The Hundreds Of DNA Samples Taken And Analyses Done, Shown In Table Form

Posted by Olleosnep

1. Even Excluding DNA, There’s Massive Evidence

Contrary to foolish claims elsewhere, there’s a great deal of evidence implicating not only Guede but also Knox and Sollecito in the brutal murder of Meredith Kercher. 

The bulk of the evidence is circumstantial, and encompasses different categories of evidence, such as: wounds sustained by Ms. Kercher;  ear and eye witnesses;  footprints; shoeprints; fingerprints and lack thereof; blood patterns; evidence that Ms. Kercher was moved after she died; misplaced items in her room and in the cottage; evidence of partial clean-up; cellphone records; computer evidence; evidence of staged break-in; lack of evidence of actual break-in; statements by all three defendants; lack of alibis; lies by Knox and Sollecito; etc.

A lot of the most critical evidence has been repeatedly reviewed by many different judges involved in the case, from Judge Micheli to Judge Nencini, and led to the unanimous verdict at trial now confirmed by Appeal Judge Nencini. 

2. The Massive DNA Evidence Is Equally Conclusive

We have carried nearly five dozen DNA posts previously on the Scientific Labs work in 2007-09, the discredited judges’ consultants work in 2011, and the Carabinieri Labs work in 2013.

They go to prove that some of the most damning evidence comes from the DNA traces found on hundreds of samples tested by the Forensic Genetics department of the Italian Scientific Police squadron in Rome. The department was presided over by the biologist Dr. Stefanoni at the time [seen above left with Prosecutor Comodi] who acted as the department’s principal technical director.

The results of Dr. Stefanoni’s work were collected in several reports issued by her lab during the 2008-2009 investigation and trial phases. Of these reports, two reports in particular comprise a ‘survey’ of the work performed by her lab at the time: the “Genetic Tests” report (GT), and the “Stato Avanzamento Laboratorio” report (SAL). Both reports are available on the Meredith Kercher Wiki.

These two reports are notable for highlighting the large quantity of testing done and the significant number of objects and items sampled. In addition, the reports not only look at items with blood traces, but also traces of skin cells, feces, semen, and above all, hair traces, an aspect of the evidence that has been largely glossed over in the testimony and in the motivation reports.

3. For The First Time A Complete DNA Roadmap

The DNA Spreadsheet will open using Microsoft Excel or alternatives such as the free OpenOffice. Please note the table is very wide.

In order to better understand the extent of the work and types of the tests performed, I have taken the data that can be gleaned from these two reports and placed them into a single spreadsheet, in order to create a kind of ‘database’ of the testing and analyses done.

This spreadsheet uses the GT report as a basis, followed by additional information obtainable from the SAL report.

The spreadsheet is basically a list of each sample, object and/or test done by Dr. Stefanoni’s team. These include tests done for DNA analysis, testing done for Y haplotype analysis and hair sample analysis. In the SAL report, it is shown that a few samples were tested multiple times. The list also includes some objects which were not analyzed at all, or were only analyzed up to a point.

It should be noted that there are a few difficulties with the reports. The GT report references an associated photographic report that has not been made available. The GT report is also missing a couple of pages and the descriptions of the results are at times inconsistent. Other times it can be tricky to follow exactly what tests were done. Because the report is a black and white scan of an original likely printed in color, some of the information in the tables is difficult or impossible to read. And some traces are missing result tables altogether.

The SAL report is also incomplete. The luminol samples at the cottage and all the samples taken at Guede’s apartment are missing, as are other samples. The scanned pages in the PDF are out of order, making cross-checking with the GT report tedious. The SAL report does not have all the test data indicated in the GT report. For instance, the human antibody tests noted in the GT report are not indicated in the SAL report. The data in the SAL report is often not as complete as one might think. As an example, all hair samples were logged and assigned a sample number. But those hairs that had no DNA extracted, do not have a date of when they were analyzed. Presumably they were all analyzed as a set for each item, given that the sample number is frequently numerically sequential (i.e. 47084, 47085, 47086, etc.). But it’s not possible to say with certainty when the hairs were reviewed from the report.

Nevertheless the GT and SAL reports do have significant information that is of interest to the case. Hence the spreadsheet.

4. Some Guidance For The Use Of The Spreadsheet

Spreadsheets can be useful for presenting various pieces of data together ‘at a glance’. But the real power of spreadsheets for this type of data is that rows can be sorted in order to group similar pieces of data together, allowing one to get a overview of subsets of data.

So, for instance, if one wanted to order all the rows by ‘sample number’ to see the sequence of how they were processed in the lab, one need only highlight all the rows (done by clicking on row number 5, holding down the ‘Shift key’ and paging down to the bottommost row), then go to menu option ‘Data’ and then ‘Sort’ and select the column or columns to sort by- ‘AF’ in the case.

Or perhaps one wants to sort by ‘DNA yielded’ and ‘building’ to see where someone’s DNA was found. Simply select all the rows again, select the menu option ‘Data’ and then ‘Sort’, and select the first column as ‘DNA yielded’ (or column AD), then select as the second column as ‘building (or column F).

To return to the original order, select all rows again and sort on column A.

Note that the first four rows in the spreadsheet are ‘locked’, in order to allow the column headers to be always visible.  If one wants to unlock these rows, select the whole spreadsheet by clicking on the upper left corner of the window where the column header labels and row numbers meet. Once the whole spreadsheet is selected, go to ‘View’ option and select ‘Unfreeze panes’. For Excel version 2007 and higher, click on the little arrow to the right of ‘freeze panes’ button on the menu bar, and there will be the option to unfreeze panes.

If one is handy with Access, or any other database program, it should be possible to import the spreadsheet into that database program, allowing one to perform more powerful ‘queries’.

The Rome headquarters of the Scientific Police which work closely with the FBI

5. Explanations Of Some Of The DNA Data

The data in each column was obtained directly or indirectly obtainable from the two reports by Dr. Stefanoni’s team.

1) Column ‘A’ allows one to resort rows to their original order, which is based on the order of the ‘item number’ noted in the GT report.

2) ‘Item number’ refers to the actual piece of evidence, whether an object sampled onsite or an object that was bagged and taken to the lab, as noted in the GT report.

3) ‘Original item label’ is data provided in the first pages of the GT report, as a way to tie the evidence item back to evidence markers used at the crime scene, and visible in some of the crime scene photos.

4) ‘Page in attached photo report’ indicates that there is an adjunct ‘photo report’ Dr. Stefanoni provided that has not yet been released, and likely has photos of the evidence items ‘in situ’. This information is also noted in the beginning item lists in the GT report.

5) ‘Sample date’ is based on the dates noted in the beginning list in the GT report, indicating when the evidence item was sampled or taken from the crime scene. This is sometimes difficult to read, due to the fact that the report was apparently printed in color and the black and white scan hides or obscures some text and graphics.

6) Columns F-K are location and object data, obtainable from the descriptions in the GT report, especially the first pages that provide a list of where evidence samples were obtained. I broke this data down into various categories to allow different possibilities of grouping the data.

7) ‘Sample obtained’ indicates the type of biological substance that was assumed to contain DNA. This was first obtained from the GT report, and later corrected with the data from the SAL report, which has a more consistent description of what the sample was assumed to be.

8) Columns M through AC list data either directly reported in the GT and SAL reports, or interpretable from them. Column M notes if an item was analyzed or not. In the GT report, unanalyzed items are noted in the beginning list as ‘not analyzed’ though not consistently. In the SAL report, they are noted as having 0 samples.

9) ‘Trace number’ was obtained from GT report, though on a few occasions, the actual number is not clear. Note that the number ‘starts over’ for each evidence item. Sometimes the trace number is sequential, independent of whether it is blood or hair or skin cells. Items having the most traces are those that were ‘heavily’ sampled, including Sollecito’s sneakers, the duvet, Ms. Kercher’s sweat jacket, her jeans, the kitchen knife, the kitchen sponge, etc.

10) ‘Additional trace info’ is additional information noted from both reports about a specific sample.

11) Column P ‘revealed in luminol?’ indicates with a ‘yes’ those samples obtained during luminol analysis. What often gets overlooked is that luminol analysis was performed not only at the cottage, but in Sollecito’s car, Sollecito’s apartment and Guede’s apartment. Notable here is that 14 different samples were obtained from luminol analysis at Sollecito’s apartment. While the DNA data yielded was meager, what is important is not the actual data yielded, but the number and location of samples investigated, including samples from door handles, and different locations like the bathroom, bedroom and kitchen. There was certainly a suspicious amount of blood, bleach or turnip juice at Sollecito’s place!

12) ‘Date of extraction’ comes from the SAL report, though, as mentioned above, it is not consistently reported for every trace or sample analyzed. This indicates when DNA processing occurred on a sample. This column is important to look at when discussing the issue of lab contamination. If one performs a sort on this column and on the ‘sample number’ column, one can clearly see that samples were processed in batches, often a week or two weeks apart. So for instance, claims that the sample 36B happened due to contamination at the lab is really not possible, given that Ms. Kercher’s DNA was analyzed one week earlier (11/5/07 and 11/6/07) and sample 36B is the only sample to contain Ms. Kercher’s DNA from all the samples analyzed on 11/13/07. Similarly, Sollecito’s DNA and Guede’s DNA are only found once each of all the items analyzed on 12/29/07, yet the last time Sollecito’s DNA had been analyzed was on 12/17/07, 12 days earlier. So the likelihood of lab contamination seems extraordinarily small, just from the dates of when samples were analyzed.

13) ‘TMB test positive’ was originally obtained from the GT report. Again because that report is likely in color, a number of tables have either missing graphics or are missing tables altogether. Fortunately the SAL report has duplicated this data consistently.

14) ‘Human antibody test positive?’ is obtained from other tables in the GT report, almost always paired with the TMB table. In some cases where the table data is illegible, I’ve placed a “?” in front of an assumed result. Curiously, this test is not shown in the SAL report.

15) ‘Cat antibody positive?’ is from the GT report, shows that the basement apartment blood samples were all made a by cat, which Dr. Stefanoni comments on in her Massei testimony.

16) Apparently they also ran ‘dog antibody’ testing as well, as is noted in the GT report.

17) ‘DNA extraction done?’ indicates if a decision was made to extract DNA. This was inferred from the GT report. Notable here is that even with samples having cat antibodies, Dr. Stefanoni does the DNA extraction anyway to make sure no human DNA is in the sample.

18) ‘Quantity extracted’ comes from the SAL report. This refers not to the amount of DNA extracted, but specifically to the amount of liquid (50, 100 or 150 microliters) filtered through the Qiagen Bio Robot EZ1 machine. This machine actually filters or purifies the sample, removing all other biological materials like cells, bacteria, etc. leaving only actual DNA molecules which can then be processed. This extraction process is also the quantification process, where from a 50 microliter sample a certain amount of DNA is found and quantified.

19) ‘Human DNA found during quantification’ was inferred from the GT report. It should be noted that for Dr. Stefanoni’s team, DNA analysis involved finding DNA useful for comparison. This means that Dr. Stefanoni was not looking for a sample of any human DNA, but a sample sufficiently ‘complete’ to be able to compare it with others samples. So it was likely often the case that a trace might have snippets and pieces of DNA, but these pieces were either too small or too fragmented to be useful for any profile comparisons. So ‘No’ in this column means not so much that no DNA was found at all, but that no DNA was found that could be useful for comparison.

20) ‘Decision to amplify and analyze’ was obtained from the GT report. Sometimes it is explicitly mentioned in the description of the results in the GT report. Other times, it can be inferred from the lack of tables.

21) ‘Concentrate sample with Speed VAC 110’ means that where “no human DNA was found” (i.e. when no DNA was found sufficiently complete or in sufficient amounts useful for comparison), Dr. Stefanoni decided to process the sample further in an effort to ‘bring out’ whatever DNA there might be. This was done using a ‘concentrator’, which dries the samples and vacuums them, thereby reducing sample fluid to make any DNA present more easily found by the subsequent DNA processing equipment.

22) ‘STR amplification’ is the DNA copying process whereby any DNA found is copied millions of times to obtain samples that can be adequately rendered by capillary electrophoresis. The process Dr. Stefanoni used is described specifically in the GT report for evidence items 12 and 13.

23) In some cases ‘Y chromosome amplification’ is also done. While this may be done at the same time by the same machine, I took any Y chromosome amplification to be a separate test, since per the GT report, it sometimes yielded different results. In a few cases, it is not clear from the GT report if Y chromosome amplification was done on only one sample, or on all the samples of an evidence item. In those cases, I assumed all the samples.

24) ‘Capillary electrophoresis’ is where DNA is rendered through a chemical/electrical process that tags DNA particles with fluorescence. These fluoresced particles are then read by the software of the machine and mapped onto a graph that shows DNA particles as ‘peaks’, which are an indicator of quantity of DNA found. The software of the machine then produced graphs of the peaks obtained and it is these graphs that Dr. Stefanoni and her team used for profile comparison.

25) ‘DNA yielded’ is what is indicated in the GT report and is based on Dr. Stefanoni’s comparison of the DNA profile(s) shown by capillary electrophoresis to index DNA samples she had of Sollecito, Lumumba, Guede, Knox and Ms. Kercher.

26) ‘Egram number’ is taken from the GT report.

27) The ‘sample number’ was taken from the GT and further completed by the SAL report, which has the sample numbers for all samples, whether they were analyzed for DNA or not. The sample numbers are useful for indicating what was happening at the Dr. Stefanoni’s lab. As an example, if one does a sort on column Q (Date of extraction) and column AF (sample number) one can see that between 11/5/07 and 11/6/07, there is gap of 129 samples that were likely performed for another case. The last sample analyzed on 11/5/07 was 47082, and on 11/6/07, the next sample number is 47211. So presumably her lab ran 129 additional DNA tests on samples related to other cases between these two runs. Generally the sample numbers increase sequentially by date, but there are a few exceptions. One in particular is sample 47821, which appears as the last sample on 11/23/07, though samples starting on 11/26/07, three days later, start with sample number 47711. This implies that samples were probably numbered in batches (by sticking numbered labels on tubes or bags) and not necessarily right before extraction or other machine processing was done.

28) ‘Compatibility notes’ are extra comments noted by Dr. Stefanoni in the GT report.

29) ‘Likely substance containing DNA’ is interpretable from the GT and SAL report and the results of the testing done.

30) Finally there are columns related to hair analysis. ‘Type of hair’ comes from the SAL report, and it is sometimes, but not consistently or legibly, noted in the GT report.

31) ‘Hair color’ provides a description of the hair color. Notable is that the hair description is quite consistent, with black, blonde, chestnut, light chestnut, red chestnut being the more significant categories. This is available in both the GT and SAL report and both reports match.

32) ‘Hair length;’ is obviously the length of hair analyzed. I’m not sure how this was done since the machinery used is not indicated in either report. Again, this is in both reports, and again the data matches in both reports.

33) ‘Hair width’ is the diameter of the hair in micrometers, and is available in both reports.

34) ‘Hair marrow’ is found only in the SAL report, and presumably describes the condition of the very core of the hair.

35) ‘Hair end condition’ indicates whether the end of the hair is ‘cut’, a ‘point’, frayed or otherwise.  This is found in both reports.

36) ‘Bulb phase’ relates to the particular phase of hair growth, with DNA apparently present in the hair bulb only during the initial growth phases of the hair. This too is found in both reports.

37) ‘Hair remarks’ are any comments related to hair samples.

38) Lastly, the ‘remarks’ column contains my notes on a particular sample or test, indicating discrepancies or explanations of what I was able to understand.

As noted above, the SAL report does not contain data for all the samples. Per Dr. Gino’s testimony in the Massei trial on 9/26/09, additional SAL sheets were apparently released that indicate that TMB tests were done on the luminol samples at the cottage and that these tests were negative. However it should be noted that TMB is less sensitive than luminol, so it is possible that a luminol sample could be in blood, which however is too diluted to be registered by a TMB test.

6. More Commentary On the DNA Extracted From Blood

1) DNA is only found in white blood cells, not red blood cells

2) The luminol reacts with the iron in red blood cells, not white blood cells

3) Red blood cells outnumber white blood cells by roughly 600 to 1

4) Even if DNA is found it may be not usable for comparison

So just because there is a positive luminol or TMB result does not mean that DNA can be found.

7. More Commentary On The Resulting Statistics

At the bottom of the spreadsheet are some interesting statistics, which I won’t reiterate here, except to note a few things.

a) 227 different objects or site objects were sampled/ obtained for analysis. 30 of these were not analyzed at all. From the remaining 197 objects and site objects sampled, 484 separate tests were set up for analysis, with 93 of these consisting of hair analysis. Of these 484 tests, 193 of them yield DNA data useful for comparison (40%).

b) Of the 193 tests that were ‘successful’, 100 tests yielded DNA compatible only with Ms. Kercher’s DNA (over 50%- again keep in mind their may have been other DNA but it may have been too small or too fragmented to be useful for comparison). Nine additional tests (comprising seven samples) yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA mixed with either Knox’s, Guede’s or Sollecito’s DNA. 27 tests had DNA compatible with Guede’s DNA; 18 tests had DNA compatible with Knox’s DNA; 11 more tests had DNA compatible with Sollecito’s DNA. Nine other tests yielded DNA compatible with a mixture of Knox’s and Sollecito’s DNA. 17 tests yielded DNA of unknown men and women (i.e. unmatchable by Dr. Stefanoni), and two tests were of samples obtained from Lumumba.

c) Of the nine tests yielding Ms. Kercher’s DNA mixed with others, five of these yielded DNA compatible with a mixture of Kercher’s and Knox’s DNA. They were all samples found in blood or potential blood- notably: three in the bathroom, one on the corridor floor in a luminol revealed bloody footprint, one in a luminol revealed blood stain in Romanelli’s room.

d) Returning to the discussions about contamination, it is notable that, whether the contamination occurred during site collection or in the lab, one might expect to find bits of contamination occurring here and there over 193 tests. Yet nearly all the arguments involve contamination about two samples, out of 193 tests. Over 50% of the tests that had useful DNA yielded Ms. Kercher’s DNA. If site collection, transport and/or lab procedures were so poor, one would expect to find Ms. Kercher’s DNA in other places as well. Yet very few samples have her DNA mixed with others, and conversely, very few other samples have other mixed DNA. Only nine samples have mixes of Sollecito and Knox’s DNA, eight of which were all obtained at Sollecito’s apartment or from Sollecito’s things (including a pocket knife), and one was obtained from a cigarette butt at the cottage. If contamination was so rampant, why does it occur on only two samples out of 193, (and curiously only on the two most damning samples)?

e) Continuing along the same lines, 118 samples were obtained from Sollecito’s apartment. Of these, 49 were not analyzed, (many were hairs not having bulbs in the right phase). Of the remaining 66 samples that were analyzed, only one, the one the blade of the kitchen knife, had Ms. Kercher’s DNA. And 41 yielded no usable DNA. So if there was contamination, or worse, direct framing of evidence by the lab, certainly there would be more of Ms. Kercher’s DNA amongst those 66 samples, in order to achieve an ironclad case. Yet there is only one sample out of 66 that had Ms. Kercher’s DNA.

f) Similarly, 224 tests were done on objects taken from the upper apartment. Of these 56 were not analyzed for DNA and an additional 61 that were analyzed, did not yield anything useful. Of the remaining 107 tests, only 3 had Sollecito’s DNA (a trace on the cigarette butt, and a trace on the bra clasp having Sollecito’s DNA as well as his Y chromosome.) Surely if there was rampant contamination or worse, direct framing of evidence, one would expect to find more of Sollecito’s DNA in Ms. Kercher’s room. Yet only one sample had his DNA and Y chromosome- the bra clasp.

g) Conversely, it is rather odd that Sollecito’s car was sampled in 16 locations (actually 19 samples were taken but only 16 analyzed), and none of those samples revealed his DNA. Did he ever drive his car?

8. And Finally More Commentary About The Hairs

Guede had black hair. From photos of Nov 2, 2007, Knox had blonde hair and Sollecito had chestnut to light chestnut hair. Meredith Kercher had chestnut to reddish chestnut hair.

93 hairs were found and analyzed. Seven of these were either animal hair or fibers. The remaining 86 hairs were, per the SAL report, all human. Seven of these hairs were black in color. Of the seven, six were short (4 cm or less) and one was long. Of the six short black hairs, four were found on the duvet covering Ms. Kercher, one was found on her mattress cover, and one was found on a sponge (containing fourteen other hairs) at Sollecito’s apartment. It is very likely these short black hairs were Guede’s, and if so, how it one of his hairs get on a sponge at Sollecito’s apartment.

Similarly, 21 blonde hairs were found, ranging from 4 cm to 20 cm. Of these, fifteen were found at Sollecito’s apartment, either on a sponge in the kitchen, or on a sweater. The other six were found at the cottage, with three being found on the duvet, one found inside the small bathroom sink, one found on a mop, one found on Ms. Kercher’s purse and one found on Ms. Kercher’s mattress cover.

Assuming the blonde hairs were Knox’s hair, it is difficult to imagine how they might wind up on Ms. Kercher’s purse and mattress cover.

There were four light chestnut hairs found. One, measuring 9 cm, was found on the kitchen sponge at Sollecito’s apartment. The other three light chestnut hairs were found on Ms. Kercher’s bra (2 cm), sweat jacket (7.5 cm) and the towel found under Ms. Kercher’s body (20 cm).

35 chestnut colored hairs were found, ranging from 1.5 to 30 cm in length. The vast majority were in Ms. Kercher’s bedroom. Two chestnut colored hairs (5 cm and 8 cm) were on the kitchen sponge at Sollecito’s house. It should be noted that three chestnut colored hairs yielded Ms. Kercher’s DNA, measuring 15, 18 and 23 cms.

So even from the hair evidence, it seems that hair having Knox and Sollecito’s color were on Ms. Kercher’s more intimate objects, while Guede’s and Ms. Kercher’s hair apparently were on a sponge in the kitchen at Sollecito’s apartment. In other words, an object used in a clean-up, and in a room that also had five luminol revealed samples.

Even the hair evidence points to Guede, Sollecito and Knox having acted together in the murder of Ms. Kercher.


Thank you very much for this detailed summary, Olleosnep.

It puts many points into the right perspective - especially debunking ‘contamination’ speculation. It also shows - with the white/red blood cells info- how it is not easy to come across DNA just casually anywhere…so that when it is found (or not, as in absent contamination) it is significant.

I found the information about the hairs found particularly interesting.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 10/22/14 at 06:09 AM | #

A superb analysis thank you Olleosnep!  It is impossible to argue with the hair evidence alone!

Posted by MHILL4 on 10/22/14 at 07:14 AM | #

Well, the hair is only one aspect. But what is rather curious is that even the hairs suggest the presence of all three during the assault, or during some type of clean up. It is yet one more type of data added to the huge pool of evidence that points to Knox and Sollecito being part of the assault.

As for supposed contamination, I think it’s pretty clear when you look at the tests done on specific days and their results that, as Dr. Stefanoni claimed, there was no contamination. Otherwise one would find this mixing more frequently.

Instead we have two tests yielding supposed contamination out of 193 test that apparently have no problems. Surely if the samples were contaminated or rigged, you’d see more of Ms. Kercher’s DNA on the knife or on the kitchen sponge at Sollecito’s place, or Sollecito’s DNA on Ms. Kercher’s sweat jacket, or jeans or duvet, or all three. Or Knox’s DNA on the sweat jacket, jeans and/or duvet.

Posted by Olleosnep on 10/22/14 at 07:46 AM | #

For anyone interested in DNA analysis in general:

Posted by Olleosnep on 10/22/14 at 07:55 AM | #

A little stunning to see that giant spreadsheet open up.

The Knox adulator Dr Hampikian, manic on supposed contamination, seems to have disappeared, probably scared that investigators are on his tail, but it would have been nice to confront him with this.

Unlike the US (FBI Quantico) Italy has two national forensic labs, both highly accredited and highly networked.

Dr Stefanoni’s team works in the Scientific Police labs (DAC-SPS) in this huge new structure seen above several miles southeast of central Rome, and the Carabinieri labs (RaCIS) are in northern Rome. Some images of the RaCIS HQ accompanied our posts earlier this year.

In 2011 Judge Hellmann unwisely appointed two questionable DNA consultants from a Rome university instead of turning to the RaCIS lab for an independent check which Judge Nencini finally did.

The RaCIS report really roasted the work of Hellmann’s consultants, as did Cassation in April 2013 and Judge Nencini in his new report.

The untested sample from the knife which RaCIS tested (it proved to be from Knox) was found in a common fridge, which the Carabinieri photographed and included in their report.

Here are some characteristics of the Scientific Police labs.

* Founded 1903;

* Part of the Italian National Police which is under the Ministry of the Interior, Public Security Department;

* ENFSI (European labs network) member since 1994;

* Accreditation since 2009 based on ISO 9000;

* It operates all over Italy through its 14 Interregional/Regional Offices and 103 Local Offices

* Managerial data (2010) TDAC-SPS-RM

* Total Staff: 372

* Forensic experts: 195

* Trainees: 80

* Secretarial staff: 10

* Fields of expertise:  Ballistics, Computer Forensic, Fingerprints, Dna, Drugs, Documents, Fire and Explosion Investigation, , Handwriting, Forensic Speech and Audio Analysis, Scene of Crime

The present director is Dr Daniela Stradiotto, her image is below.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/22/14 at 10:14 AM | #

Thank you, Olleosnep, excellent compilation, good work!

The eye-poppers for me were Meredith’s and Knox’s mixed-blood samples in the corridor and in Filomena’s room (!!), for some reason I wasn’t aware of these additional locations (knew about the mixed blood in the bathroom, though).

The defense contested the bra clasp and the knife evidence for the obvious reason that it was so incriminating—our boy, though, rushed to explain how he pricked Meredith’s finger with the knife in question while cooking at his flat (huge lie, which actually confirmed that Meredith’s blood had been on *that* knife).

I am a little surprised, though, that the hair analysis was only descriptive and couldn’t yield something more conclusive.

Posted by Bjorn on 10/22/14 at 10:44 AM | #

Massive job, please read and comment.

Stunning reminder of how many hair samples actually were found, not discussed much previously. Will help refute the many faked reports found in the fake wiki by the FOA based on flawed interpretations of Stefanoni’s notes.

Posted by Ergon on 10/22/14 at 11:23 AM | #

@ Bjorn

For the hair, in the spreadsheet you’ll find that out of 86 hairs, Dr. Stefanoni tested 22, of which only 3 yielded DNA (all Ms. Kercher’s). The others didn’t have bulbs in the right phase to contain DNA.

Her scope, I believe, was DNA testing, so she principally limited herself to that.

What I’d like to know is how they measured hair length. That should be an interesting machine.

Posted by Olleosnep on 10/22/14 at 01:09 PM | #

This is indeed really wonderful. Apart from the shear volume of all of this analysis week after week, it is just another nail in Knox’s coffin. The defenders of Knox never considered the hair analysis as indeed neither did I, so a well done and a very well deserved “Bravo Zulu”

Of course the so called defenders will ignore all of this and call indeed they have “just propaganda”

I see that Knox has had some of her work (sic) accepted by some arts company thereby trying to pull a Jodi Arias and her so called art work. These individuals only go for the notoriety aspect after all, not the excellence win lose or draw.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 10/22/14 at 01:19 PM | #

Thank you everyone. One point I’d like to underline that maybe gets lost is that DNA analysis is not a matter but putting in a sample and out spits a result. As can be seen above it is a multi-step process that requires judicious use of equipment and lab tech time, as well as decisions as what to test and where.

I don’t know what an “average number of samples per case” is, but seeing that 480+ tests were done, 193 tests analyzed for DNA over the course of 7 months is quite a lot of work. Key items that one would expect to be sampled in multiple locations, like Ms. Kercher’s jeans and duvet, were sampled as such.

At a minimum, Dr. Stefanoni was thorough.

Finally it should be noted that DNA analysis consists of looking at 13-16 key locations of human DNA (out of thousands of possible locations), locations which are known to have high variability and the matching of which is a probability of 1 in a billion.

So even when DNA is found, they don’t look at the whole thing, but only certain parts. So if those key parts are missing to some degree, that too is DNA “not useful for comparison”.

Posted by Olleosnep on 10/22/14 at 01:33 PM | #

Obscure, illuminating, thanks..

Posted by Bettina on 10/22/14 at 10:51 PM | #

It’s really a shame that the hairs in Meredith’s hands were lost.  Is there any documentation of the why and how this happened?  Thanks for the awesome spreadsheet!  Go Monica!

Posted by zinnia on 10/23/14 at 12:20 AM | #

Thank you for the spreadsheet and analysis, Olleosnep. 

I hadn’t realized that there were so many mixed DNA samples, including not only Meredith and Knox’s, but also Meredith and Guede’s/Sollecito’s (based on this quote, if I understand it correctly: “Nine additional tests (comprising seven samples) yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA mixed with either Knox’s, Guede’s or Sollecito’s DNA”).

How would Meredith’s DNA come to be mixed with DNA compatible with either Guede’s or Sollecito’s?
Guede visited the downstairs apartment occasionally, but there are no reports of him ever being upstairs before the night of the murder.  And Sollecito had never had any close personal contact with Meredith and her belongings.

And how would DNA compatible with Meredith’s and Guede’s end up in Sollecito’s apartment, when neither had ever been there?  I believe Sollecito’s official stance is that he had never even met Guede (which may be true if referring to the time before the night of the murder).

The presence of Knox’s DNA and hair on Sollecito’s items and at his apartment is perfectly normal, considering the amount of time she spent there and the fact that they were in a relationship.  But, of course, the question arises regarding why she seems to have left more DNA at his apartment than at the cottage (somewhat strange for someone for whom cleaning was not a major concern).

There’s a similar question regarding the absence of Sollecito’s DNA from his car.

The more documents are made accessible, the harder it is for me to understand how they could have ever entertained the notion that they’ll get away with this.  They must have hoped, against reason, that due to the fact that Guede’s traces were rather prominent and Guede was black, no one would bother looking too deeply into the rest of the evidence.  While there is a racist undercurrent in Italy like in most countries in Europe, it does the Perugia police credit that they didn’t automatically rule out the involvement of white, middle-class persons.  I’m guessing that early hopes were based on Sollecito’s dismissive views of public institutions.

And this brings us back to the extraordinarily evil part that the PR campaign played in dragging out the case over 7 years now, since the hiring of the PR firm and influence of their respective families left Knox and Sollecito with only a very tiny window to come to their senses and understand that there was no point in continuing to deny their involvement.

I guess in the end we have to ask what was the point of this enterprise. It only served to put Meredith’s family through the wringer and to delay a sentence which will have to be served anyway.  All the money that ended up in the pockets of various consultants and vampiric hangers-on could have been used to help Knox and Sollecito get back on their feet and start normal lives when out of prison.  If anything, all the publicity around this case served to burden them with a secret which will make any sort of normality impossible and brand them in a way in which quietly serving their sentences could have never accomplished.

Posted by Vivianna on 10/23/14 at 02:44 AM | #

@ Zinnia
I don’t believe there is any way to claim with certainty the hairs in Meredith’s hand were actually lost. The GT report indicates that Dr. Stefanoni received from Dr. Lalli a collection of hairs from Ms. Kercher’s intimate area, but that may simply be a general description to indicate where most of those hairs came from. Dr Lalli collected the hairs before autopsy so he may have combined hairs from the hands with those other hairs. In any case, what hairs there were were fiber, not human.

@ Vivianna
There are 9 tests yielding mixed DNA, but only 7 samples. In fact five samples have DNA compatible with a mixture of Ms. Kercher’s and Knox’s DNA. The remaining two samples yielded two tests each.
One sample, on the purse, had a DNA mixture of Guede’s DNA and Ms. Kercher’s DNA, as well as Guede’s Y haplotype (two tests, presumably using the same sample). The other sample was the bra clasp, which had a mixture of Ms. Kercher’s DNA and Sollecito’s DNA, as well as Sollecito’s Y haplotype. So again two tests run presumably on the same sample.

I agree the PR has only made things worse for Knox and Sollecito.

Posted by Olleosnep on 10/23/14 at 07:59 AM | #

For those following the Twitter wars it was Bruce Fischer who provided the photo shopped “Friends” poster of Meredith and Amanda Knox now being used to spoof “the Kercher Fund”, Peggy Ganong and others

Posted by Ergon on 10/23/14 at 08:39 AM | #

Good detailed work Olleosnep.

It’s clear she’s going to get her just deserts - and everyone knows it (apart from her close and totally blind milieu, huddled in the Seattle bunker, who still can’t summon the courage to tell her it’s all over).

Posted by Odysseus on 10/23/14 at 01:56 PM | #

Odysseus, right on.

Ergon, looks like Knox’s brutal gang is artistically inclined, and we should encourage their Photoshoping endeavors, if it helps them mellow down, relax, and generally take their mind off the real problems they’re facing, here are some ideas for future posters:

- Amanda riding the Dragon;
- Amanda eloping with the Sultan;
- Amanda getting married on the Moon, to a Soviet cosmonaut;
- Amanda blessing the Thanksgiving turkey for the malnourished, emaciated children in the small remote village of Perugia;
- Amanda the Innocent (the statue), carried by four elephants to its pedestal, overlooking Xanadu.

Posted by Bjorn on 10/23/14 at 02:34 PM | #

Good point… Of course the thing is that the forces of evil, just like the Taliban/ISIS and other rabid Neo-Fascist groups, decry any education at all since that is their stock in trade. ie keep the peasants ignorant because if they ever bothered to read anything at all they would see what fools Knox has made of them. It was the same with religion and the Gutenberg Bible. This is what the Knox supporters do since they just parrot propaganda because they have no original thought process of their own. (Thank you Steve Moore resident buffoon) That is why this site and others is of such vital importance since it tells the undeniable truth. My hat is off to everyone here particularly Peter for the dedication and longevity over in excess of seven years. We will see this through to the end no matter how long it takes.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 10/23/14 at 05:48 PM | #

It’s your suggestions that are artistically inclined and quite good ideas as well, Bjorn. The pro-Meredith side consistently demonstrates artistic, literary and poetic skills.

Amanda’s side lacks in every possible way including presenting a coherent argument as to why their little darling is innocent. Even their wiki is a copycat, copying our successful model referred to by real journalists, omitting “the” just to confuse. So, losing on twitter as well they throw a tantrum, they personalize the conflict and worry about a “harry rag”, “Ergon”, “Michael” and “Peggy”, instead of addressing “Nencini”.

But it’s the sheer nastiness they’ve displayed which has nothing to do with PR, and they are too stupid to realize how much it hurts their cause..

They stick pictures of Meredith on to porn models, liken the Kerchers to Nazis (then excuse with bogus arguments that they’re Jewish) and offer rewards to obtain the identities of private individuals claiming they’ve been ‘defamed’ or had ‘porn pictures’ sent to their wives, not once providing proof.

Above all, they lack imagination.

Posted by Ergon on 10/23/14 at 06:00 PM | #

Announcement: Bloody hell. It looks like @Extradite_Knox has lifted my exchange with Lyn Duncan here: REPLY TO THE FREE MEREDITH KERCHER FACEBOOK SITE

and posted it here on Twitter: Extradite_Knox which gives the impression I am that account holder. I am not, nor do I know who it is.

For the record, I do not have any other accounts on Twitter except @manfromatlan

Since @Extradite_Knox has just posted someone’s identity on Twitter (I think you have the wrong person BTW) I am stating this very clearly:

I do not support, nor have I ever supported the ‘outing’ of anyone.

I have never called anyone’s employer or tried to have them fired, nor have I supported that.

I pride myself on always fighting hard but never using unfair means.

I respectfully request @Extradite_Knox or anyone else to please make sure that proper attribution is made to the screen grab that was posted, that it was made by Ergon at PMF net.

Since I have been suspended from twitter indefinitely on spurious charges of ‘spamming’ (helpful instructions posted by #AmandaKnox partisans previously) and Twitter has so far not replied to my requests for review/reinstatement I have no way of responding directly or correcting the record.

This is what I wrote then: Ergon Fri Sep 28, 2012 9:33 am
“Hello, Lyn Duncan, and thank you for replying. I was expecting someone to do so. I, too, am “one of the admins” of Perugia Murder Files, but I did not set it up, nor am I the owner of this site. So if you can confirm that you set up the page and not Karen Pruett or Shirley Anne Mathers, I withdraw their names, but retain the right to speculate on who the other ‘admins’ are. Elisabeth Huff? Did Chris Mellas set up the site ? Or Bruce Fischer? I have no intention of harassing them, or encouraging any one to do so.

Now that I have your attention, you are cyber harassing and taunting the family of Meredith Kercher. Inter spaced with all your New Age exhortations of ‘love’, you post numerous accounts of how the Kerchers are deluded, mistaken, led astray by their lawyer Francesco Maresca. Your site is the one that lifted copyrighted pictures of the young Meredith from John Kercher’s book without permission and used it to promote a site dedicated, not to Meredith Kercher, but promoting the innocence of the two accused the family still believes responsible for their daughter and sister’s murder.

You post a picture of Raffaele Sollecito on his book tour posing beside a picture of Meredith, and don’t appreciate how wrong that is, on so many levels? All the fake shrines and hallmark sentiments you post alongside do not disguise your true intent. The Kerchers are unable to defend themselves against such attacks. I am glad I had the opportunity to speak up in their defense.”

Two years later, the Kerchers are still being harassed, and I am glad to still be able to speak up in their defense.

Posted by Ergon on 10/23/14 at 09:12 PM | #

For the record, Lyn Duncan is @Annella, who has posted the most vile things about Meredith Kercher.

Posted by Ergon on 10/23/14 at 10:08 PM | #

WOW! Thank you Olleosnep. This is a truly incredible work. It clearly shows that the forensic police team made a very thorough and extremely meticulous DNA investigation and removes all reasonable doubt about that forevermore.

The FOAKers always insist that the United States authorities will review the evidence. We know that they won’t but if they did, this is just part of what they would see and it would further confirm the convictions of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Thank you again.

Posted by Johnny Yen on 10/24/14 at 10:02 AM | #

Great work, Olleosnep. Thank you for all your hard work in bringing us this informative post.

Posted by Wascana on 10/25/14 at 02:34 PM | #

Seems PMF’s Ergon and Michael are being attacked and generally trashed by the non-Illuminati dummies. Then today Oct. 25th 2014 links to Amanda’s theatre review that she has the audacity to title, “Farewell to Innocence:...Comedy and Tragedy in Dogfight at Arts West Theater”.

Her critique of this miserable sounding play reads if you know the Perugia tragedy like yet another mental silhouette of Knox’s unfinished business with murder and Meredith. Her writing is quite good in this piece but also revealing.

Knox describes Marine recruits heading to Vietnam. In her first paragraph she has already mentioned people

+ “with the emotional maturity of middle-schoolers”(that’s gotta be Knox herself),

+ those who compensate for their fear with “entitlement and objectification” (Knox objectified Meredith as less-than herself and acted out supreme entitlement over another’s life).

Knox says of the soldiers in the play, “they flex their muscles and hump the air” and remind each other they are heroes. She is unable to complete her first paragraph without a quote that takes God’s name in vain. This she follows with an image of tattoo needles and condoms, mocking the young men as fearful of both things, saying they are singing with high voices as if to imply they’re not fully grown or not fully male. Knox had a tattoo on her back and happily discussed her sexual romps, guess no fear on her part and she thinks she bests the soldiers. Dream on.

Next she moves on to relate the “casual cruelty” of Marine recruit Eddie who takes the ugliest young woman he can find to invite to a party in a mean spirited competition. Rose Fenny character must no doubt symbolize Meredith in Knox’s reconstituted memory. White roses are a frequent emblem we use for Meredith. Of the Rose in this play Knox describes her as “thoughtful, if sheltered” and that Rose has to be “spurred out of complacency” by Eddie’s casual cruelty, but that Rose “reaches him with her emotional maturity in a way both of them never imagined possible.” I keep recalling Knox’s questions she wrote, “How is it possible that… How is it possible” and all her imagined visions in her post-arrest writings in Perugia. She relished the wording, “How is it possible?” as if she had discovered a lovely new sentence structure from Italian with its vague question form to further confuse, always her joy.

However, not content to give Rose (or Meredith?) too many compliments Knox then does a double-cross and describes all the ugly girls who are the brunt of the men’s silent mockery among whom is Rose Fenny as “begging to be laughed at despite their victimization.” This is more trash by Amanda Knox. Meredith was not begging to be laughed at. It is Knox who has become tragi-comic and ridiculous as an unmasked poseur. Nor will she win her Vietnam, don’t get me started on that heartbreaking morass and waffling MacNamara, LBJ, etc.

Then Knox describes the stage of the Arts West Theater, the physical stage on which the play Dogfight is “directed by Mat Wright”. I may be very wrong to assume that Mat Wright is related to the playwright Thomas Wright who gave all that money to Seattle Prep in Knox’s honor. I could easily be wrong, Wright is a common American name.

On another angle could it be assumed that Knox is writing this article as a theater critic to impress her latest showboat boyfriend Mr. Colin Sutherland of New York expensive college fame? She must be back in Seattle at least long enough to view the play and out of New York City, or is this yet another ruse?

She describes the stage design as “an anthill set between two panes of glass”. Let us remember the double paned glass in Filomena’s bedroom that was broken. My sister gave us an ant farm for Christmas and you could walk by it at midnight or 4a.m. and those ants were still moving and tunneling, they never sleep. Such was Knox’s late night schedule in Perugia, out until late either working or partying late. We see what comes of it, fatigue and madness.

She mentions a bedroom on the Arts West stage that “pulls out of a wall” and a balcony. Reminders of via Pergola cottage, the porch, the important bedroom of Meredith. She mentions two sets of stairs in the play. There is a double staircase on the outside of the haunted house in her H.O.T. music video.

By paragraph 3, Knox uses the word “cuts” and then focuses on the soldiers who are running in formation or training but soon in a war zone. So after the word “cuts” appears, she describes soldiers running, shipping off to a war zone and “change to the characters’ demeanor”. This sequence sounds a lot like her crime: knives cutting, she and Raf running, life becoming a war zone for her with the police, fighting for her life, trying to keep her allies in line be they family or Raffaele or lawyers, and “immediate change to the characters’ demeanor”.

No doubt Amanda sees herself and her struggles as tantamount to military battle. How far off can you get? These cadets are brave. They’re losing their immaturity, their timidity, their natural fear and are risking their bodies for a greater cause of self-sacrifice for their country and duty as they see it, (“Lions for Lambs” style), while Knox merely lost her innocence or threw away her innocence and Raffaele’s innocence in the most literal legal sense possible and for an evil cause. If she sees such a comparison between herself and true soldiers, stupid liar and “entitlement” describe her.

Her summation says, “For a musical, this story ends with a shot to the gut….” No doubt a shot to the gut would be a fatal wound similar to a fatal wound she inflicted on Meredith. Maybe they even hit Meredith in the stomach and she is revealing this. In the same breath she speaks of “unresolved issues of veteran neglect” in the U.S. healthcare system after Meredith was neglected to die, so maybe Meredith is the veteran of foreign wars. Does Knox see her as Viet Cong?

Knox says of Dogfight, “It is an abrupt ending as well…” she goes on, saying…“the love story comes full circle”.

Knox says the audience is left with uncertainty “because of all that has been broken”. Stick around, the Italian Supreme Court will get closure as in close the circle for you and Raffaele soon, it’s no Love Story and the countdown is ticking near 150 days until the March judgment. This is the gritty reality. Is she thinking of the gritty sponge full of hairs?

Knox says the “Dogfight” play is no Disney musical “despite all the fun along the way”. “This is real” is her final summation of the play, and reality is gritty and not musical or fun.

Knox must identify with the Marines in this play and their loss of childhood which is epitomized by “apple pies, waffle cones and chili fries”. We remember Knox saying she could kill for a pizza but suddenly the word “kill” did seem a bit real to her after Meredith’s death. Knox is no team player, she believes in the dog eat dog world of pitbull central Doberman High. “Cruel and comic” she says of the boy warriors in this play. The play sounds dreadful, a screaming pack of ambiguities and hopelessness evincing a grudging respect for soldiers’ valor that is tainted with distrust of their motives or intelligence. Whatever the story line, even fictional Marines are are much more likely to symbolize true heroes than Amanda Knox ever will for all their fictional faults and hatefulness to the “ugly girls”, which sounds like Knox’s opinion of her housemates, the Brit girls and Meredith. Pretty is as pretty does, Helen of Troy love letters to a jailbird are worthless.

The lovely voice of Rose Fenny played by actress Devon Busswood is described by Knox as “clear alto…particularly stunning”. Meredith did make quite some noise that stunned even the women across the street and set the time of the crime more closely than the culprits dreamed.

Posted by Hopeful on 10/25/14 at 03:42 PM | #

What Knox wrote in the theatre review may or may not be true because in her mind she only saw flashes of the play, covered her ears, some people may have been having sex on stage when she wasn’t looking, and she don’t remember jack.

Posted by Bjorn on 10/26/14 at 10:57 AM | #

You may have noticed that there is a vast silence form the Knox supporters. Not a peep. That is because they have run out of anything to say in defense of their convicted murmurer. Nothing…  I am just waiting for some kind of the usual screams of denial but no. Also you may notice that Groundreport has nothing but cached material from the beginning of this year but that is as per usual.

As far as Knox is concerned she must have watched the Jodi Arias trial in that she, like Arias, believes that by contributing some sort of artistic tripe people will think better of her.
Of course all this is in limbo until next year. I have blogged in various places asking for anyone to provide absolutely one scintilla of hard evidence proving innocence. Nothing of course but then being ignored is their stock in trade.
Steve Moore and his lovely wife have nothing as per usual which is a shame since their contributions, (such as they are,) are always good for a laugh.

It’s a sad commentary upon several strata of the population both US and UK that they will believe anything other than the truth which stares them in the face. They absolutely refuse to read this site because in their stupidity they think it’s all propaganda or something written by the Italian Government. Therefore congratulations the Gogarty Marriot however, those pigeons are coming home to roost soon enough.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 10/26/14 at 04:34 PM | #

Very nice picture of Dr Daniela Stradiotto above!

Officialdom everywhere could really do with valuing and incorporating the feminine principle. Above all this means recognising that women are frequently more intelligent and better suited to roles that were traditionally the preserve of men.

Bad news for the male ego. Great news otherwise.

Somehow you know that women are intrinsically intelligent enough to reach high positions and they really won’t balls it all up as men do routinely. (Obviously there will always be the few women who are dumb enough to seek power - the male principle - and go into the cesspit of politics, where vain ambition, incompetence and corruption knows no gender. To quote Mark Twain “politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason”. grin)

Posted by Odysseus on 10/28/14 at 12:17 PM | #

Swansea Jack, one of the very strong supporters of Meredith’s cause, has written an article about Amanda Knox’s ex-FBI supporters Steve Moore and Jim Clemente at

Please visit and comment as you see fit.

Posted by Ergon on 10/28/14 at 02:21 PM | #

Interestingly enough below the main title written by Swansea Jack on Justice4ever there is another article on Marriott which although quite short has good points, Thank you Ergon

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 10/29/14 at 02:10 AM | #

Hi Odysseus:

Kind and insightfull remark of yours on Dr Daniela Stradiotto (Dr Sfefanoni’s big boss) and women generally. I like the shot with all the male cops seriously at attention.

In managing consulting and the larger development processes I’m involved with women are the ones that excel at group process management, often involving thousands, and in fact in that area on average they make the most money of any profession, substantially more than the few men in that field do.

That area goes under different names but one is “organization development” or OD and in the US they run terrific conferences. There is a crying need throughout the world for more of them. I reckon they hold THE key to getting beyond the growing lockups all over the world in politics and economies.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/29/14 at 09:50 AM | #


Interesting. I hope you’re right re “THE key” - could very well be true.

Posted by Odysseus on 10/29/14 at 02:26 PM | #

Hi all,

I was reading the rest of Swansea Jack’s article on G-String Moore when I got a 404 error message.  It’s still that way.

The link was:

Could Mellon - oh, er, - Mellas & Circus be responsible?  What do folks here know?


Posted by all4justice on 10/30/14 at 01:56 AM | #

Hi all4justice

That seems to be only a change of address by the site manager not fully followed through. You can still read the first part of Swansea Jack’s post here (the header, if another post appears above it, is “Friends of Amanda (FOA) or FBI?”):

However the permanent link for that post (click on the date at top) and the “continue reading” and “comments” links at the bottom of the first part dont work for me right now.  Nor does the “contact us” at very top.

Calideeva is registered here and with luck she will read this.


Chris Mellas is indeed a computer whiz and has put up a number of sites, though not all are still up. He should know ways to mount an attack and Moore & Clemente might know others who can do that too. But such an effect is normally shortlived and carries quite a risk of being exposed.

All of our sites have experienced what might seem at first glance malicious attacks, but I dont know of any confirmed for sure. TJMK was not showing properly on Tuesday, but that turned out to be a faulty nameserver and we saw that problem once before.

We occasionally see problems when more than a few hundred are online at once, but it would require a huge upgrade to a commercial level to get beyond that, so we just have to let it ride.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/30/14 at 09:10 AM | #

Hi Peter Ergon Odysseus
Interesting that they should try to hijack the site but not surprising since this is the only recourse they have. I found it once more by going into history. It’s all there by the way but of course the average Knox supporter will read the headline and nothing else which is what they bank on which is the mindless stupidity of the FOCKers.

Of course Franknows is Doper but what do you expect. This of course is almost the entire staff of groundreport. The fact that idiots such as Franknows/Doper believe that John Douglas invented profiling is beyond belief but predictable.
Absolutely no comprehensive at all of how stupid they sound.

There was a time in the USA when slaves were profiled or Gypsies in Europe were profiled as well. Or profiling was done by how you dressed. 
The main point of all of this is quite simple. The more information there is out there the better for the eventual justice for Meredith. I could care less what Amanda Knox writes because she is just like Jodi Arias ie “Don’t kill me I have so much to offer.”
or in this case. “Don’t send me to jail I am a brilliant writer.”

Good….......... Write in Cappane. After all some of the most notorious writing has been done in jail. Adolf Hitler wrote his little book and started the second world war.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 10/30/14 at 06:10 PM | #

Knox is writing about cashew nut milk to promote a Kickstarter fundraiser campaign. Knox interviewed a woman formerly from Uganda who’s now a nurse living in the U.S. This woman with her husband has a baby who needs non-cow milk because of eczema skin allergies.

She has experimented to create cashew nuts into milk; her product sounds wonderful. She’s trying to raise money for a start-up business.

I see Knox as hovering around Kickstarter hoping to get online funds for herself through some later venture of her own. She is looking for money angles. Curt will approve.

I see her promo for this African woman as a way to expiate guilt over her treatment of Lumumba, and maybe to throw a bone to Guede.

Knox may be yearning for a child, as she chooses the subject of mothers and babies. The cashew milk product: cash cash cash for You, cash-you is a pun on cashew perhaps not intended. Maybe Knox remembers the cow on the panties she bought at Bubbles. I bet Meredith called her “that cow” as well as a drugged up tart.

Anyway I can’t knock her for trying to help this woman who is a nurse and whose product is worth supporting. Even the vanilla beans will come from Uganda and aid the woman’s home country. Her nut milk might help a lot of people with its precious enzymes, people with allergies to cow’s milk. Despite a frisson of resentment toward anything in which Knox has a part, I’d much rather see Knox using her talent this way than say for example shoplifting at the mall or wasting her time and talent on internet lying. If she does earn money from writing (wasn’t she going to New York City to write for a bigger job like publishing co, bigger than West Seattle Herald?) her earnings could be used for her lawyers and to those with judgments against her. You can’t get blood out of a turnip, and something positive is better than anything negative.

I trounced Knox pretty hard on her theater critic piece about “Dogfight” because I saw it as an opinion piece covertly displaying the shadow that lurks within her of the same bad attitudes that motivated the murder. Also the play seemed by Knox’s account to have a cynical anti-military tone which I disliked when applied to brave young men.

(Not everything Knox does is pure evil, it wasn’t long ago she was in prison reading the existential philosophers and begging for books. I think she’ll always be a robot but she may learn a high form of mimicry of the good when her self-interest is involved.)

However, the cashew milk interview for Kickstarter is useful as pure information to the public.

Posted by Hopeful on 10/30/14 at 07:22 PM | #

Make a comment

If you are reading this please log in to post a comment.


Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Analysis #3 Of Testimony Of Dr Chiacchiera, Organized Crime Section: Contradictions Between RS & AK

Or to previous entry Knox, Tied In Knots By Her Own Tongue: Translation Of The 17 Dec 2007 Interview With Dr Mignini #4