and up to the car park to throw the rock, then climbed back down and up again to the window, how does he manage to hoist himself onto the sill without cutting himself on the glass that was found on the sill?

21) If Guede climbed the wall to open the shutters, hoisted himself onto the sill, tapped the glass with a 9 lb rock to lightly break the glass in a manner more consistent with how the window was broken, why did he throw the rock into the room, rather than let it fall into the grass below?

22) Why was no dirt, grass, muddy shoeprints or similar trace evidence found on the window sill?

23) Why was no dirt, grass, muddy shoeprints or similar trace evidence found in Romanelli’s room?

24) If Guede climbed the wall to open the shutters, climbed down and up to the car park to throw the rock, then climbed back down and up again to the window again, hoisted himself onto the sill without cutting himself on the glass that was found on the sill, unlatched the window and stepped inside Filomena’s room, how did he manage to get glass on top of Romanelli’s clothing that was found under the window sill?

25) Why would Guede, who would have spent a good 10 minutes trying to break and enter with the climbing up and down from the carpark, waste valuable time throwing clothes from the closet? Why not simply open the closet doors and rifle through the clothes without creating more of mess?

26) Why did he disregard Romanelli’s laptop, which was in plain view?

27) Why did Guede check the closet before checking the drawers of the nightstand, where surely more valuable objects like jewelry would be found?

28) Why were none of the other rooms disturbed during the break-in?

29) Assuming Ms. Kercher arrived to the cottage after Guede’s break-in, presumably when Guede was in the bathroom, why did she not notice the break-in, call the police and run out of the cottage?

30) Assuming Guede was in the bathroom when Ms. Kercher returned, why go to the extent of attacking Ms. Kercher in her room rather than try to sneak out the front door, or through the window he had just broken, to avoid if not identification, at least more serious criminal charges?

31) Assuming Ms. Kercher was at the cottage while Guede broke-in, why did she not call the police the moment she heard the rock crash through the glass, loudly thud to the terrazzo floor and investigate what was happening in Romanelli’s room while Guede was climbing back down from the car park and climbing back up to the window?

32) Assuming Ms. Kercher was at the cottage while Guede broke-in, Guede could have been on the sill already because he had tapped the glass with the 9 lb rock to break it. Therefore perhaps Guede was already partially inside Romanelli’s room when he was discovered by Ms. Kercher. In this case Guede follows Ms. Kercher to her room in an attempt to dissuade her from calling the police and the assault ensues. But then, if this scenario is correct, when does Guede have time to rifle through Romanelli’s clothing and effects?

33) Why is there a luminol revealed footprint in Romanelli’s room that has mixed traces of Knox’s and Kercher’s DNA ?

34) Why does this footprint not match Guede’s foot size?

35) If multiple attackers were required to restrain Ms. Kercher, holding her limbs while brandishing two knives and committing sexual violence, then who else was with Guede and why no traces of this 4th (or more) person(s) were found, either in shoeprints, footprints, fingerprints, DNA or otherwise?

36) If Guede and others were involved in the assault, why has Guede not acknolwedged them, and instead consistently hinted that, and finally admitting that Sollecito and Knox were with him during the assault?

37) If Guede and others were involved in the assault, why do the other shoeprints, footprints, DNA traces and fingerprints all point to Knox and Sollecito being present during the assault, in one way or another?

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/21 at 10:23 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (1)

Thursday, January 16, 2020

Meredith’s Perugia #40: Among The 10 Best Under-Rated Italian Destinations

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



Night view from police helicopter

The Local (Italy Edition)

Click above for the full ten, another of which is also in Umbria. This is The Local’s assessment of Perugia.

Maybe it’s a stretch to list a city of 165,000 people as off the beaten path. But this beautiful, hilltop walled city, only 160 km north of Rome, is often overlooked on the Rome-Florence-Venice tourist pilgrimage. It’s in the heart of Umbria, another underrated region.

You enter Perugia via escalator and walkway through a string of long, dark tunnels known as the Rocca Paolina, built as a fortress in the 1540s. They spit you out onto grand Piazza della Repubblica where Corso Vannucci leads you past Palazzo dei Priori, a Gothic palace holding the city’s main art gallery. Continue down the street to San Lorenzo, a medieval cathedral that overlooks the main Piazza IV Novembre.

Sightsee during the day; party at night. Perugia is one of Italy’s main university towns and the city is brimming with happening pubs, bars and cafes. Take little Via delle Streghe off Vannucci and try typical Umbrian cuisine such as cinghiale (wild boar) and tartufi (truffles) at La Taverna, an elegant, moderately priced restaurant with terrific food and atmosphere.

In terms of average IQ Perugia is among the world’s brightest cities, a result of the huge university teaching and research presence relative to the town’s total population - it is also internationally prominent for its soccer and its music, chocolate and arts festivals.

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters on 01/16 at 08:49 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (24)

Thursday, January 09, 2020

Japan’s Justice System Flamed Like Italy’s - But This Time (Sort Of) From The Inside

Posted by Peter Quennell


1. The Flaming Of The Italian System

The flaming of Italy’s justice system in “the Knox case” did not ever happen within Italy.

It happened for the most part trans-Atlantic. And it was not even beamed at Italy: it was beamed at American and British TV audiences and tabloid readers.

And of course it was wildly inaccurate. Italy rates high on public safety, fairness of the court system, and rehabilitation of those in prison. Its murder and incarceration rates are about 1/7th of the US’s.

Meanwhile this three-part series in part explains why there are such vast numbers in prison under the American system, which maybe does merit flaming.

To the extent that either system gravitates, it is the US system that gravitates, toward the more effective Italian system.

2. The Flaming Of The Japanese System

Everybody likes Japan’s cars and electronics, its culture, its scenery, its sushi and teriyaki… In most respects its national brand management really is excellent.

Helpful when Japan is just six months from hosting the Summer Olympics.

But periodically, as now, a spotlight is shone on the seeming over-harshness of its justice system.

Italy and Japan were of course allies in World War Two.

Post-war, Italy revamped its constitution and entire justice system to bend over backward to favor defendants.

But Japan did none of that, and its 99% conviction rate and the methods used to sustain that have been repeatedly criticized.

The sort-of-accused former CEO of Renault and Nissan, Carlos Ghosn, has just been much in the news, for dramatically fleeing Japan in a private jet, and seeking sanctuary in his country of origin, Lebanon, which has no extradition treaty with Japan.

At Japan’s request Interpol has issued a global Red Notice (a measure we posted on when it seemed Knox might flee extradition.)

Ghosn seems to have single-handedly saved Nissan from extinction by semi-merging it with Renault and by heavy cost-cutting rare within Japanese corporations.

His remuneration was always peanuts by American standards.

Ghosn’s main accuser that he feathered his own nest was actually his own successor at Nissan - who was accused of the exact-same thing a few months ago and forced to resign also!

Here below are some of Ghosn’s accusations against Japanese justice; in Tokyo yesterday the Justice Minister promised statements to explain and defend Japanese justice and to show what Ghosn had allegedly been up to.

Yahoo News Website

Japan’s legal system came under the spotlight when Carlos Ghosn launched a vigorous self-defence in his first public appearance since jumping bail and fleeing to Lebanon.

The former Renault-Nissan chief slammed everything from the country’s sky-high conviction rate to the conditions he faced during 130 days of pre-trial detention.

Here are some of his main criticisms, and how Japanese officials respond:

- 99 percent conviction rate -

When it comes to convictions, Japanese prosecutors boast a success rate that their peers around the world might consider enviable.

They win more than 99 percent of the cases they bring to trial, and Ghosn cited this astonishing rate as evidence that he would not get a fair hearing.

“I was facing a system where the conviction rate is 99.4 percent,” he said, claiming that the rate for foreigners was likely even higher.

Japan does not dispute that its prosecutors win almost all of the cases they bring to trial, but says this is simply evidence that they do not start legal action lightly.

Prosecutors “only indict a suspect where there is a high likelihood of a court’s conviction based on sufficient evidence, so as to avoid an innocent person (having) to suffer,” Justice Minister Masako Mori said in response to Ghosn’s criticism.

“It is wrong to argue that a person cannot obtain a fair judgement because of the high conviction rate in Japan.”

- Lengthy pre-trial detention -

Ghosn spent more than four months in detention over two periods after his shock November 2018 arrest, with the first stint lasting a full 108 days before he finally won bail.

He and legal team referred to the extended periods of detention as “hostage justice”, arguing the prosecutors were trying to break his will and force him to confess to financial misconduct charges that he continues to deny.

He said he felt “subject to a system whose only objective is to coerce confessions, secure guilty pleas.”

Japan’s legal system allows for long periods of detention before a trial begins, and critics at home and abroad have argued that prosecutors hold suspects before indicting them as a tool to extract confessions.

Prosecutors fought hard to keep Ghosn behind bars, arguing that he could flee if released because of his extensive financial means and international contacts.

“Ghosn was deemed a high flight risk, which is obvious from the fact that he actually fled and illegally departed the country,” prosecutors said after the tycoon’s Wednesday press conference.

- Detention conditions -

Ghosn slammed the conditions he experienced at the Tokyo Detention House in Kosuge, saying he was interrogated around the clock without his lawyer, held in a cell where the lights never went out and only allowed to shower twice a week.

Japanese prisons are not usually singled out for criticism by international rights groups, with violence rare and individual cells of about 6.5 square metres (70 square feet) or slightly larger.

Officials defend the rules governing interrogations, saying questioning is videotaped and suspects can refuse to answer questions. Those in detention also have the right to meet their lawyers outside of interrogations.

- Strict bail terms -

When Ghosn finally won bail for a second time, his release came with strict conditions: surveillance of his home, access to the internet at his lawyer’s office only, and restrictions on his contact with his wife Carole.

Prosecutors argued that she was party to one of the charges and the couple could tamper with evidence. Ghosn had to get court permission before contacting her via video conference, which he was able to do just twice.

And they said the strict rules were necessary to prevent him from fleeing the country.

Ghosn slammed the conditions as vindicative, saying prosecutors specifically blocked access to Carole to “break” him and that his decision to flee was motivated in large part by the rule.

3. Japan’s Promised Explanations

In fairness, we’ll post again if clarifications beyond those above are forthcoming.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/09 at 10:07 AM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (10)

Thursday, January 02, 2020

Video Analyses Of The Case Against Knox #1: Why We Recommend Those By Liz Houle

Posted by The Machine

Knox volunteers for questioning 6 weeks after arrest - and fails

1. Sorry State Of Crime Reporting

In an ideal world, mainstream media organisations would provide balanced and factually accurate reports when covering high-profile murder cases.

Journalists would rely on the official court documents and courtroom testimonies for their information and have enough common sense to know that the family, friends and supporters of the accused or the convicted are not always reliable and trustworthy sources of information. Journalists would endeavour to inform the public of the facts of the case and not cynically use these tragic murder cases to entertain and titillate the public.

We did indeed see some of this from Rome’s mostly objective international pool, and we have valued that a lot. 

But far too often now mainstream media organizations like the 2000-outlet Associated Press provide biased and one-sided reports that are slanted in favour of the accused. Crucial information that portrays the accused in a negative light is left out of articles, reports, podcasts and documentaries because it undermines the media’s favourite narrative i.e. yet another innocent person has been railroaded by corrupt or incompetent cops and rogue prosecutors.

Most journalists don’t read the official court documents and courtroom testimonies. Instead they rely on the family, friends and supporters of accused or convicted without bothering to do any fact-checking of their claims. They invariably include quotations from the defence lawyers in their articles.  Quotations from the prosecutors are conspicuous by their absence.

A number of articles about high-profile murder cases contain false claims because journalists don’t do the prerequisite due diligence. Media articles and documentaries about the Meredith Kercher case are riddled with factual errors because journalists relied almost exclusively on Amanda Knox’s family, supporters and her PR consultant David Marriott for their information.

The PR fantasy version of events was widely propagated in the media. It was given credibility because it was endorsed by mainstream media organisations in the US such as ABC News which openly and publicly supported Amanda Knox. There are some slight variations, but the basic mantra goes like this:

    - Amanda Knox had never been trouble with the police. In days following Meredith’s murder, she voluntarily stayed behind to help the police in Perugia, but all Meredith’s friends left immediately.

    - She was called to the police station on 5 November 2007 where she was subjected to an all-night interrogation. She wasn’t provided with an interpreter or given anything to eat or drink. She was beaten by the police and asked to imagine what might have happened.

    - During her questioning, Knox made a statement that said she had a “vision” she was at the cottage when Meredith was murdered. She only lied once i.e. her false accusation against Diya Lumumba, but she immediately retracted her allegation.

    - When Amanda Knox was in prison, a police officer tricked her into writing down all the men she had slept by telling her she was HIV positive.

    - There were only two tiny pieces of DNA evidence that implicated her, but they were contaminated or planted by corrupt cops. The knife from Sollecito’s kitchen was chosen at random and it doesn’t match any of the wounds on Meredith’s body. It was the only knife sequestered from Sollecito’s apartment. The DNA on the blade of the knife that was attributed to Meredith could belng to half of Italy. Dr Stefanoni laboratory in Rome isn’t equipped to carry out LCN DNA tests.

    - The bra clasp was kicked around by forensic technicians and it contained the DNA of a number of other men. The DNA on it was only tested once.

    - Prosecutor Mignini, who is obsessed with satanism, claimed Meredith was killed as part of a satanic ritual and he called Amanda Knox a “she-devil” in court. He persecuted Amanda Knox because he didn’t approve of her morals.

    - Rudy Guede was a drifter and drug dealer with a criminal record. He left his DNA all over Meredith and all over the crime scene. Amanda Knox didn’t know him. Guede initially didn’t claim Knox and Sollecito killed Meredith. He only changed his story much later when he offered a deal by the prosecutor.

None of these statements is true. However, this completely false version of events is still being propagated on YouTube by vacuous airheads and simpletons who want to entertain their undiscerning viewers with the melodramatic fairytale of an innocent American gal being railroaded by corrupt cops and a rogue prosecutor in medieval Italy.

The anonymous error-ridden video below has been watched by over 1.7 millions people. It possibly contains the most false claims about the in a single reportr case I’ve ever seen.

Example of terrible video: Who Is Amanda Knox and Is She Innocent?


Such videos aim to promote outrage in their viewers - who tend to be emotional and lack critical thinking skills: angry feminists rant about Amanda Knox being slut-shamed and convicted of murder just because she liked sex; nationalistic Americans rant about Amanda Knox being railroaded just because she’s American; racists rant about Italy being a backwards Third World country.

These videos misinform literally hundreds of thousands of viewers. If the people who create these videos about the case had any concern for Meredith - the real victim - and truth and justice, they would do their very best to get their facts straight. It doesn’t take much effort to find the translations of the official court reports and court transcripts online.

Unfortunately, a lack of academic rigour and critical thinking skills is for now endemic. The iPhone generation would rather watch a YouTube video or a true crime documentary about an innocent person being railroaded on Netflix, than patiently plough through hundreds of pages of official court documents and courtroom transcripts.

Nothing trumps the official court reports and court transcripts. However, there are some YouTube videos about the case that are worth watching. Some educational and informative videos have been posted on the True Crimes YouTube channel.

2. How The Liz Houle Videos Stand Out

New! #AmandaKnox Lies spotting TED talk



This video above has clips of Pamela Meyer - who was described by the Reader’s Digest as “the nation’s best known expert on lying” - explaining how how she knows if someone is lying at a TED Talk. These explanations are followed by clips of Amanda Knox displaying these telltale signs of lying. This fascinating video has been viewed over 398,000 times.


Jordan Peterson describes Psychopaths like Amanda Knox harassing Kerchers



This video above has been viewed over 222,000 times. It has clips of renowned psychologist Jordan Peterson describing the behaviour of psychopaths. These descriptions are followed by clips of Amanda Knox exhibiting the same types of behaviour.

The video should be watched by the many people are labouring under the misapprehension that nice girls from respectable middle-class backgrounds don’t commit horrific and senseless murders, but would rather believe that brutal murders are committed by poor black men. They seem to be completely oblivious to the fact that psychopaths come from all walks of life.

There have been a number of high-profile murder cases where seemingly normal girls have committed horrific and senseless murders with little or no motive e.g. Laurie Ann Swank, Leslie Van Houten and Patricia Krenwinkel, Amy Bishop, Karla Homolka, Juliet Hulme and Pauline Parker, Kelly Ellard, Anna Maria Botticelli and Mariena Sica, Erika de Nardo, Jasmine Richardson, Rachel Shoaf and Shelia Eddy.


Amanda Knox smiles + laughs when asked if she murdered Meredith Kercher



This short video above features a number of media interviews in which Amanda Knox smiles and nods after she has been asked whether she killed Meredith.


IAN HUNTLEY | Faking It: Tears of a Crime



In the video above Ian Huntley also showed similar ‘flashes of pleasure’ and telltale signs of lying when talking about the disappearance of Holly Well and Jessica Chapman. He was convicted of their murders in 2003.


Amanda Knox Voluntary Interroation 17 Dec 2007 Part 2



Finally, please listen to the recording at top of Amanda Knox in the voluntary 17 December 2007 interrogation by Dr Mignini that she volunteered for six weeks after her arrest. Here above is the second part.

Knox’s interview with Dr Mignini is not widely known. It was one of several opportunities she was granted in 2007 and 2008 to try to free herself. She failed them all.

The videos offer a fascinating insight into Amanda Knox’s real character before she received media training and acted like one of the girls from Little House on the Prairie - she’s evasive, deceptive and testy.

In Part 2, Dr Mignini wants to know how Knox knew specific details about Meredith’s murder. Her discomfort as she tries to lie her way out of trouble is palpable. One of the reasons why the Italian Supreme Court ascertained it’s a proven fact Amanda Knox was at the cottage was she knew specific details about Meredith’s murder.

Amanda Knox’s duplicity and evasiveness are self-evident. She claims a police officer told her Meredith’s throat had been cut, but she conveniently can’t remember whether it was a man or woman and she is deliberately vague about when it happened.

Dr Mignini has to repeatedly press Knox in order to get a straight answer from her. She then changes her story completely, and claims her interpreter told her. She also claims she was interrogated for 14 hours on 2 November 2007.

Mignini tells her this isn’t true - and so she immediately changes this to 6 hours!

Brave work by Liz Houle. We greatly admire her fortitude. These videos are of considerable help and it’s a pity there are not too many by others like them.

Posted by The Machine on 01/02 at 11:00 AM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (33)

Friday, December 27, 2019

Commemorating Meredith: Not Only Qualities Lost, Forty Years Of Achievements Too

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters

All YouTube versions exceed 25m views; the most-watched operatic duet

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters on 12/27 at 12:01 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (11)

Friday, December 20, 2019

Crack Italian Law Enforcement Gain Ground On New Kind Of Mafia

Posted by Peter Quennell


1. The Context

One could argue that Italy is both blessed and cursed by its geographical location.

Blessed, because it has a wonderful and extraordinarily long coastline, which allowed for the Roman Empire, allows for many amazing towns and villages, allows for a lot of fresh seafood, and allows for a lot of tourism from the Vitamin-D-deprived countries to the north of it. 

Cursed, because the south of Italy, which a couple of thousand years ago sat right on main trade routes and became enormously rich, fell into deep poverty as both the trade routes and the climate changed. Hence the origin of the mafias.

And cursed again, because it is so close to the desperate populations of north Africa, which makes Italy by the far the main point of entry for migrants to Europe trying to escape tribal frictions and their own descent into deep poverty.

2. The Development

In the past 20 years Italy has had major anti-mafia successes. The Sicilian Cosa Nostra is largely history, and the Calabrian Ndrangheta and Neapolitan Comorrah have been leaned on to the extent that their only expansions have been away from Italy.

And so crime-rates remain lower in Italy than in many European countries, and much lower than in the United States.

The video and this article depict the first big sweep against the recently-arrived Nigerian mafia.

This is typically Italy’s way against organized crime. Seem to be paying no attention (this was the mode in Perugia against the Ndrangheta). But then all of a sudden - pow - busloads of perps are on their way to courts and prison. 

Stay tuned. Such first mass arrests usually lead to other mass arrests. Although not here yet, for sure there will be a tipping point.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/20 at 11:37 AM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (13)

Wednesday, December 11, 2019

Knox Appears Once Again On The Stupidly Duped ABC Breakfast Show

Posted by Peter Quennell



Above: a much-watched Italian interpretation of Knox’s previous appearance.

Pretty funny, even if you know zero Italian. Nobody at all thinks highly of Knox there - well, maybe except Sollecito, briefly, when he got a big payoff to quieten him after this event.

As too often, follow the money. This new appearance is yet another emanation of what is for now the world’s largest blood-money machine, with both Knox and ABC gaining financially.

And the real Italy and the real truth be damned, of course. A real pity considering that back in the 2009 trial days Ann Wise’s reporting on the ABC website from Italy was among the most valuable.

But it’s a window closing fast these days. The year 2020 will be the year when truth dominates, with new books and our own major exposures.

We are also considering at least one conference, the first probably to be in Italian, with key attendees from Italy.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/11 at 10:33 AM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (34)

Monday, December 02, 2019

Here’s How We Might Actually Help The Hard-Pressed Media - And Development Generally

Posted by Peter Quennell

One of the largest newspaper printing presses; to what purpose?

1. The News-You-Can-Use Concept

We’re almost fully loaded for our widespread exposure of this huge legal hoax.

And there’s a possible constructive alternative to merely rubbing the media’s noses in it, though that, frankly, is pretty enticing as so many messed up so much.

A couple of decades ago, some smart TV and movie producers noticed that having some “news you can use” built into every airing would attract noticeably more eyeballs. As an example, we should be able to learn something interesting or useful from every CSI episode.

2. Nature Of The Problem

American news media right now fall short terribly in this news-you-can-use dimension. Their “breaking news” almost always tends to be bad news, depressing and disempowering, and all too soon a turn-off.

The overall effect of “breaking news” is to jack up nation-wide paranoia and helplessness. Hence the heated confrontations almost everywhere, which can get luridly misreported like the “Knox case”, and we all move on to our next “breaking news” fix.

Plus the superhero-as-savior angle is vastly over-played these days, both in the media and in entertainment. No top-down president, top-down manager, or rogue soldier or cop, is of much relevance to present problems, which need harmonious skilled diverse teams to resolve them. 

So viewership and readership and revenues dwindle, and we encounter all these desperate struggling media websites. And very few of our myriad problems actually get fixed or stay fixed.

3. Nature Of The Solution

TJMK has long tried to include some news you can use if you want to in the inter-country comparisons of policing, legal and penal systems, as in the previous post just below this.

For the most part Italian policing, legal and penal systems are something other countries could really learn from, rather than reject as the Knox campaign incites people to do.

And here is the much wider value of this angle, if it has any.

Virtually no Americans or Europeans have ever been a part of a development project or process (unlike residents of developing countries, who have often experienced several) and could really use those tools they don’t yet know about to get ahead.

In development terms, American news - and European news, especially on Brexit - is almost entirely useless, and worse, it comes with a high cost, because it is so distracting and prone to over-heating hard-pressed segments of the population.

Japan’s remarkable development exploded from the 1960s. It was mirrored in due course by Singapore, South Korea and Taiwan, and then by China, India, and Indonesia. That is more than 50 percent of the world’s population - all growing faster in real terms than Europe or the US are now.

And how did they do this? By first Japan and then all the others “borrowing” and using American systems (with the help of some Americans who moved to Japan) and then taking them further, often much further.

At Toyota, for example, a production system can be tweaked 2,000 times - and then junked and replaced by a new generation system.

Meanwhile, way too many Americans - and Europeans - are barely conscious of systems like those that define their lives and careers… well, except maybe for those on their Apple phone.

For this reason primarily it is actually much slower and harder and more unusual to get development processes (AKA system invention and upgrade processes) moving in the US or in the EC countries than it is in India or Africa!

4. The Main-Media Opportunity

There’s such an enormous “news you can use” opportunity here for the main media.

The NY Times has maybe 100 stories a day where, if one is on this wavelength, one can spot the system angles - a system or some systems broken, waiting for some sharp team to leap in there and fix them. Even in the arts and the sports pages.

The Boeing 737 MAX story is exactly this type of story - Boeing aircraft systems and production and quality control systems were badly developed or broken, Federal government watchdog systems were politically pushed away to arms length - and so nearly 400 people died.

But one has to work really hard from say the NY Times reporting to figure out all the system shortfalls and how to make up for them so all future aircraft are a lot more safe.

The NY Times and BBC and so on could so easily build into many or most of their stories this additional system enhancement angle.  Start to tell us ALL of the news. News-we-can-use is value-adding and empowering and integrating.

And development lessons can really be hammered home by engaging in international systems comparisons. Comparing US and UK versus Italian justice systems is just one place to start.

A lot better than this instance where the premier justice school in the US extensively lied about Italy’s justice - and duped an audience from around the world.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/02 at 12:28 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (11)

Friday, November 29, 2019

Knox’s Toxic Campaign: How Safe Are Women Really In Italy?

Posted by Peter Quennell

Carabinieri: best safety force in the world? NYC models on them.

1. Italy’s Crime Rate Generally

We have posted Italy/US crime comparisons before.

American rates of all crimes are typically in the range of five to seven times Italy’s rates. In effect, those resident in Italy are 5 to 7 times less likely to be swindled, burgled, robbed, or murdered than those resident in the United States.

A large, flamboyant, and much-liked police presence (video above) helps to explain that, though most Italians naturally are easy-going and caring, rather than a threat. And the justice/penal system is the world’s best at steering offenders away from a life of crime.

Italy’s low rates continue to decline, even with an uptick in immigrant crime, and Italy’s current prison population is around 60,000 compared to over 6 million in the United States - about 1/25 the US rate.

2. Knox’s Highly Toxic Campaign

One of Knox’s numerous toxic effects is to spread this great lie: that the Italian situation is exactly the opposite of what it really is.

In other words, that American tourists and exchange students are typically a lot safer if they decide to go elsewhere, or stay at home. 

We have all seen the thousands of claims on American website threads to the effect that “I will never visit in Italy” or “I will never study in Italy” or “I had this monstrous experience….” with of course zero proof of that.

Heavily prompted by Knox, such claims still continue to appear.

But note how in reality Knox was and remains a walking time-bomb, and in fact none of what she claims about herself and Italy is true.

She never reveals that she was not herself an exchange student unlike 99% of student-age Americans abroad.

So she was ineligible for any degree course credits. And very significantly, she was not eligible for any financial or legal help. And she was totally unsupervised. Knox also never reveals her voracious drug habit or her shortage of money or her zero real study demands.

This walking time-bomb is the real Knox her grossly irresponsible parents approved to go to Italy.

Oh, and Knox never reveals this, either: she caused every university in America with genuine exchange students abroad to barricade itself against possible future time-bombs like Knox.

Nevertheless the dip in American tourists and exchange students, women especially, continued throughout the 2007 to 2015 period. That was confirmed in several surveys of American students making up their minds where to have their year abroad.

Amanda Knox has worked assiduously ever since to ensure that tourists and genuine exchange students keep away.

3. Crimes Against Women: Hard Facts

Rape is well understood to be under-reported everywhere, and reliable statistics take years to firm up.

This table of the rates of rapes around the world does use data a few years old, though that makes it more accurate than the tables done more recently.

Italy’s rate of rape shows up as 7.6 rapes per 100,000 annually.

That is somewhat lower than that of the Netherlands, Germany, Ireland and Austria; less than half that of France, Finland, and Norway.

Italy’s is only about one-quarter that of the United States, at 27.3 per 100,000 reported.

So if American women spend serious time in Italy, they will actually be four times as safe. 

4. Bottom Line From The Above?

The toxic message Knox is conveying to millions of American women is the polar opposite of the hard truth.

She is being harmful to Italy, and rendering American women on average somewhat more unsafe.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/29 at 09:04 AM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (2)

Thursday, November 21, 2019

Why For Wrongful Imprisonment DID KNOX NOT SUE ITALY?

Posted by Peter Quennell



This finally hit a big wall…

1. The Dog That Didn’t Bark

Knox made no effort at all to pursue a lawsuit for wrongful imprisonment against the Republic of Italy.

Precisely why?

That kind of suit does happen in Italy, although wrongful imprisonment is extremely rare, and there’s no pack of lawyers making this their main game.

1. The typical global context

That is in sharp contrast for example to the United States, where such suits go on all the time.

The Innocence Project is essentially a group of lawyers that does make out gangbusters in this line of work (plus a lot of well-meaning saps swindled into making donations to provide income before the giant payoffs arrive).

Although the number of prisoners the Innocence Project released is very small - just several hundred over many years - their cuts in the payoffs granted by the courts against, well, we the taxpayers, has added up to some billions over those years.

2. Why the Knox team blinked

The Knox team’s main self-recognized problems causing their restraint in suing the Republic of Italy would seem to be these.

    (1) Knox was RIGHTLY imprisoned for three years for framing Patrick and leaving him locked up. All courts ruled against her on that and there’s no further appeal route.

    (2) Courts up to the Supreme Court in 2008 decided she (and Sollecito) could be a risk to others, and maybe a risk of flight. And so the courts ruled that she must remain locked up to the end of trial. No bail or house arrest.

    (3) Sollecito very publicly and humiliatingly failed in his own wrongful imprisonment suit which was taken up to the level of the Supreme Court, for proven lying right before and after arrest.

    (4) Sollecito still had to pay the fees of his very powerful legal team (who quite blatantly had been a party to bending other courts). Notorious deadbeat Knox may well have not been trusted by her lawyers to pay their fees.

Knox’s and Sollecito’s lies of commission and omission in the short period before and after their arrest on 6 Nov 2007 created a ton of extra work for the cops and prosecutors.

And Knox’s lies also resulted in Patrick being wrongly locked up.

2. And The Bottom Line Is?

Knox’s lies of omission - telling facts she deflects from because they would land her in the soup - number up in the many hundreds now.  This one is easily graspable even by interviewers so shockingly ill-informed on the details as Gladwell and Doctor Phil. 

Pontificators and interviewers (and Innocence Project lawyers) if they REALIZE that Knox pursued no claim at all, and just why, should certainly be a lot less chummy with her going forward.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/21 at 09:07 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (32)

Wednesday, November 13, 2019

Why For Prosecutors & Evidence Experts & Courts BATHROOM EVIDENCE Was Smoking Gun #1

Posted by KrissyG


Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments.


1. The Body Of Evidence Context

In 2009 at trial the formidable Scientific Police (a major ally of the FBI) outgunned the defenses day-by-day.

Blowing of smoke was attempted with the DNA, but a huge problem for the defenses was that THEIR observers had witnessed all DNA processing and not once had registered a complaint.

Unfortunately in 2011 two notorious problems in Italian justice reared their heads at the first level of automatic appeal.

    First, there was a new jury sitting there, often with a skeptical frame of mind, itching to do more than rubber-stamp. 

    Second, trial prosecutors and experts typically don’t get to show up, so the jurors have weeks of reading to grasp a complex case.

In this appeal the patently wrongly qualified judges Hellman and Zanetti were actually appointed by the Umbria chief judge to tilt the playing field, made easier by those two factors.

Pretty blatantly they tried to re-run an illegal new trial, but with illegal DNA consultants, and with the prosecution component left out. Then Knox and Sollecito were prematurely released.

In early 2013 Judge Chieffi of the First Chambers of the Supreme Court scathingly annulled their outcome. At his instruction, late in 2013, in Florence, that same first appeal by RS and AK was re-run.

The Nencini appeal was not a second trial, as so widely misrepresented in the US. It was a repeat first appeal, properly run, on minimalist lines very similar to common-law appeals, under strict instructions from the Supreme Court.

So in Florence, what did we get to see? On this occasion over more than a day we got to see Florence prosecutor Crini remorselesly explain the 2009 trial prosecution’s case.

I do recommend reading these two posts, because they show just what the mountain of evidence, superbly packaged and presented, looked like, before the bent Fifth Chambers of the Supreme Court in 2015 mischaracterized pretty well every point.

Click for Post:  Today Lead Prosecutor Alessandro Crini Summarises The Prosecution’s Case

Click for Post:  Prosecutor Alessandro Crini Concludes, Proposes 30 Years For AK And 26 For RS

Knox knew what was coming, and was too terrified even to be there. And this is what a terrified Sollecito did next.




2. And So To The Bathroom, Please

Among the toughest evidence the Perugia trial jury and Florence appeal jury got to hear was the forensic evidence in the BATHROOM portion of the crime scene - as correctly understood to be the entire top floor of the house, and not merely Meredith’s bedroom alone. 

One thing we do know about the night of the murder is that there was a great deal of cleaning up.  Amanda Knox writes in her police statement of 6 Nov 2007, the night of her arrest:

‘One thing I do remember is that I took a shower with Raffaele, and this may explain how we passed the time. In truth, I don’t remember exactly what day this was, but I do remember we showered and cleaned ourselves for a long time. He took care to clean my ears and dry and brush my hair.’


She claims she cannot remember when this happened, but for some reason decided to include it in her statement to the police. On the morning of 2 Nov, the day the body of Meredith Kercher was found she also explained, 

‘The next thing I remember was waking up the morning of Friday, November 2nd around 10am and I took a plastic bag to bring back dirty clothes to go back to my house.’

A second reason Knox gives for returning to the cottage that morning was:

‘After we ate Raffaele washed the dishes but the pipes under his sink broke and water flooded the floor. But because he didn’t have a mop I said we could clean it up tomorrow because we (Meredith, Laura, Filomena and I) have a mop at home’. [For more about this, see my article The Curious Incident of the Pipes in the Night-Time]


Having decided to bring back some dirty clothes and fetch a mop from the cottage, she also decides to take a shower.  Filomena testified that when she arrived home she found the washing machine had clothes inside at the end of a cycle which were still ‘omido’ (=damp or humid)

Likewise, in Knox’ email to her friends at home written in the early hours of Sunday 4 November, two days after the body was found, more talk of cleaning up:

‘ It was the day after halloween, thursday. I got home and she was still asleep, but after i had taken a shower and was fumbling around the kitchen she emerged from her room with the blood of her costume (vampire) still dripping down her chin.’
[snip]
‘after a little while of playing guitar me and raffael went to his house to watch movies and after to eat dinner and generally spend the evening and night indoors. we didnt go out. the next morning i woke up around 1030 and after grabbing my few things i left raffael’s appartment and walked the five minute walk back to my house to once again take a shower and grab a chane of clothes. i also needed to grab a mop because after dinner raffael had spilled a lot of water on the floor of his kitchen by accident and didnt have a mop to clean it up.’

Imagine. All of this, before the body was even discovered.


‘i undressed in my room and took a quick shower in one of the two bathrooms in my house, the one that is right next to meredith and my bedrooms (situated right next to one another). it was after i stepped out of the shower and onto the mat that i noticed the blood in the bathroom. it was on the mat i was using to dry my feet and there were drops of blood in the sink. at first i thought the blood might have come from my ears which i had pierced extrensively not too long ago, but then immediately i know it wasnt mine becaus the stains on the mat were too big for just droplets form my ear, and when i touched the blood in the sink it was caked on already. there was also blood smeered on the faucet. again, however, i thought it was strange, because my roommates and i are very clean and we wouldnt leave blood int he bathroom, but i assumed that perhaps meredith was having menstral issues and hadnt cleaned up yet. ew, but nothing to worry about. i left the bathroom and got dressed in my room. after i got dressed i went to the other bathroom in my house, the one that filomena dn laura use, and used their hairdryer to obviously dry my hair and it was after i was putting back the dryer that i noticed the shit that was left in the toilet, something that definately no one in out house would do. i started feeling a little uncomfortable and so i grabbed the mop from out closet and lef the house, closing and locking the door that no one had come back through while i was in the shower, and i returned to raffael’s place. after we had used the mop to clean up the kitchen i told raffael about what i had seen in the house over breakfast. the strange blood in the bathroom, the door wide open, the shit left in the toilet.’

So, blood on the bath mat, on the tap, in the sink, excrement in the toilet - and yet no attempt to flush it nor to wipe the sink clean.


In Darkness Descending by Russell, Johnson and Garofano, which is written in a largely novelish style, there are flashes of good quality expertise from scientists the authors interviewed. In particular Garofano (who created the Carabinieri forensic labs used by Nencini) and Stefanoni (head of a section in the Scientific Police labs).

Each of the pair had a great deal of experience in criminal forensics.

Forensic team leader Stefanoni’s explanation of the blood drops in the bathroom is especially elegant and noteworthy.  It is worth bearing in mind that Mignini is quoted as saying the blood stain on the light switch was the strongest evidence of Knox’ involvement for him.

Forensics officer Gioia Brocci found an ‘unusually long streak of blood’ which extended from the rim of the wash basin all the way in a line towards the plughole, and another which followed the same pattern in the bidet.

Stefanoni explains this as her theory to the authors:

‘This is the knife moving around,’ she said extending her right arm away from her hips in an arc motion, as though she was throwing a Frisbee.  ‘These blood drips were left by the knife.  Too many droplets and look, the blood in the basin and bidet is paler, so it’s the knife that has been washed at that particular point’.

Pointing to other drops, she continues, ‘The drops on the box of cotton buds and the basin are dark.  This is blood before being washed.’


At the trial the court was impressed with Stefanoni’s expert testimony.  Trial judge Massei ruled the following to be an established fact quoting Stefanoni:

‘Traces that appeared to be of a blood nature were also present on the box of cotton buds, on top of the toilet seat, on the light switch and in the bidet, ‚and there was always the drop upwards, really on the edge and the same continuity up to the bidet siphon, of the common colour and in the same line‛ (pages 134 and 135).

Traces were present also over the bathroom door, not watered down but a vivid red colour.

The evidence collecting in the small bathroom she did with a ‘carta bibula’, which is an absorbent paper [disc] and to a question put to her by the defence of Amanda Knox’, she stated the following: “when we say finding a drop upstream and a drop downstream ... on the inside for example of the sink ... a drop on the edge of the sink and for continuity there was a drop that ended up towards the sink siphon and had a continuity, is not that one was to the right, one to the left, one here and one over there; it had its own continuity, I had deemed it proper to use the same disc of absorbent paper, as they were equal in colour, pink‛.


In 2015 the Fifth Chambers’ Judge Marasca refers to this as ‘diluted blood’.

Such material singled out was pink, of “washed blood ... in the sense it did not have the characteristic red colour of blood.

The same colour other than in the bathroom sink was noted inside the bidet (p. 152).

She specified further that it was not a strip, but “more little specks… with the same continuity‛ (page 153): they were “drippings” that gave this continuity‛ and the colouring was the same, always pink.

She did not believe then it might be different traces because of the continuity between the different drops. This is important, because pro-Knox defenders like to argue, ‘So what?  Knox lived there, of course her DNA is mixed with Meredith’s.

Indeed, the reader might be telling themself ‘So the perpetrator rinsed the knife. It doesn’t prove it was Knox’.

However, the critical point is that, although the DNA mixed samples are separate, Stefanoni was able to prove conclusively to the satisfaction of the court that the DNA was deposited at the same time, together.


From Judge Massei:

In the small bathroom, three traces of the victim’s blood were found on the bathmat; on the light switch plate with two switches there were traces “of diluted blood, blood presumably mixed with water, as it was pale pink in colour’ (page 76) which also came from the victim.

A sample was taken from the front part of the faucet of the sink, which yielded the genetic profile of Amanda Knox; another sample taken from a specimen visible to the naked eye on the edge of the drain of the bidet yielded the genetic profiles of the victim and of Knox, a genetic mixture also found on the box of cotton buds near the sink.

The drippings found inside the sink appeared to be diluted blood, pink in colour, proven by testing to be human blood and yielding the genetic mixture of the victim and Knox.

On the toilet cover there was a bloody substance which yielded the genetic profile of the victim; this was also found on the door-frame. Near the toilet flush was another stain presumed to be blood, but which ended up yielding a negative result.

And:

‘Moving on to the findings taken from the small bathroom, it was pointed out that there was a substance most likely of a blood-derived nature on the ‚edge of the bidet drain‛; the sample was taken during the inspection in order to extract the specimen that yielded a genetic result of a mixed profile: victim plus Knox. It was positive for human blood.


The same procedure was done on the container of cotton swabs that was on the sink. The collected sample revealed a mixed genetic profile; victim plus Knox and it tested positive for human blood.

On the left part of the sink, there was a trace. This too was most likely of a blood-derived nature since it was of a pinkish colour, like the others.

This particular trace originated from the high part and went towards the drain, towards the lower part. The analysis provided the following results: human blood and the genetic profile of the victim plus that of Amanda Knox.

The samples taken from the toilet lid in the small bathroom provided as a genetic result: victim profile and human blood.

The trace present on the right side of the inside part of the bathroom door frame was positive for human blood and it revealed the genetic profile of the victim.


So, we now see, the (dead) victim’s blood is all over the small bathroom and the diluted blood indicates the purpose was to clean whatever item caused the continuous drips across the basin and the bidet.

So, how did Stefanoni establish that the DNA of Knox was left there at the same time as the victim’s diluted blood?  From Judge Massei:

In response to specific questions regarding these traces, she stated that if they had originated from two different people and in an independent and distinct way, one from the other, what would have formed would have been a mixture of the trace: two DNA that would be separated at the start but that would have joined to form a single trace.

She believed it improbable however, to think of such an origin for the trace, which was proven mixed, and this because of the fact that the same area was affected and because of the much diluted blood appearance.

She stressed, as well, that both of the two specimens recovered in the bidet were more abundant on the rim and on the plug on the drain, compared to the part, which is let’s say, slanted, where there is a very narrow line of the substance. However, she stressed, to the naked eye, this link was evident” (page 157).

In effect, the mixed samples came from similarly diluted ‘rivulets’ of pink liquid (water + blood).  = Deposited the same time at the same event.


3. Some Conclusions From The Above

It is a certain and inescapable fact that Knox and Meredith’s DNA were mixed together at the same time.  Secondly, not only deposited at the same time but shows a mixture of a highly visible substance.

This is rather chilling, when you realise the substance is blood and the blood is of the newly murdered victim, rinsed with water.  It also shows, it could not possibly have been mixed ‘because Knox lived there’.  Knox’ sole coagulated blood on the tap, Stefanoni did say she could not date.

It does raise the question of why Knox and Sollecito told the police about the drops of blood in the sink without cleaning it up.  Most likely, they knew it was Meredith’s and reasoned that it didn’t matter if Knox’ possible DNA was also there, as ‘she lived there’.

Gladwell’s assertion that ‘there was no forensic evidence’ is shown to be both utterly false and ignorant.  For me, as for Stefanoni and Mignini Smoking Gun #1 is the dripping blood in the bathroom.

And indeed, the final Supreme Court ruling decrees that ‘Knox did wash her hands of the victim’s blood.’

Posted by KrissyG on 11/13 at 11:00 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (22)

Thursday, November 07, 2019

Serial Fraud Knox Finds Yet ANOTHER Audience To Lie To For Cash

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



Svetlana Legetic - perpetrator or victim of a new scam?

Headsup #2 to paying Crime Festival attendees: So Knox and Legetic DID scam you as we warned. Knox hid that she’s a convicted felon for life and RIGHTLY served 3 years for her unforced murder accusation (in the US she could have faced life) and Knox lied that she was a victim of sexist men. She confirmed at trial she was always treated well; see also this.

1. Knox’s Seven-Year History Of Frauds

Are lawsuits for misrepresentations in the works?

Many seem to have wisened up and the pace of Knox’s bloodmoney scams has significantly slowed lately. With some help from ourselves, Scams Six and Seven summarized below finally resulted in real media outrage.

And yet nevertheless, surprisingly, Knox on this Sunday (see Part 2) will perpetrate yet another callous anti-victim anti-Italy anti-justice bloodmoney fraud.

Knox began scamming for bloodmoney and trashing Italy and numerous Italians and justice generally back in 2012, as described in these summaries below.

(1) Scam Wave One

We saw Knox’s own scams, following upon numerous scams by her family and PR, kick off in 2012 with the serious misleading of her publisher and the first of numerous media wails.

Click for Post:  Were Prospective Knox Publishers Given The Full Score On The Likely Legal Future Of This Case?

(2) Scam Wave Two

The bloodmoney scams continued with her book in 2013, when we witnessed the defrauding, claimedly for millions, of numerous paying readers and her publisher.

The Knox book includes multiple demonizations of fine Italians, and false claims about her case on every page.

Click for Post:  Knox Book Put On Hold In UK As Legal Implications Of Blood Money Finally Sink In

Click for Post:  Amanda Knox Book: Good Reporters Start To Surface False Claims In Droves

Click for Post:  500-Plus Lies In Knox’s Highly Defamatory Book

(3) Scam Wave Three

Next we observed the US’s Innocence Project paying Knox as a keynoter to lie annually about Italian justice and her “innocence” to the past five or six of their main events.

Click for Post:  Innocence Project: Seven Years Clutching Knox And Trashing Italian Justice To Joy Of Mafias #1

That series about the Innocence Project, itself a huge scam for financial windfalls by its lawyers, continues for another five posts.

(4) Scam Wave Four

Next we exposed over a dozen trusting, misled and defrauded groups. Please do read Part 2 (Knox’s pitch) of this post and Part 3 (how that pitch misleads).

Click for Post:  “Americans Are Paying Knox $10,000 A Gig To Trash Italian Cops - Smart Move Liberating Her”

That widely highlighted post seems to have helped to slow Knox’s American gigs. But still…

(5) Scam Wave Five

We saw Knox lying - and singing - on national TV to a non-alerted, unsuspecting Ireland.

Click for Post:  Amanda Knox sings pro-IRA song in bizarre Irish TV chatshow appearance

(6) Scam Wave Six

Then we saw Knox actually lying to an outraged Italy (and outraged Sollecito), albeit before an audience mostly too young to know the real facts of the case.

Click for Post:  The Hard Truths About Knox Lupária, Sola, Cagossi, Etc Should Have Known Before Betraying Italy

Click for Post:  The World Isnt Short Of Suckers - Lupária, Sola & Cagossi Present “The Traveling Innocence Gang Show”

Click for Post:  How Knox Lied About “The Media” Which Long Lied Profusely For Her

(7) Scam Wave Seven

And most recently we saw Knox attempting a widely-decried swindle of her “wedding guests” for large cash payments.

Click for Post:  Knox’s Fake Wedding Exposed, Yet Another Fraudulent Scam For Yet More Bloodmoney

2. Knox’s Latest Scam

That is to take place this Sunday in Washington DC. To a paying audience of nearly 1500 Knox will tell the “truth” about true crime - surely a first for her.

The hosting bloodmoney group (which could itself be sued for fraud) is Svetlana Legetic’s callously anti-victim “Bright Young Things”.

Do read here (scroll down) the details of Knox’s part in this bizarre anti-victim pro-bloodmoney charade.

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters on 11/07 at 10:15 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (14)

Friday, November 01, 2019

RIP Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher 28 December 1985 - 1 November 2007

Posted by KrissyG





My tribute first posted here in 2015…

It was a gloriously sunny early summer’s day. I stepped out of the tube onto Tooting Broadway, with throngs of shoppers overflowing the pavements and schoolchildren milling around the bus stops in groups.

Now here at last, in Croydon Cemetery, fifteen bus stops later, I found Meredith’s grave, startling in its unexpectedness, after walking for quite a while, hopeless at following directions, having originally gone to the wrong graveyard altogether, the day before.

My heart pounded as her name suddenly leapt out at me.

The burial site is beautifully maintained, with miniature pink and red rose bushes and set in the peaceful landscaped grounds, with evergreens and lawns.

I stood for a while overcome with emotion, quite alone, with nobody in sight all around.  I said a few prayers, including one pleading that Meredith’s murderers be brought to justice.  I quietly sang Psalm 23 and pondered how this beautiful, funny, bright young student had lived a life that was all too short.

A feeling of pain - for her mother Arline and father John, and Stephanie, Lyle and John and for all her family and friends - contracted like a taut elastic band across my chest.

I recalled how at her funeral service at St John the Baptist Church many of the mourners, including sister Stephanie and friends from Leeds Uni had carried a single white rose each.

Stephanie read out a poem she wrote, ” Don’t Say Goodbye”.  Her old school friends sang as a choir the requiem,  In Paradisum.  Two hymns sung at the service, on 14th December 2007, were “˜Abide with me” and “For the Beauty of the Earth”.

Meredith’s favourite record “With or without you” by U2 was played.

As I sat on a creaky bench nearby under the shade of a gnarled old tree, I scribbled down the following lines:

    I came to pay my respects
    To Meredith Kercher so dear
    To all who knew her.
    Go gently into that night
    Enforced on you by the evil,
    Those who walk in the darkness,
    And you were in their path.
    Your light shines
    And the dark has not overcome it.

I write this article to reflect that this is about Meredith Kercher and her family and friends, and to reclaim the memory of her purity from the soiled agenda of the ex-defendants and the cruel IIP and FOA stalkers.

Stephanie Kercher had said, in response to Knox’s demand, on the launch of her “memoir”, that she be taken to visit Meredith’s grave, that Stephanie and her family just want a safe place for Meredith to rest in peace.

I cast my mind back to the news reports that broke in November 2013 that Raffaele Sollecito had nevertheless paid a “secret visit” to the spot.  He had been in London in March 2013.  He had the grace not to include pictures of the grave on his “London” Facebook page that he may have taken.

Newspaper reports reveal he was taken there by an “English friend” and left no flowers.  The “friend” who was quick to betray Sollecito’s “secret” is speculated to be one Nigel Scott, ex-Lib Dem Councillor in Haringey, and a purported member of the Injustice in Perugia advisory board, the rather grand name of a lobby of aggressive pro-Knox advocates.

Scott put up a picture of the grave in a tweet ““ hastily taken down ““ as the news broke.  He disparagingly refers to the grave as being in “poor condition”, with a temporary headstone marker. 

His co-campaigner, Karen Pruett, maintains a Find A Grave webpage for Meredith and was forced by demand from enraged supporters of Meredith Kercher’s family to take down the picture of Meredith’s grave, most probably taken from the Daily Mail.

Notorious FOA poster Lyn Duncan - who tweets under the name of @Annella - and others, left “tributes” after the acquittal, despite one of their party, Doug Bremner Jr, having referred to the Kerchers as “Nazis” and another mocking Meredith’s grave lacking a headstone as late as 2011, when Knox was first acquitted by Hellmann, as shown in the Daily Mail.

Time has shown how Scott’s, Pruett’s and other Knox chums’ characters speak for themselves.

Meredith’s final resting place is beautiful, in a quietly understated way.  The grave adjacent is of a Liverpool supporter aged 22,  who died around about the same time as Mez, who was 21.  It is very poignant to see.

Meredith’s headstone is fashioned out of marble and reads, ” We will always love you MEREDITH SUSANNA CARA KERCHER 28th Dec. 1985 ““ 1st Nov. 2007 Forever in our thoughts, always in our hearts.”

The temporary marker, so much derided by Knox’ supporters, remains at the foot.  I left some Sweet Williams in a flower container and slowly walked away, moved and changed by the visit.

Posted by KrissyG on 11/01 at 01:00 AM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (14)

Tuesday, October 29, 2019

The Best Alternative-Sources Series: Roberta Glass’s True Crime Reports

Posted by The Machine


1. Pro-Justice V Anti-Justice Media Trends

Increasingly common these days is for pro-truth, pro-victim and pro-justice sources to stake out the high ground.

Malcolm Gladwell, subject here of an ongoing series, really is a throwback, part of a trend that is losing traction and that may already have peaked.

Taking the side of the dwindling band of fabricators, inciters, stalkers, defamers, blood-money-grubbers, media-bashers, and foreigner-bashers, and the most unsavory crime elements seeking to undermine justice, now takes major chutzpah and unawareness.

Just before Gladwell’s rant against Italian justice surfaced, we had launched a new series to highlight the large number of objective sources on Meredith’s case and many others where justice is in question.

Documentaries, films and podcasts about people who have been convicted of murders they allegedly didn’t commit have been hugely popular.

TV documentaries such as American Girl, Italian Nightmare, Paradise Lost, West of Memphis, Making a Murderer and The Case Against Adnan Syed have all been watched by millions of people.

The Serial podcast about the Adnan Syed/Hae Min Lee case has been downloaded over 175 million times

When They See Us - the Netflix drama about the Central Park Five case - has been watched by 23 million Netflix accounts worldwide.

TV producers, filmmakers and podcast-makers know full well that a tale about a supposedly innocent person being railroaded by corrupt or incompetent cops and rogue prosecutors is a far more exciting and melodramatic story than cases where the juries convicted the right people.

They are not always concerned about truth and justice - they want a product that is a moneyspinner and will guarantee them an audience of millions, bucketloads of publicity, newspaper headlines and media interviews. Pesky facts that undermine their narrative that an innocent person was railroaded invariably get ignored.

They literally create fairytales where prosecutors and police officers are presented as evil villains intent on imprisoning innocent victims who are as pure and innocent as Snow White. Unfortunately, Joe Public and the likes of Kim Kardashian are stupid and they unquestiongly believe everything they see and read in the media without bothering to do any fact-checking.

Over 300 online reviewers gave the Netflix hoax Amanda Knox high marks. Gladwell quoted it. Celebrity Kim Kardashian watched the faux documentary on Netflix and said she thinks Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent on Twitter.

“Just finished the Amanda Knox doc. I don’t think they did it. I really want a Natalie Halloway doc & they need to solve that crime. So sad!”

She recently tweeted her support for Netflix darling Brendan Dassey - who along with Steven Avery was convicted of raping and murdering Teresa Halbach.

Whenever a new true crime documentary or drama about alleged miscarriage of justice lands on Netflix, I immediately wonder what inconvenient facts have been brushed under the carpet and what lies and disinformation have been presented as fact.

I know I definitely can’t rely on The Guardian for reliable information because it has a long history of supporting people who have been convicted of murder or casting doubt on their convictions e.g. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, the West Memphis Three, Adnan Syed, Jeremy Bamber, James Hanratty and Simon Hall.

2. Roberta Glass’s True Crime Reports

Roberta has the right approach to ascertaining the truth with regard to high-profile cases i.e. she relies on the official court documents - not on misinformation and propaganda.  Her explanation of where she is coming from on her YouTube Channel:

”Tired of the misinformation and propaganda in current True Crime reporting, podcasts and documentaries; Roberta Glass set out in 2018 to create a True Crime Report sourced directly from the court records and case files. Her drive and curiosity to look deeper into the true crime stories she covers has also taken her to the courthouse where she has covered the NXIVM trial and Jeffrey Epstein related hearings. “

Roberta has interviewed Ken Kratz who prosecuted Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey and Lyn Hartman who was engaged to Steven Avery.

It’s fascinating to listen to the stories of people like Lyn Hartman and Alexa who were fooled by the PR campaigns to free convicted killers and how they eventually realised they had been manipulated and misinformed. They give the listener an insight to what Rabia Chaudry and Kathleen Zellner are really like and how they mislead people.

I also recommend listening to the interview with former policeman and author Martin Preib. He explains how innocence activists from Northwestern’s Innocence Project - who included Paul Ciolino - framed Alstory Simon.

3. Podcasts Recommended For First Listening

I’ve listed some of the most interesting podcasts below.

Roberta Glass True Crime Report can also be listened to on Google Podcasts, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Spreaker and Castbo

Posted by The Machine on 10/29 at 11:00 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (7)

Thursday, October 17, 2019

There’s This Powerful Evidence Of Sollecito’s Crimescene Presence: Unmistakably HIS Footprint

Posted by James Raper



Prosecutor Dr Manuela Comodi introduced this very tough evidence

Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments.


1. Series And Post Overviews

Previously in our hard-physical-evidence series we put Sollecito rock-solidly at the scene of the crime through his DNA in Meredith’s bedroom.

This post also puts him at the scene of the crime through a footprint unmistakably his. It was not Guede’s as one of the PR hoaxes has it - always a very weak claim, as there is no evidence that Guede ever took his shoes and socks off, and not even a compelling scenario.

Again, please bear in mind the trial circumstance. Read this trial report for a taste of how the footprint evidence sent the defenses into shrill disarray. Starkly obvious to the jury (panel of judges) but never without exception mentioned by the PR.

The purpose of this post is to explain exactly why the right sided footprint, as seen below in the bottom right hand corner of the bathroom mat, can be, indeed was, attributed to Raffaele Sollecito.

Saying that it was attributed to him is not to exclude any number of other people to whom it could also belong, but as we shall see we can, perfectly reasonably, exclude the two other suspects in the case, Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede.




2. Bathmat Footprint Evidence At Trial

In evidence was a forensic analysis of the footprint, undertaken by Dr Rinaldi and Chief Inspector Boemia, comparing the print to the reference prints, made on a flat surface, of each of the three suspects. After taking measurements it was clear that the print could not be attributed to Amanda Knox because her foot is smaller in size. That then leaves us with Sollecito and Guede.

The mat, of course, is not a flat surface. It contains the tufts of weave which form the pattern on the mat.

In this image below the colour has been enhanced, whereas the image above reflects the reality of a stain where the blood is clearly diluted, and this, in itself, is a matter which has a part to play in attributing the stain.





We can now consider what those comparative measurements were.

On the basis of the above measurements compiled from Rinaldi’s and Boemia’s Report, Sollecito’s foot is a far better fit for that on the mat than Guede‘s, and for this reason Rinaldi and Boemia came to the conclusion that the bathmat print belonged to Sollecito.

The trial judge, Massei, wrote - 

“The analyses of the size of the big toe, Sollecito’s being absolutely the widest, led in itself to the conclusion of compatibility between the print on the mat and the right foot of the defendant, whereas the comparison between the sole print of Guede and that of Sollecito also demonstrated the different size of the plantar arch, with Guede’s narrower one attesting to the fact that the Ivory Coast national has an altogether narrower foot in comparison to Sollecito’s foot. The sole prints of the two defendants in question therefore present considerable differences in terms of :- (1) the big toe; (2) the width of the metatarsus; (3) the width of the plantar arch……”

Clearly the disparity in the width of Sollecito’s and Guede’s big toes is significant.

However Professor Vinci, Sollecito’s expert, disputed Rinaldi and Boemia‘s finding as to the width of the big toe on the mat. He noted that the big toe, as seen in Exhibit Two above, falls on elevated weave in the shape of a spiral. According to Vinci the flourishes of weave in this part of the curl of the spiral did not exactly match and the top right of the stain was not in fact part of the big toe, but attributable to the second toe. Once this was detached, the width of the big toe on the mat was more akin to the width of Guede’s big toe.

Furthermore, he argued, the detached stain could not belong to Sollecito because his second toe did not appear in his reference print - it did not touch the ground due to a case of valgus on the right of his big toe.

True, but the point is a non-sequitor as Sollecito’s second toe is not required for his big toe to match the width of the stain - indeed held back in a hammer position we should be even more confident of the width of the big toe - and, in any event, the mark to be detached could not belong to Guede’s second toe, as we shall see.


Massei was unable to agree with the operation of detaching the mark from the toe because it depended on an assumption that there was an interruption in continuity.

“The base of the material in the disputed point shows that the trace of blood is a single unit on all of the curl (flourish), and is uniformly linked, forming a single unit with all the other parts of the material on which the big toe was placed.”

Massei continued -

“Although it is possible to agree that in the calculation of the width of the big toe the point of measuring may fall in an unstained place, nevertheless a comprehensive view of the bathmat clearly shows why this was done. Considering that the small region under discussion is part of the tip of the big toe, the point on the right of the toe giving the 30 mm measurement lies along the line descending perpendicularly from that tip, without any widening……………..furthermore, the association of the bathmat footprint with Guede’s foot (see the CD ROM provided by Professor Vinci showing “the superimposition sequence” for Guede’s foot) appears, frankly, as strained, given that Guede’s footprint, apart from having a morphology which is generally longer and more tapered, also has a second toe print which unequivocally falls quite far from the big toe print, so that the small mark whose detachment from the big toe is in question here could hardly be attributed to the second toe of the defendant (Guede)”.

We can now move to how Hellmann considered the evidence when his appeal court acquitted Knox and Sollecito.

Noting that there is an unstained section of the bathmat print, where apparently Sollecito’s toe should be, were we to have a complete print of his big toe on the mat, Hellmann disparages what he considers is Massei’s assertion that one can simply draw a line down from the disputed mark of blood in accordance with the shape of Sollecito’s toe, hence arriving at a measurement for the width of the big toe coinciding with Sollecito’s.

Looking back I think that Massei did leave himself open to criticism with that remark, but more particularly because (unlike Guede) the vertical axis of Sollecito’s big toe (see below) does have a more obvious tilt to the left (which might be a consequence of the valgus and consequent “hammer position” of the second toe) and which, together with the blood on the flourish of the weave (on the right) would give a reading for the width of the big toe, without relying on part of that measurement falling in an unstained section.

However there are a number of other reasons which Massei believed were persuasive, and which Hellmann ignores. The first is a disparity in the length of the respective big toes, Guede having a longer toe than Sollecito. Secondly, the position of the left hand curve of the ball of the foot, and the lower section (the left side of the plantar arch – there can be a number of measurements here as the plantar arch tapers off significantly in width), on the bathmat is fairly clear and if one lines up the suspects’ curves with that on the bathmat, then the tip of Guede’s big toe is noticeably higher than the mark of the toe on the mat, whereas Sollecito’s coincides. In addition, the top of the ball of Guede’s foot is noticeably higher whereas Sollecito’s more or less coincides.

Below are the respective representative prints for Sollecito and Guede. Placing them side by side for comparison purposes is subject to formatting considerations. Superimposed upon them is an outline of the stain to illustrate the points made above. Of course, to some extent the outline of the stain is subject to one’s own interpretation, but I believe it is reasonably accurate.

Guede’s print has 7 points of disparity with the stain – Sollecito 1 as below. 



                                                     
Hellmann draws attention to the fact that the comparison print for Sollecito’s right foot shows that the distal phalange of the big toe (the part of the big toe which connects it to the ball of the foot) is absent on a flat surface, but is present on the bathmat, and that in Guede’s representative print the distal phalange is present.     

Having criticised Massei for, he says, the subjective element of his interpretation, Hellmann then gives us his own subjective interpretation.                             

“Now, since the contact of the foot with blood took place on the floor of Meredith’s room, namely on a flat and rigid surface, the distal [phalange] would not have been able to have become stained, and thus it would not have been able to leave the very visible trace on the bathmat.”

Hellmann goes on to state that the print was left by Guede, in accordance with Professor Vinci’s contention.

But hold on! Why should we be required to accept that Sollecito would necessarily have stood in blood in Meredith’s room (and remember that the mark on the mat was diluted blood, which aspect modifies, if not negates, any direct correlation) or, if he did, that it was on a flat and rigid surface there, since there was blood on Meredith’s clothing on the floor, and indeed there were towels soaked in blood in her room, although it is not, at first sight, an unreasonable hypothesis? However, be it the assumption (which does not explain the diluted blood) is hypothetical given that Hellmann does not accept that the print on the bathmat is Sollecito’s, nevertheless Hellmann’s logic is circular and deficient given that there are no connecting bloody footprints between the blood in Meredith’s room and the bathmat print.

He could, of course, explain that, but not without giving credence to the removal of blood traces, which he ignores in his report.

Hellmann also ignores the pertinent and critical point made by Massei that the point of Guede’s second toe falls some distance from the big toe such that it is unlikely to be responsible for the width of the big toe on the mat.

Hellmann’s grasp of detail is poor, his attention is selective, and his grasp of context almost non-existent.

Cassation’s Fifth Chambers were worse, if that was possible -

“Finally, the footprints found at the murder scene can in no way be traced to the appellant.”(i.e Sollecito)

Yes, seriously, that’s all they had to say on the subject! They did not even give any reasons for the assertion.


But even if the bathmat print can “in no way” be traced to Sollecito, can it be traced to Guede? How did Guede get to the bathroom to leave his supposed print without leaving a trace on the way there?

It would appear, on the forensic evidence, that Guede left Meredith’s room and proceeded direct to the front door. Initially he left just- about -visible bloody left shoe prints. The blood trailed off but the shoe prints were picked up again by the application of luminol. He did not divert to the small bathroom, or for that matter to Filomena’s room to stage a break-in.

3. Defense’s Attempts To Nail Rudy Guede

Sollecito’s defence team had an improbable theory - that Guede, immediately after the murder and despite his homicidal rage, was smart enough to hop out of Meredith’s room on his left foot with a clean shoe on, and the other bare but covered in blood, and that having by this means entered the bathroom and washed his bloody right foot, disastrously leaving his (supposed) imprint there in the process.

He then returned to Meredith’s bedroom, inadvertently standing in blood again with his clean left shoe and leaving with a trail of bloody left shoe prints - in which case the exercise of washing his foot was entirely in vain, on two counts, after all that careful hopping around. Neither is it entirely clear why his right shoe came off in the first place. His shoes were foot-hugging Nike Outbreak 2. Improbable that one could have come off even in a struggle.

It is patently obvious that his washing his foot was the most inept performance in all this given the mark the foot subsequently left on the mat. The same observation obviously applies to Sollecito as well but in his case, and not with Guede, or any other unknown male, it is far more credible to accept that he had diluted blood on the sole of his foot for a reason unconnected with his having just washed it.

All the above, as it pertains to Guede, or another unknown male assailant, is exceedingly unlikely and there is a far simpler explanation. Someone with more time to spare than Guede, or his unknown mate, and with less risk of discovery attached, was responsible for the diluted blood and had inadvertently stepped in it.

There had, undoubtedly, to be blood on the floor (and elsewhere) between Meredith’s room and the small bathroom, probably prints, and these and other such traces (bathroom door, Meredith’s door etc) were deliberately and carefully removed by wiping them away with wet towels, cloths etc. Probably whoever had done this had then stepped on one of the towels or cloths in question and then stepped onto the mat without thinking. Hence the diluted blood.

It is interesting to note that Guede, during his stay in jail in Germany, wrote (emphasis added) –

“I am asking myself how is it possible that Amanda could have slept in all that mess, and took a shower with all that blood in the bathroom and corridor.


The reason for removing the blood was not just to conceal who would have made prints (the print on the bathmat was, after all, left in situ) but, from a visual perspective, to conceal any blood that might be noticeable and alarming to anyone approaching Meredith’s room. Guede’s bloody left shoeprints in the corridor, pointing to the exit, were visible but only on close inspection.


The prime stager, the person who would have had most interest in attending to a post murder manipulation of the crime scene by the removal of blood traces would, of course, have been Amanda Knox. It was a prerequisite if her account of having stopped by the cottage to have a shower, before the discovery of the body, was to work in the manner for which she hoped.

However, having attended to this she would then, from the position of her own narrative, be in a position to instigate and manage, entirely innocently from anyone’s perspective, the discovery of her flatmate’s murder. Visiting the cottage to have a shower and collect a mop, with no visible blood in unexplainable places to alarm her, was an indispensible opening sequence in the narrative.

She did, though, leave the mat in situ. This may simply have been because it never occurred to her that this could be used as evidence incriminating Sollecito and, of course, the absence of the mat would no doubt have been remarked on by her flatmates. Having eliminated other blood traces, removing the mat might have been conceived as being a step too far as it would have raised questions.

Finally Guede, for numerous reasons, is simply not a credible candidate for the clean up, particularly given the numerous and incriminating traces of himself that he did leave at the crime scene.

Given the comparative measurements, given the full context of the crime scene, including the removal of blood traces and the attribution of a luminol revealed footprint to Sollecito outside Meredith’s room, and given the fact that the murder weapon was in Sollecito’s kitchen drawer and that his DNA was on the bra clasp, there can be little doubt that the bathmat print belonged to him.

Posted by James Raper on 10/17 at 09:32 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (12)

Tuesday, October 08, 2019

Explaining to “No Physical Evidence” Gladwell Just How MUCH There Was #5 Bra Clasp

Posted by The Machine



Dr Stefanoni with Dr Mignini, two world-class professionals

Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments.

1. This Evidence Series Overview

In 35 paragraphs Malcolm Gladwell made 35 false claims in his angry diatribe pro-Knox.

We have seen before - mostly long ago and now long gone - numerous incompetents with chips on their shoulders toward police and courts and Italians and even all non-Americans, and a besotted attitude toward a false Knox.

And now Gladwell, all of a sudden, leapfrogs all of them.

In our very first post we quoted Gladwell quoting the hoaxer Peter Gill on the DNA as if he was the word of God. The slightest checking would have revealed that as a hoax.

This is the fifth in my sub-series on Gladwell’s demonstrably false claim that there was no physical evidence linking Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito to Meredith’s attack and death.

2. The Bra Clasp Evidence STILL Stands Up

First, bear in mind that the potshots taken at this DNA evidence were from thousands of miles away. None except Hampikian had even visited any Italian lab.

The hoaxer Hampikian visited only the lab of the 2011 “independent experts” at first appeal, who he was illegally trying to bias - with American science which was behind European science at the time.

Check this out for why that lab was closed down. Among other reasons, human bodies were lying around. Nice team Gladwell has picked for himself… 

As with the footprints, Gladwell completely ignores the bra clasp DNA evidence in his book. Maybe not a surprise. Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was quite definitely on that clasp.

Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found in profusion on Meredith’s bra clasp. His DNA was identified by two separate DNA tests. Of the 17 loci tested in the sample, Sollecito’s profile matched 17 out of 17.

“Both by the quantity of DNA analyzed and by the fact of having performed the analysis at 17 loci with unambiguous results, not to mention the fact that the results of the analysis were confirmed by the attribution of the Y haplotype to the defendant, it is possible to say that it has been judicially ascertained that Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was present on the exhibit; an exhibit that was therefore handled by the defendant on the night of the murder.” (The Nencini report, page 267).

David Balding, a professor of statistical genetics at University College London, analysed the DNA evidence against Sollecito and concluded that the evidence was “strong”

“…because Sollecito is fully represented in the stain at 15 loci (we still only use 10 in the UK, so 15 is a lot), the evidence against him is strong…”

In Andrea Vogt’s excellent BBC documentary he said the bra clasp evidence against Sollecito was “extremely strong”.

DNA expert and creator and former head of the Caribinieri labs, General Professor Luciano Garofano, said the result of the DNA test on the bra clasp was “perfect”.

Numerous forensic experts have effectively ruled out contamination at the cottage

Professor Balding of London University also said Sollecito’s DNA on Meredith on Meredith’s bra clasp can’t be explained by environmental contamination.

He also said there was a “much greater likelihood“ that the DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp came from Sollecito and that’s the reason why it’s “extremely strong“ evidence against him.

He told Chris Halkides that people walking in and out of the room etc would be unlikely to contaminate the bra clasp.

On the BBC documentary, he said contamination from passers-by isn’t an issue and that he has taken that into account and it’s extremely unlikely.

Professor Novelli pointed out there’s more likelihood of meteorite striking the courtroom in Perugia than there is of the bra clasp being contaminated by dust.

“The hook contaminated by dust? It’s more likely for a meteorite to fall and bring this court down to the ground.”

Alberto Intini, the head of the Italian police forensic science unit, also excluded environmental contamination at the Massei trial because “DNA doesn’t fly.”

Professor Torricelli testified that it was unlikely the clasp was contaminated because there was a significant amount of Sollecito’s DNA on it.

It’s almost impossible for the Scientific Police to have contaminated the bra clasp at the cottage.


Some of Amanda Knox’s supporters once tried to claim a forensic technician transferred Meredith’s DNA onto the bra clasp - which would be tertiary transfer.

However, there’s not one scientific study published in a prestigious, peer-reviewed journal demonstrating tertiary transfer of touch DNA.

Amanda Knox’s supporters long ago claimed that there was a speck of dust on one of the gloves of a forensic technician, but it’s impossible to obtain a full DNA profile from dust. Sollecito’s DNA on the bra clasp was a full DNA profile.

Numerous forensic experts have effectively ruled out contamination in the laboratory

Dr Stefanoni last handled Sollecito’s DNA 12 days before she analysed the bra clasp. This means that contamination couldn’t have occurred in the laboratory.

Judge Chieffi noted that Conti and Vecchiotti had excluded contamination in the laboratory.

“Laboratory contamination was also excluded by these experts [Conti and Vecchiotti].” (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 92).

Professor Novelli ruled out contamination in the laboratory.

“Prof. Novelli said that the origin or vehicle of any contamination must be demonstrated: he added that at the Scientific Police laboratory he had seen the 255 samples [68] extracted, had analysed all the profiles, and had not found any evidence of contamination; he ruled out in an absolutely convincing manner that a contamination agent could be present intermittently, or that DNA could remain suspended, and later fall down in a specific place.” (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 94).

Judge Chieffi also noted in his Supreme Court report that the negative controls to exclude laboratory contamination had been carried out:

“since all the negative controls to exclude it [contamination] had been done by Dr Stefanoni.”  (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 93).

When the defence experts observed the DNA tests being carried at Dr Stefanoni’s laboratory in Rome, they had no objections.

“the probative facts revealed by the technical consultant [Stefanoni] were based on investigative activities that were adequately documented: sampling activity performed under the very eyes of the consultants of the parties, who raised no objection.” (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 93).

The Scientific Police didn’t find a source for Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp anywhere the cottage

Judge Chieffi pointed out that Sollecito’s DNA was never found alone at the cottage in his Supreme Court report. The only trace of his DNA was mixed with Knox’s DNA on the cigarette butt in the kitchen. This means the mixed DNA sample could not have been the source of the DNA on the clasp because Knox’s DNA would also have been found on it.

‘’Sollecito’s DNA was never found alone [at the crime scene], as the only trace of his that was collected and analysed was the one on the cigarette stub found in the ashtray of the kitchen in Knox’s flat, mixed with Knox’s DNA. Thus, even if perchance we wanted to assume that DNA had migrated from the kitchen to the room of the young Englishwoman, we would also have had to find Knox’s DNA on the bra clasp.’ (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 92).




3. Conclusions On This Evidence

You have to place the bra clasp evidence into the wider context of the other pieces of evidence against Sollecito i.e. his multiple false alibis and numerous lies to the police, the bloody footprint on the bathmat that matched the precise characteristics of his foot, the bare bloody footprint revealed by Luminol that matched his foot and the fact Meredith’s DNA was found on the blade of his kitchen knife.

Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on the exact part of Meredith’s bra clasp that had been bent out of shape during the attack on her. It is far more plausible that his DNA ended up on the deformed clasp because he applied enough pressure to bend it out of shape than to believe his DNA was carried by a gust of air or floated on a speck of dust and landed on it by some incredible coincidence.

Why should a judge or juror favor a lower probability transfer scenario - tertiary transfer via sloppy forensic technicians - over a higher probability transfer scenario - primary transfer in the course of murder, especially when you consider all the other pieces if evidence against Sollecito?

Malcolm Gladwell hasn’t addressed the bra clasp evidence let alone refuted it.

He hasn’t explained why numerous renowned DNA experts - Dr Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr Renato Biondo, Professor Luciano Garofano, Professor Giuseppe Novelli, Professor Francesca Torricelli and Professor David Balding - are wrong about its probative value.

He hasn’t even explained where Sollecito’s DNA came from and how it ended up on Meredith’s bra clasp.

4. Our Next Post

Click for Post:  There’s This Powerful Evidence Of Sollecito’s Crimescene Presence: Unmistakably HIS Footprint

Posted by The Machine on 10/08 at 07:45 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (12)

Wednesday, October 02, 2019

There’s This Powerful Evidence Of Knox’s Crimescene Presence - Locked Right Inside Meredith’s Room

Posted by James Raper



Red star, where lamp found; blue star, lamp’s normal position

Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments.


1. The Lamp Tellingly Not Mentioned In Knox’s Book

During the case it was frequently suggested that there was no actual evidence of Knox’s presence in “the murder room”, i.e in Meredith’s bedroom.

Now, years later, this is parroted by Malcolm Gladwell.

However this is to ignore the presence of her desk arc lamp there, not to mention a preponderance of other circumstantial evidence, including a knife with Meredith’s DNA on it’s blade in Sollecito’s kitchen.

Also, by the way, one must ignore, as the 5th Chambers of the Supreme Court duly noted, the compelling forensic evidence that Knox had washed Meredith’s blood off her hands in the small bathroom. Quite how she had blood on her hands without her having been in the room, which was locked until forced open, would be a mystery though the 5th Chambers explained “her contact with the victim’s blood would have occurred after the crime and in another part of the house.”

“Would have”? Yea, right! So come on, show us where that other blood is! If, perchance, they meant blood that had been removed then who, one wonders, would have done that? The 5th Chambers did not even ask itself the question, but in any event it accepted that Knox was in the cottage at the time of the murder.

Back to the lamp.

2. Who Had Reason To Move The Lamp

The bald facts are that Knox had such a lamp which was the only source of illumination for her own room. When Meredith’s locked door was forced open, Knox’s lamp was found on the floor immediately behind it.

What was it doing there? This was not a question that was ever adequately adressed by any of the judges when considering her complicity in the murder.





Let us redress that oversight.

Knox denied knowing that her lamp was in Meredith’s room and has never offered a plausible, indeed innocent, explanation for it being there. Accordingly we can rule out that Knox had lent it to Meredith at any time.

This leaves us with two possible options; that either Meredith or Rudy Guede had taken it from Knox’s bedroom, without her consent, and for some purpose.

Why would Meredith have done this? She had a wall light above her bed and her own desk lamp, neither of which were not working. Even if she had, why on the night of (and in the no more than two hours before) her murder, only to leave it on the floor behind her door? There is no reason at all to believe that Meredith had borrowed the lamp just prior to her death that evening.

Likewise, no plausible explanation can be offered for Guede taking the lamp.

If Knox was unaware that her lamp was there, could she have been unaware that it was not in her room?

Two days after the discovery of the murder this is what Knox wrote in her e-mail, referring to the discovery of Filomena’s broken window after she and Sollecito had returned to the cottage –

Convinced that we had been robbed I went to Laura’s room and looked quickly in, but it was spotless like it hadn’t even been touched. This, too, I thought was odd. I then went into the part of the house that Meredith and I share and checked my room for things missing, which there weren’t.

How could she have possibly have missed it? Her own room was quite small and cramped and the desk lamp should have been either on her desk or her bedside table. It would have been a fairly prominent item, and an important one, because she had no other means of illumination,  and it’s absence would be impossible to miss even if, while checking, she was only paying mimimal attention.

Furthermore, according to her account she had been in and out of her room when visiting the cottage earlier that morning. She had undressed for a shower in her room but had to return for a towel, and then return to her room again to get dressed. Never noticed that her lamp was missing be it she had no reason to actually check on that occasion.

Knox was, of course, lying (there are many aspects of her e-mail which are simply not credible) but she had to say that she checked her room because there had been a burglary, had there not? She has to convey the impression that she herself believed, innocently, that there had been a genuine burglary and in doing so she was hoping to draw the investigators’ attention away from two important matters. The first was that the burglary was staged. That is now a settled judicial fact in the case. The second was that there had been a post murder manipulation of the crime scene by the removal of blood traces, though ultimately the Supreme Court did not accord this the status of a judicial fact, largely due to obfuscation on it’s part, and a tendency to put the telescope to it’s blind eye.

Furthermore the Supreme Court did not mention Knox’s lamp at all.

Obviously it’s presence, in the position in which it was found, in Meredith’s room, plays into the notion of a post murder manipulation of the crime scene. If Meredith is a most unlikely agent for it being there, then how do we rate Knox and Guede’s agency?

Knox’s lamp and Meredith’s lamp were both on the floor, at either end of Meredith’s bed. This suggests that they were being used to check under the bed as this area, with the wall light on, would have been in shadow.

It is difficult to imagine what incriminating item Guede would have been looking for and why it would have been of particular importance to him, to the extent that he ignored everything else. We have to bear in mind that the room already had incriminating forensic traces of his presence there, and fairly obvious ones at that, which it never occurred to him to remove. We know that he had blood on the sole of his left shoe but the positioning of these prints did not indicate that he was looking under the bed. No, they went straight from Meredith’s room to the front door, not even changing direction to lock Meredith’s door, enter the small bathroom, or Filomena’s room.

It is admittedly speculation but Knox might have been looking for an earring. She’d had her ear pierced several times and from a photograph of her taken by the press outside the cottage we can see that one of her earrings is missing.

The very presence of that lamp there has to be considered as potentially incriminating and of Knox. It is a fact that has to be assessed and evaluated, and Knox would surely have appreciated that questions would be asked and that adverse inferences could be drawn. That this is obvious is recognized even by her own supporters whose response is to take Knox’s e-mail at face value and claim that her lamp was a plant by the police.

Yes, really.

The lamp is part of the overwhelming circumstantial case against Knox and, I would argue, has had a particular resonance for her since, so much so that she has always simply ignored it.

Why would she leave it there? Probably for the same reason that she did not get around to removing the trace of her own blood on the faucet of the sink in the small bathroom. Not thinking clearly because she was shattered, having been up all night and, probably, as a result of having indulged in drugs and/or alcohol.

In any event it was left behind. An oversight which, at some point, must have occurred to her. When might that have happened? It would have had to be when she was no longer in possession of Meredith’s keys or, at least not in a position to retrieve these in time given the train of events set in motion.

A perpetrator would not want to be found in possession of those keys. On the face of it the keys could have been taken by Guede, but clearly the keys had remained in the possession of those who had arranged the staged burglary and the post murder manipulation of the crime scene, and it is very improbable (as argued elsewhere) that Guede had any involvement with that.

Very probably the keys were tossed away into heavy undergrowth afterwards, or disposed of down some drain and then, some time later, Knox had the sudden realisation that this left her and Sollecito with a problem. She could not simply retrieve the lamp and return it to her room without breaking down Meredith’s door.

Actually that could have been done, though not without some difficulty, and it would have fitted with a burglary and a violent assault on Meredith, though here the intelligent observer would have to assume from the circumstances, and no doubt Knox and Sollecito would have pondered on this, that Meredith had surprisingly been unable to thwart the lone intruder, had locked herself in to her room with her phones still with her, and would have undoubtedly called the emergency number for the police while all this, and the breaking down of her door, was going on.

However when exactly the oversight occurred to her would also be critical. I personally believe that it was much later than most people would think. I do not think that the plan to stage a burglary and remove the blood traces from the corridor was put into operation until after they had listened to music for half an hour from 5.30 am and maybe was still in operation when Knox was seen by Quintavalle at his store at 7.45 am. When they had finished that I have no idea but it would have been at a time in the morning when it was unlikely that anyone i.e Filomena would come calling. And they could still have cleared off to Gubio for the day.

So, throwing away the keys could be after, say, 9 am, and then some time after the dreadful realisation dawns.

Perhaps it was always the case that Knox and Sollecito needed to be present when the murder was discovered, and in circumstances which they could control in such a manner as to convince others of their complete lack of complicity in what had happened. Maybe much of what then happened had already been pre-planned, including the story of Knox visiting the cottage to have a shower etc.

If one assumes this and that then Knox realises her mistake with the lamp, then what subsequently transpired makes a lot more sense.

A discovery process which had initially seemed manageable became, with her error, laden with danger. The lamp had to be retrieved but, with Sollecito’s assistance, this could still be achieved in the confusion of Filomena and her friends attending the cottage and breaking down the door themselves. Should Filomena have perhaps baulked at the idea of doing any damage then I suspect Knox and Sollecito would have pressed her to authorise this, if not actually do this themselves, and just how innocent would that have then made them look! Win, win. What would complicate matters was if the police were also there, imposing order and preserving a crime scene, and so the possibility of anyone alerting the police had to be delayed.


Now let us look at the phone records with the above in mind.

3. Zooming In On The Timing Of Events

From 12.07 until 12.35 am on the morning of the discovery of the murder, Knox and Filomena exchanged telephone calls, whereby Knox slowly ramped up the worry on Filomena’s part as to what was going on and Meredith’s safety. As a consequence of the first call, by Knox, made from Sollecito’s bedsit, Filomena asked her to check certain things out e.g ring Meredith’s phones and keep her informed, but otherwise had not heard enough to indicate that she herself needed to return to the cottage, or that the police needed to be involved.

However Filomena remained concerned and called Knox three more times until Knox answered her from the cottage at 12.35 to inform her that her bedroom window had been broken and her room had been trashed. Knox would have been fully aware what the effect would have been of the latter call. Filomena was adamant. Knox had to call the police. More importantly, for Knox, Filomena would now definitely be returning to the cottage. Who would get there first? Filomena or the police? The answer, for Knox, would not be in doubt. It was another 16 minutes before Sollecito called the 112 number, time enough for Filomena and her friend (who were on the road when they had spoken) to arrive before the police.

At 12.47 whilst awaiting the arrival of Filomena, Knox called her mother.

The circumstances of that call are extremely puzzling. In retrospect I think the call was simply to fill in time and keep her nerves steady.

As to that call (4.47 am Seattle time, while Edda and Chris were still asleep, and prior to the discovery of Meredith‘s body) Knox not only did not mention that in her e-mail but in taped conversation with her mother and in her trial testimony she steadfastly declined to recall that it had occurred. Ostensibly the call would have been, of course, to report the break in. So what would be the problem with that? On the other hand, what was so important about it that her mother should know, and at that moment? Knox was aware of the time difference between Italy and Seattle, and that it would have been early in the morning in Seattle, as she acknowledged in her trial testimony. If Knox had a premonition then why not wait a little longer for resolution? Indeed, Edda’s puzzlement with her daughter was expressed on tape as follows –

A: Oh, I don’t remember this.

M: OK, you’d called me once telling me…

A: Honestly, maybe I was shocked.

M: Yes, but this happened before anything had really happened, besides the house…

A: I know that I was calling, but I remember that I was calling Filomena; I don’t remember having called anyone else, and so the whole thing of having called you… I don’t remember.

M: Mhmm… why? Do you think? Stress?

Knox clearly did not want to discuss her motive for the call, then nor later, nor as to what had transpired in conversation with her mother (and stepfather) before the discovery of Meredith’s body.

On her Facebook page Knox had written that she enjoyed new situations and “the bigger and scarier the rollercoaster the better”. Well, her error was going to make for one mother of a rollercoaster, one that would scare the life out of her.

Not only was the timing of the 12.47 call inconvenient to her mother but I found it interesting to note from Knox’s phone records (covering 2nd Oct - 3rd November) that mother and daughter do not appear to have called or texted each other once by phone up until that 12.47 call. It would appear then that in so far as they remained in direct communication with each other for that period it must have been by e-mail or Skype. Indeed Knox has referred to such communication being via internet café. One can therefore imagine that her mother was very surprised to receive that call. It is also very difficult to accept that Knox could not recall a phone call she was not in the habit of making.

Until Knox published her book the only information that was available about the 12.47 call (apart from the phone log which showed that it lasted 88 seconds) came from her mother (who reported that her daughter was concerned about the break in) and her stepfather Chris Mellas. Mellas says that he interrupted the conversation between mother and daughter to tell Amanda to get out of the cottage. In her book Knox tells us (her memory now having returned) that he yelled at her but that she was “spooked” enough without that. But what had really happened to spook her? It was just a burglary after all, even if the matter of Meredith’s whereabouts was as yet unresolved. None of her own possessions had been stolen.

Furthermore Filomena was on her way to take charge. The call she made to her mother after the discovery of the murder (the one she remembered) was perfectly understandable, the prior call, without further context, less so.  Readers will already know where I am coming from, but I believe that it was whilst walking back to the cottage with Sollecito that Knox realised her mistake with the lamp. However, it could have been earlier than that. In any event this realisation would have set the cat amongst the pigeons for her. So, it was both a comfort and a rehearsal call, not simply because there had been a burglary, but because she knew a hazardous set of events was about to unfold on Romanelli’s arrival at the cottage. The fact that her mother and stepfather already had the jitters was not a good omen.

Still, retrieving the lamp and returning it to her own room remained perfectly feasible, provided the police were not there. However Romanelli had yet to arrive and time was running out. Both Knox and Sollecito knew that any further delay in calling the police would look suspicious. Finally they did so, at 12.51, though it is probable that the postal police had unexpectedly arrived before then. In my book I have argued that the likely time of arrival of the postal police was probably about 12.48-9. Indeed that may have been why Knox brought her call to her mother to an end.  (e.g “Looks as if someone is coming. Gotta go now.”)  I wonder if that is another reason why Knox would not want to remember the call, particularly during the taped conversation with her mother in the prison. She would not want to prompt her mother to that recollection. That wouldn’t fit with the claim, as related to the postal police, that they had already called the Carabinieri. In any event, the opportunity to retrieve the lamp had been lost.

I have always thought that the oddities in Knox’s own account of events reveal and explain much even if, ostensibly, she appears to be giving an innocent account of everything. In her e-mail she refers to her panic and specifically links this to concern over Meredith’s whereabouts and safety. However the panic had apparently suddenly subsided, and her concern was significantly lacking, non-existent actually, when the postal police made their surprise entrance before the arrival of Filomena and her friends. We can also see why she says, before that, that Sollecito would want, and allegedly attempt, to break Meredith’s door open.

Had I been in Knox’s shoes, and with a mutual alibi with Sollecito, I too would have thought the discovery of the murder of “my best friend” would have been manageable, but for that damned lamp. There would be questions to be answered, of course, but she had already thought all that through, hadn’t she?

As it happened, things did not turn out too bad for her in the immediate aftermath. She was not, she thought, under immediate suspicion as she must have feared she would be. Seemingly nobody had twigged to the lamp business, nor to the staged burglary. She must have thought the police immensely stupid for her to have got away with that, as she thought she had. She was also the centre of attention and coping reasonably well, but for that dicey moment when she was shown the drawer of knives in the kitchen. Her confidence had soared sufficiently for her to even claim that she had checked her room and had found nothing missing!

In her e-mail she also wrote –

It was then that we decided to call the cops……. [Raffaele] first called his sister for advice and then called the Carabinieri. I then called Filomena who said she would be on her way home immediately. While we were waiting two ununiformed police investigators came to our house. I showed them what I could and told them what I knew. Gave them phone numbers and explained a bit in broken Italian, and then Filomena arrived with her boyfriend Marco-f and two other friends of hers. All together we checked the house out, talked to the police and in a big [word missing] they all opened Meredith’s door. I was [standing] aside really having done my part for the situation.

Knox is in overdrive here. First of all, she did not call Filomena in their last telephone conversation. It was the other way around. Secondly, that call was not after Sollecito had called 112. Thus she has the 112 call some 16 minutes before it was actually made rather than 16 minutes after it should have been made. And finally, what does she mean by saying “I was standing aside really having done my part for the situation”?

The “situation”? That rollercoaster has turned into barely concealed “duper’s delight”!

But wait! What were those “hard facts” she claims the police had mentioned later during her interview?

Let me see. Hmm. Suspicions, certainly. The locked door, the lamp, the quilt, the staged burglary? An e-mail in which she is is just a bit too full of herself and the content of which, in places, was just a bit too unreal, daffy and lah-di-dah, to be true? The strange and inappropriate behaviour at the police station? No wonder she didn’t ask the police to elaborate.

4. Additional Information On The Lamp

This is adapted from my book (US version and UK version). There is additional information in Parts 3-6 including Knox’s trial questioning of this previous slightly different version.

5. Our Next Post

Click for Post:  Explaining to “No Physical Evidence” Gladwell Just How MUCH There Was #5 Bra Clasp

Posted by James Raper on 10/02 at 11:00 AM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (23)

Saturday, September 28, 2019

Explaining to “No Physical Evidence” Gladwell Just How MUCH There Was #4 Staged Break-In

Posted by The Machine



Jury in 2009: “How did huge rock fit through tiny crack?”

Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments.


1. Series Overview

This is the fourth in my series de-hoaxing the Gladwell claim of “no evidence”.

The zombie “there is no evidence” hoax that Gladwell bizarrely revives was never attempted in Italy. News of it caused giggles and irritation in Italy as this post on the pricey and ineffective Knox-Mellas family lawyer (who soon exited, no surprise there) attests. 

It was a claim very frequently made (and then shot down) by the self-serving hoaxers listed in Part 4(3) of this post.

2. How Guede As Stager Was Ruled Out

Malcolm Gladwell ignores yet another of the myriad incriminating area of physical evidence against Amanda Knox: the break-in hoax.

That the providing of even the slightest proof that the break-in via Filomena’s window was real, and not staged from within, was one of the worst failures by the defenses.

All courts up to the Italian Supreme Court (several times) determined that the break-in was staged, and it was not staged by Guede as Gladwell presumably thinks

These determinations are judicial facts, not subject to appeal. In the Supreme Court report concluding Guede’s legal process in 2010 with his guilt reaffirmed, Judge Giordano wrote:

And it should also be noted, as the judges of the lower courts have correctly held, that following the murder an activity occurred intended to simulate an attempted theft, which the judges of lower courts and the defence of the same appellant agree was an operation done by others and not by the defendant.” (Judge Giordano’s Supreme Court report).

In 2013 the Italian Supreme Court criticised Judge Hellmann (in the course of their annulment of his bent 2011 “not guilty” outcome of Knox’s and Sollecito’s first appeal) for ignoring these judical facts because they are held to be indisputable.

...to the reconstruction made in the context of Rudy Guede’s murder trials, the outcome of which became definitive with the judgment handed down by this Court on 16 December 2010, during which the simulation was held to be undisputed and certainly attributable to individuals other than Guede.

Judge Chieffi explained why it’s an indisputable fact that the break-in at the cottage was staged in that Supreme Court report.

The conclusion that the crime had been simulated was based on a series of facts with a high level of probative value constituting a valid inferential basis, on the strength of which the first instance statement of reasons produced a logical dissertation (pages 35‐42) anchored in the facts that:

(1) nothing (not even jewellery or the computer) was missing from Romanelli’s room, which was the focal point;

(2) there was no evidence of climbing on the outside wall of the house over the distance of 3.5 meters from the ground to the window through which the phantom burglar supposedly entered, nor was there any trace of trampling on the grass on the ground underneath the window;

(3) there were no traces of the blood of the climber on the window sill, which he would have had to grip among the glass shards in order to sneak inside the room;

(4) the glass shards were found on the inside but not on the outside of the window, a sign that the rock was thrown with the outside shutters closed, forming a shield that prevented pieces of glass from spraying to the outside;

(5) the shards were found in abundance on top of the clothes and objects ransacked by the alleged intruder, proving that this ransacking had occurred before the window was broken;

(6) the sound of the rock, hypothetically thrown from the ground, had not startled the young English woman so as to make her call for help outside the house before being attacked (given the lapse of time between the throwing the stone and the climbing up the wall). (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, pages 63-64).

Judge Chieffi also noted that the trail of Rudy Guede’s didn’t go into Filomena’s room because his bloody shoeprints led straight from Meredith’s room and out of the cottage.

...asserted that the bloody shoeprints of the aforementioned [Rudy Guede] indicated the path he took from the unfortunate Meredith’s room to the main door of the house without going into Romanelli’s room, given that ‐ as was previously stated ‐ the traces of blood of the victim mark the path taken by Guede without any deviation. (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 64).

This is the core explanation of the Supreme Court for determining why Rudy Guede could not have staged the break-in.

It’s worth repeating and highlighting this fact: there were shards of glass on top of the clothes and objects on the floor of Filomena’s room. This proves the window was broken AFTER the room was ransacked.

Four witnesses, including two police officers, said there were shards of glass on top of the clothes on Filomena’s floor.

Michele Battistelli, the Postal Police inspector, expressed himself on this point in the following way during the prosecution hearing at trial on 6 February 2009:

... it was a little topsy-turvy, in the sense that it was mostly … There was clothing out, thrown around a bit, and scattered pieces of glass. Glass pieces were on the floor and the curious thing, which stood out for me, is that these glass pieces were on top of the clothing.

I noticed this to the point where I started playing with the notion, in the sense that I immediately said that, for me this was a simulation of what I was seeing, basically this…

The things that I noticed, the camera, the computer, if they played into the theory of a hypothetical burglary, I saw that inside the house practically everything was there. There was a laptop, a digital camera, things that can be easily taken, so…”. [Transcript of the 6 February 2009 hearing, Trial Court, Page 65 et al.]

And testimony from Filomena herself:

Picking up the computer I noticed that I lifted some glass, in the sense that the glass was on top of things. I remember very well [the glass] on top of the computer bag because I was careful as it was all covered with glass.

We mentioned this, saying, the burglar was an idiot, he did not take anything… the jewelry is here, the computer is here… and in addition to the fact that he didn’t take anything, the pieces of glass are all on top of the things.(Filomena Romanelli, Amanda Knox’s housemate, at trial).

Pernicious Knox troll Bruce Fischer tried to claim, unsubstantiated as is usual for him, that the break-in wasn’t staged because Filomena’s clothes were already on the floor.

But in her trial testimony, unshaken by the defenses, Filomena made it crystal clear that her room had been ransacked.

I entered my room and I saw the broken window and everything in chaos, the clothing, a big mess, everything was all disheveled, everything ... Everything scattered, there was the open closet, a mess on the desk, everything out of place.

In his 2009 trial report, Judge Massei noted that she was tidy:

As she is usually very orderly… (The Massei report, page 53).

In 2014 at the rerun of the first appeal, Judge Nencini highlighted the fact there were shards of glass on top of the clothes and objects on the floor in his report.

The fact that the glass fragments from the window wound up on top of the strewn clothing and objects… is surely incompatible with a breaking of the glass in a phase preceding the ransacking inside the room of the apartment.

The window glass evidently was broken after entry into the cottage, by someone who was already inside and had already arranged the disorder that was then seen by the witnesses.(The Nencini report).

In 2015 even Judge Marasca of the Supreme Court who illegally mis-stated much evidence drew attention to this fact in his report.

And moreover, the staging of a theft in Romanelli’s room, which she [Knox] is accused of, is also a relevant point within an incriminating picture, considering the elements of strong suspicion (location of glass shards - apparently resulting from the breaking of a glass window pane caused by the throwing of a rock from the outside - on top of the clothes and furniture)...

... a staging which can be linked to someone who as an author of the murder and flatmate with a formal connection to the dwelling - had an interest to steer suspicion away from himself/herself…

... while a third murderer in contrast would be motivated by a very different urge after the killing, that is to leave the dwelling as quickly as possible.” (Judge Marasca’s Supreme Court report).


3. Who Did Stage The Break-in?

Judge Massei determined that Amanda Knox had tracked Meredith’s blood into Filomena’s room, because their DNA was found mixed on the floor.

It was also said of the traces highlighted by Luminol and of how these very traces, because of the certain presence of blood in abundance in the house and because of the lack of indication, beyond the mere hypotheses made, of substances which could actually have been present and present in various areas, indicate that Amanda (with her feet stained with Meredith’s blood from having been present in her room when she was killed) had gone into Romanelli’s room and into her own room…

Leaving traces [which were] highlighted by Luminol, some of which (one in the corridor, the L8, and one, the L2, in Romanelli’s room) were mixed, that is, constituted of a biological trace attributable to [both] Meredith and Amanda, and others with traces attributable only to Amanda (the three found in her own room and indicated as L3, L4 and L5) and only to the victim (one found in Romanelli’s room (the L1). (The Massei report, page 380).

His “from the outside” was of course without proof, and so an illegal finding, but his court went along with the glass shards.

One of the trial prosecutors, Dr Mignini, argued the staged break-in was the key to resolving the mystery. As Barbie Nadeau reported on 20 November 2009:

Dr Mignini’s closing arguments late in 2009 focused not only on Knox’s alleged guilt in the murder, but on her dominance over Sollecito and Guede.

The prosecutor also recounted the other charges against her, including staging a crime scene, which he believes is proof of Knox’s involvement. He described a bedroom in the back of the house the girls shared where a window had been broken with a large rock, as he described, “to create the illusion of a break-in the night of the murder.”

Dr Mignini tried to transport the jurors into the house through visual images and provocative suggestions. “The key to this mystery lies in the bedroom of Filomena Romanelli,” another tenant in the house, he told the jury.

“The window was broken from the inside, not the outside. The glass was on top of the clothes that had been strewn around the room, not under them. The break-in was staged and Knox is the one who did it.” (Barbie Nadeau, The Daily Beast).

In another report Barbie Nadeau stated that the mixed-blood evidence in Filomena’s room seems the most damning piece of evidence against Amanda Knox.

The only forensic evidence against Knox is the presence in her house of five spots where the blood and DNA of the roommates had commingled. Of those five, the most damning is a drop of Kercher’s blood with Knox’s DNA found (with the aid of Luminol, a substance used in crime-scene investigations to find blood that has been cleaned up) in the bedroom of Filomena Romanelli, one of the two Italian women who also lived in the house.

The prosecution alleges that a break-in was staged by Knox and Sollecito in Romanelli’s room: the window was broken with a large rock and the room was ransacked, but nothing was taken—even, though expensive sunglasses and jewelry were in plain sight. Clothes were pulled from Romanelli’s dresser drawers but the glass shards from the broken window were found on top of them, leading police to believe that the window was broken after the ransacking took place, not before.

Barbie Nadeau added that the defence didn’t prove a counter scenario to the staged break-in.

The defense did not contest any of the lab results, or provide a counter scenario to the staged break-in, or offer testimony to explain why Knox may also have been bleeding (except to say that it is common to find mixed DNA from two people who shared a house).

Judge Massei in 2009 and Judge Nencini in early 2014 both convicted Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito of staging the break-in at the cottage.

In 2015 Judge Marasca of the Supreme Court curiously didn’t confirm Knox’s and Sollecito’s convictions for staging the break-in at the cottage, despite noting that it can be linked to someone who had a connection to the cottage.

“And moreover, the staging of a theft in Romanelli’s room, which she is accused of, is also a relevant point within an incriminating picture, considering the elements of strong suspicion (location of glass shards - apparently resulting from the breaking of a glass window pane caused by the throwing of a rock from the outside - on top of the clothes and furniture) a staging…

... which can be linked to someone who as an author of the murder and flatmate with a formal connection to the dwelling - had an interest to steer suspicion away from himself/herself, while a third murderer in contrast would be motivated by a very different urge after the killing, that is to leave the dwelling as quickly as possible.


4. Conclusion On the Staging

Malcolm Gladwell claims withtout his own proof that there’s no evidence linking Amanda Knox to Meredith’s murder and the investigation was botched.

Well, yes there was, as all courts ruled. Please see above.

This renowned intellectual hasn’t even provided a single argument of his own in his book to substantiate his claims - he just provides a short and misleading quotation from Peter Gill.

Providing proof is essential in academia, science and law. It’s one of the most basic skills taught in schools.

This eccentric and unworldy academic reminds me of an insufferably arrogant student who sits an examination and then writes nothing on his paper because he doesn’t need to.

I’ve seen no evidence of his renowned intelligence. He certainly hasn’t displayed any higher-order thinking skills such as hard facts, analysis, and evaluation here.

5. Some Of The Supporting Posts On TJMK

Click for Post:  Ted “There Is No Evidence” Simon’s Tired Mantra Misinforms Americans And Provokes Italian Hard Line

Click for Post:  Amanda Knox Confirms She Staged A Break-In in Seattle Long A Sore Point To Previous Victims

Click for Post:  Understanding Micheli #2: Why Judge Micheli Rejected The Lone-Wolf Theory

Click for Post:  Understanding Micheli #4: The Staged Scene - Who Returned To Move Meredith?

Click for Post:  Powerpoints #8: Forced Entry Via Filomena’s Window Fails The Giggle Test

Click for Post:  This Was Definitely Not A Close Or Indecisive Case - Reasonable Doubt Was In Fact Totally Eliminated

Click for Post:  A Visual Guide To The Staged Break-In Via Filomena’s Window

Click for Post:  How Much Or How Little To Blame Rudy Guede? The Defenses’ Immense Headache Coming Up

Click for Post:  Why Is Appeal Prosecutor Crini So Very, Very Interested In The Precise Position Of Filomena’s Door?

Click for Post:  The New 80,000 Pound Gorilla In The Room Introduced By The Italian Supreme Court

Click for Post:  The Seattle University Panel: Some Of The Ways In Which Steve Moore Got His Analysis Wrong

Click for Post:  Another Prominent US Legal Commentator On The Evidence Points That Simply Won’t Go Away

6. Our Next Post

Click for Post:  There’s This Powerful Evidence Of Knox’s Crimescene Presence - Locked Right Inside Meredith’s Room

Posted by The Machine on 09/28 at 06:21 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (14)

Thursday, September 26, 2019

Explaining to “No Physical Evidence” Gladwell Just How MUCH There Was #3 Footprints

Posted by The Machine



Bare footprint in corridor matching Sollecito in EXACT dimensions

Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments.


1. Series Overview

This is the third in my evidence series of posts, a main part of our de-hoaxing of Malcolm Gladwell..

This post responds further to Gladwell’s bizarre “no evidence” claim in his Talking To Strangers.

It summarizes four sets of bloody footprint and shoeprint evidence, which all must have happened in the minutes and perhaps hours after Meredith died.

The four sets are: (1) strong evidence of Sollecito’s bare foot on the bathmat, (2) strong evidence of Knox’s and Sollecito’s bare feet in the corridor and in Meredith’s room, (3) strong evidence of Guede’s shoeprints leading from Meredith’s bedroom to the front door, and (4) indicative evidence of Knox’s shoeprint in Meredith’s bedroom.

Only shoeprints were attributed to Guede. There is zero evidence that he ever removed his shoes and not even a scenario of why he ever should have done.

Here’s a tip to our many new-ish readers, some great advice which might have curbed Gladwell’s disaster:

In the REAL world in the Italian courts these items (presented only once, at trial, and not at any appeal level) were very compelling items of evidence. Some topnotch experts, the best in Italy, presented their scientific outcomes at trial.

In the real world the thoroughly outgunned defenses had only weak and dispirited comebacks. ONLY what was put across and challenged in the courtrooms really mattered. 

But in the FICTIONAL world of the Knox “public relations” army of online thugs with its appalling ignorance and misrepresentations, many of them malicious and self-serving, the hoaxing of these items really switched into overdrive.

NONE of their fictional ramblings mattered in Italy. Almost nobody in Italy was paying attention, and at times the defense teams were clearly irritated by them.

Here is a good hoax example.

In mid-trial in 2009 Kermit created the Telling Case Of The Doctored Footprint powerpoint which shows just how far these misrepresentations were taken. 

Why can you believe we are not hoaxed or hoaxing?

Simple. Because every one of our analyses and reports is based on trusted reporting and court transcripts and an enormous body of official documents, many of them professionally translated.

The 2009 trial’s very intense evidence phase (some three times as many days as the defense phase) was never repeated. Only one jury observed it. But the Chieffi Supreme Court in 2013 and the Nencini Appeal Court in 2014 put many of the evidence findings at trial on steroids.

2. The Bathroom

It’s impossible to overstate the significance of the bare bloody footprint on the bathmat.  It is such significant evidence for two reasons:

(1) it matched the precise characteristics of Raffaele Sollecito’s foot;

(2) it could not possibly belong to Rudy Guede because there were irreconciliable differences with Guede’s foot.

Here are our main analyses. The first post links to half a dozen earlier posts which in some cases go into great depth.

Click for Post:  Questions For Sollecito: Can You Realistically Account For The Hard Evidence On The Bathroom Mat?

Click for Post:  The Incriminating Bathroom Evidence: Visual Analysis shows the Footprint IS Sollecito’s

At Guede’s final 2010 (Supreme Court) appeal Judge Giordano pointed out there were bloody footprints not attributable to Rudy.

It is one of the reasons why all courts including three times the Supreme Court definitively ascertained there were multiple attackers.

Judge Giordano also noted that the forensic experts attributed the knife wounds on Meredith’s neck to different knives.

In the 2013-14 Supreme-Court-ordered repeat of the Knox and Sollecito appeals of the 2009 trial verdict, Judge Nencini pointed out these irreconcilable differences between the bloody footprint on the bathmat and Guede’s foot.

“Guede’s foot presents irreconcilable differences with the bathmat imprint“ (The Nencini report, page 275).

These definitive rulings need to be writ large for Malcolm Gladwell, Peter Gill and the other high-profile supporters of Amanda Knox in the media because it completely debunks the myth that Rudy Guede acted alone.



Rudy Guede shoeprints in red

3. The Corridor

There were both shoeprints and footprints in the corridor. The five Luminol-revealed footprints (from bare feet) were assigned by the experts Dr Rinaldi and Dr Boemia as follows: One was compatible with Sollecito’s right foot, and two others were compatible with Knox’s right foot.

To repeat, only shoeprints were attributed to Guede. There is zero evidence that he ever removed his shoes and not even a scenario of why he ever should have.

As I’ve already pointed out, numerous judges, including judges from the Italian Supreme Court, have noted that Guede didn’t even enter Filomena’s room - where the break-in was staged - or the blood-spattered bathroom after he had left Meredith’s room.

...asserted that the bloody shoeprints of the aforementioned [Rudy Guede] indicated the path he took from the unfortunate Meredith’s room to the main door of the house, without going into Romanelli’s room, given that ‐ as was previously stated ‐ the traces of blood of the victim mark the path taken by Guede without any deviation. (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 64).

Note: “without any deviation”.

...the investigative data collected immediately after the event, such as Rudy’s shoeprints (along the path of his flight) and the traces of the victim’s blood detected in many spots in the bathroom used by Ms Knox and Ms Kercher, surely carried there by third parties present in the house after the murder. (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 66).

Note: “along the path of the flight”.

The trail of Rudy Guede’s bloody shoeprints is significant evidence also because it proves that he couldn’t have been one of those to stage the break-in at the cottage, or to track Meredith’s blood into either the small bathroom or Filomena’s bedroom.

The Italian Supreme Court definitively ascertained that Rudy Guede didn’t stage the break-in in Filomena’s room.

And it should also be noted, as the judges of the lower courts have correctly held, that following the murder an activity occurred intended to simulate an attempted theft, which the judges of lower courts and the defence of the same appellant agree was an operation done by others and not by the defendant [Rudy Guede]. (Judge Giordano’s Supreme Court report, page 18).”

The Italian Supreme Court also definitively concluded (no possibility of appeal) that Amanda Knox was at the cottage when Meredith was killed, and that she had been the one to track Meredith’s blood into the small bathroom.

Given this, we now note, with respect to Amanda Knox, that her presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact. (Judge Marasca’s Supreme Court report).

Note: “proven fact”.

“Another element against her [Amanda Knox] is the mixed traces, her and the victim’s one, in the ‘small bathroom’, an eloquent proof that anyway she had come into contact with the blood of the latter, which she tried to wash away from herself’. (Judge Marasca’s Supreme Court report).

Judge Massei and Judge Nencini attributed the bare bloody footprints in the hallway that were revealed by Luminol to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito because they matched their feet.

Both seem to have been rearranging the crime scene half-naked, barefoot, and possibly with gloves on. 

Malcolm Gladwell and his favorite expert Peter Gill have completely ignored the trail of Rudy Guede’s bloody shoeprints in the hallway that were revealed by Luminol

Judge Massei made the common-sense observation that the Luminol must have been reacting to blood because there was an abundance of blood at the cottage and there’s no evidence of any other substance at the cottage that also reacts to Luminol.

“It was also said of the traces highlighted by Luminol and of how these very traces, because of the certain presence of blood in abundance in the house and because of the lack of indication, beyond the mere hypotheses made, of substances which could actually have been present and present in various areas, indicate that Amanda (with her feet stained with Meredith’s blood for having been present in her room when she was killed) had gone into Romanelli’s room and into her own *room+ leaving traces [which were] highlighted by Luminol, some of which (one in the corridor, the L8, and one, the L2, in Romanelli’s room) were mixed, that is, constituted of a biological trace attributable to [both] Meredith and Amanda, and others with traces attributable ‘’only to Amanda (the three found in her own room and indicated as L3, L4 and L5) and only to the victim (one found in Romanelli’s room, the L1). (The Massei report, page 380).

DNA expert Luciano Garofano says the Luminol-revealed footprints at the cottage are in blood because of their high luminosity and the DNA test indicated the presence of Meredith’s blood.

But let’s see what the prints actually mean. First of all, from their sheer luminosity they are blood. The DNA test showed Meredith’s blood in all cases except for two places in which we have a mixed Amanda and Meredith sample.

In 2015 Judge Marasca’s Fifth Chambers (wrongly entering into the evidence - it is actually the domestic-crimes court) dismissed the Luminol prints as evidence because the TMB (Tetramethylbenzidine) tests that are used to confirm the presence of blood were negative.

However, Luminol has been found to be five times more sensitive than TMB. This explains why the TMB tests yielded negative results, but the Luminol didn’t.

Both tests are presumptive. A negative TMB doesn’t mean that there was no blood. The fact that Meredith’s DNA was found in three of the traces highlighted by Luminol indicates that it was reacting to Meredith’s blood and not bleach.

Bleach destroys DNA. The Luminol couldn’t have been reacting to bleach anyway because bleach dissipates after a couple of days and there will be no trace left. The Luminol tests at the cottage were carried out on 18 December 2007, a deliberate and routine delay to allow bleach traces and other red herrings to disippate.

You could argue that the Luminol could have been reacting to another substance such as fruit juice or rust. But does anyone really believe Knox and Sollecito had dipped their feet into a bucket of fruit juice or rust and then walked around the cottage? The trial jury didn’t.

4. Meredith’s Bedroom

Two imprint experts from the Scientific Police - Dr Rinaldi and Dr Boemia - testified at the trial in Perugia that there was a woman’s bloody shoe print on the pillow in Meredith’s room that matched Amanda Knox’s foot size.

Chief Inspector Boemia claimed the shoe print was made by a woman’s shoe brand, ASICS, and it couldn’t have belonged to a man.

Chief Inspector Boemia’s investigation of merchants and shoe manufacturers led him to identify a woman’s shoe brand, ASICS, on which he then focussed his attention in consideration of the specific form of the sole, whose width was equal to 40mm, which contained a circle just next to the hind part of the heel.

Inspector Boemia reiterated during the course of his deposition that the photo 105 print could not have corresponded to that left behind by a man’s shoe, taking into account the different range in width one would expect from a man’s shoe, measuring around 60mm in width.’  (The Massei report, page 343).

Professor Luciano Garofano also believes there was a WOMAN’S bloody shoe print on the pillow in Meredith’s room.

“Now is the question of the small shoeprint in the pillow. There is neither the heel nor the toe, so it’s hard to say the size of the shoe. You could estimate that has been made in the area of size 37 or 38, which of course, is Amanda’s size. Hard to prove, though.” (Luciano Garofano, Darkness Descending).

The two defenses were provided with chance after chance to discredit these three areas of evidence. They never did, and their only comeback was to try to divert all eyes elsewhere.

5. Our Next Post

Click for Post:  Explaining to “No Physical Evidence” Gladwell Just How MUCH There Was #4 Staged Break-In

Posted by The Machine on 09/26 at 09:00 AM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (5)

Friday, September 20, 2019

Explaining to “No Physical Evidence” Gladwell Just How MUCH There Was #2 Mixed Blood

Posted by The Machine


Meredith’s blood mixed with Knox DNA in five places

1. The Evidence Series

This is the second post in my series responding to Gladwell’s “no evidence” claim

We’ve already summarised what seems to be Gladwell’s position in the polemical “Knox chapter” in Talking To Strangers thus:

  • Gladwell has chosen sides AGAINST the globally respected forces of Italian justice, which the FBI cooperates with a lot.

  • Gladwell has chosen sides WITH the looniest of self-serving conspiracy theorists, with the anti-justice mafias cheering them on.

That seems to make him a classic example of his own thesis (be wary of strangers). We have listed those we suspect addled Gladwell in Part 4 (3) of this post. Widely discredited, they persist in keeping their theories online. 

2. Compelling Evidence At Trial

According to the forensic biologist team from the Scientific Police in Rome headed by Dr Stefanoni, there were five samples of Amanda Knox’s DNA or blood mixed with Meredith’s blood in three different locations in the cottage.

In the small bathroom a mixture of Meredith’s and Knox’s blood DNA was found in three places: on the cotton bud box, the side of the basin, and the bidet. Trial Judge Massei wrote this:

The mixed trace specimens found in the sink and in the bidet and on the box of cotton buds therefore signify that Amanda, soiled with Meredith’s blood, entered the bathroom which was right next door to the room in which Meredith had been stabbed; putting her hand against the door she left a mark on it and the dribble of blood which remained is a sign [proof] of this, and left a mark also - also with Meredith’s blood - on the light switch; she touched the cotton-bud box which was on the sink and left a mixed trace specimen of herself and of Meredith; to clean her hands she used the sink in which, through the act of scrubbing, she left her own biological trace mixed with that of Meredith, and used the bidet, most likely to wash her feet, which must have become blood-stained in Meredith’s room…

The Massei trial court, Chieffi Supreme Court, Nencini appeal court, and even Marasca/Bruno Supreme Court, all endorsed this bathroom scenario. No other was even voiced, which Gladwell “forgets” to say. 

The bathroom swabs show that Meredith and Amanda Knox MUST have both been bleeding at the same time. This is overwhelming proof that Knox was at the cottage when Meredith died and took part in the fatal attack, which Gladwell “forgets” to say.

The fourth swab of mixed DNA was in the corridor. The fifth was in the center of Filomena’s room, plus one trace of Meredith’s blood alone by the window. No Guede DNA was found in that room, which Gladwell “forgets” to say.

All DNA processing was in front of defense observers, which Gladwell “forgets” to say. Amanda Knox’s lawyers had to concede that her DNA had mingled with Meredith’s blood, which Gladwell “forgets” to say. They confined their rebuttal to suggesting arcane ways that could have happened, all with zero proof, which Gladwell “forgets” to say.

Jury members confirmed that it was damning evidence. Barbie Nadeau points out in Angel Face that the jurors accepted the mixed blood evidence as firm.

The defense’s other biggest mistake, according to interviews with jurors after the trial, was doing nothing to refute the mixed-blood evidence beyond noting that it is common to find mingled DNA when two people live in the same house. (Barbie Nadeau, Angel Face, page 152).


Meredith’s blood with Knox DNA in Filomena’s room

3. Confirmations By Other Experts

Dr Renato Biondo, the head of the DNA Unit of the Scientific Police, reviewed Dr. Stefanoni’s investigation and the forensic findings in 2008.

He confirmed that all the forensic findings were accurate and reliable. He praised the work of Dr. Stefanoni and her team:

“We are confirming the reliability of the information collected from the scene of the crime and at the same time, the professionalism and excellence of our work.”


Additionally the DNA and forensic evidence was also reviewed by Dr Luciano Garofano the retired creator of the Carabineri’s elite laboratories in Rome and other cities.

He confirmed that Amanda Knox’s blood was mixed with Meredith’s blood in the small bathroom and Filomena’s room in Darkness Descending by himself and Paul Russell. He explains how he could tell.

“However, here is the electropherogram and you can see that the RFU value is very high, so the sample is undoubtedly blood, which is the body fluid that provides the greatest amount of DNA.

In some cases you see higher peaks of Amanda’s DNA than Meredith’s. Amanda has been bleeding. (Luciano Garafano, Darkness Descending, page 371).

Luciano Garofano also asserts that there was copious blood loss by Amanda Knox on the night of the murder.

“Let’s say the assassin used the basin and bidet to wash the knife: if you look at the electropherograms you’ll see that there seems to be more of Amanda Knox’s blood than Meredith’s. There is a copious blood loss by Amanda.”  (Luciano Garofano, Darkness Descending, page 374).

Additionally both Judge Massei and Judge Nencini who presided over the 2009 trial in Perugia and the 2012 appeal in Florence respectively regard the mixed DNA samples incriminating pieces of evidence against Amanda Knox and proof she had tracked Meredith’s blood into the small bathroom and Filomena’s room where the break-in was staged.

They believe that in one or two instances Amanda Knox’s DNA could be from “epithelial rubbing” rather than blood but either way two sets of DNA are there in five instances. (Unless we’re emitting a body fluid, epithelial DNA is all we leave, a lot, by pressing hard with a hand or a foot.)

Additionally the FINAL Italian Supreme Court ruling stated the mixed DNA evidence was “eloquent proof” she had come into contact with Meredith’s blood and had washed it off in the small bathroom, which Gladwell “forgets” to say.

Another element against her [Amanda Knox] is the mixed traces, her and the victim’s one, in the ‘small bathroom’, an eloquent proof that anyway she had come into contact with the blood of the latter, which she tried to wash away from herself (it was, it seems, diluted blood, while the biological traces belonging to her would be the consequence of epithelial rubbing). (Judge Marasca’s Supreme Court report).

4. Discounting Rudy Guede

Guede could not have tracked Meredith’s blood into the small bathroom and Filomena’s room because his bloody footprints only led straight from Meredith’s room and out of the cottage (see my next post) which Gladwell “forgets” to say.

This fact has been noted by multiple judges and the Italian Supreme Court. The 2009 Massei trial report:

Rudy, who, on leaving Meredith’s room (according to what the shoe prints show), directed himself towards the exit without deviating or stopping in other rooms.(The Massei report, page 379).

And the 2013 Chieffi Supreme Court report:

the investigative data collected immediately after the event, such as Rudy’s shoeprints (along the path of his flight) and the traces of the victim’s blood detected in many spots in the bathroom used by Ms Knox and [49] Ms Kercher, surely carried there by third parties present in the house after the murder.“ (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 66).

5. Additional Posts Confirming

Click for Post:  Netflixhoax 13: Omitted - How The DNA Processes And Evidence Points Were Deliberately Misrepresented

Click for Post:  The DNA Hoax: Ways To Rebut The Drive-By Critics Of The Case On The DNA Dimension

Click for Post:  Carabineri Labs Might Prove Fourth And Conclusive Scenario For The Mixed DNA Samples In The House

Click for Post:  Beyond Massei: On The Seemingly Insuperable Mixed Blood Evidence By All The Expert Witnesses

Click for Post:  Explaining The Massei Report: The Mixed Blood Evidence Samples As Seen By Judge Massei

Click for Post:  Questions For Knox: 15 Questions That Drew Griffin On CNN Tonight SHOULD Have Asked

Click for Post:  Our Take On The Case For The Prosecution: #1 The DNA Evidence


Meredith’s blood alone, by window in Filomena’s room

6. Our Next Post

Click for Post:  Explaining to “No Physical Evidence” Gladwell Just How MUCH There Was #3 Footprints

Posted by The Machine on 09/20 at 09:15 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in • Comments here (12)

Page 1 of 89 pages  1 2 3 >  Last ›