Monday, April 30, 2012

Does ANY Competent Lawyer Believe RS And AK Are 100% Innocent? If So See These Questions

Posted by James Raper

[Above: Knox defense legal advisor Ted Simon increasingly seems to have some explaining to do]

After 3 days and growing, unfortunately no sign that pro-innocence lawyers (if any) want to respond.  Mr Simon? Mr Barnett? Ms Nancy Grace? (Well perhaps not you)

The Italian, US and UK lawyers who guide TJMK (of which I am one) look around and wonder: why are genuinely-convinced pro-Knox lawyers (if any) still not comprehensively answering all the open questions?

I contrast this with the various media talking heads who have offered drive-by comments without a really deep understanding of the facts of the case or Italian law.

In the law of all three countries, defense lawyers don’t need to KNOW either way whether their client is guilty or innocent. They don’t have to come out with a complete scenario to account for all the facts and point to innocence that would be the counterpart to my scenario (powerpoints - wait a few seconds to load) seemingly accounting for all the facts, which is still an unchallenged case for guilt.

But a comprehensive rebuttal would do the hard-pressed Sollecito and Knox factions a big favor, and provide a much-needed framework for the media (which is posting many incorrect legal claims), and make the Cassation appeal and the book-writing by Knox and Sollecito so much easier.

Consider the ups-and-downs of the defense legal teams on the case,

It was clear in 2008 that her lawyers absolutely didnt like Knox speaking out, offering different versions that between them made her look distinctly guilty. They didnt like the anti-Mignini campaign run from Seattle and they publicly said so - when Mr Mignini was attacked by a main speaker at an event at Salty’s they actually spoke up and publicly defended him.

In December 2008 NBC TV aired an excellent Dateline report. The main legal talking head, Ted Simon, explained that this was a really tough prosecution case to beat, and that whacking down individual points of evidence would not win the case in the public eye (justice would not be seen to be done) and that only a complete alternative explanation of the crime would do.

At trial in 2009 the defense teams did what they could with a torrent of facts and two unpredictable clients. The cross-examination of Amanda Knox on the stand mid-year in the context of Patrick Lumumba’s alleged framing must have seemed a real low-point for them, as she came across as rather flippant and chilling, and she said a number of things that all defense lawyers would probably prefer that she hadn’t.

Through the publication of Judge Massei’s report the defenses seem to have been faced with an uphill battle.

In 2011 an experienced criminal-case judge was initially appointed to preside over the first appeal. But quite suddenly, to the surprise of many in Italy and the alleged unhappiness of the judge himself, he was removed from the case, and Judge Hellman was appointed in his place. 

Defence counsel would of course have had no role in that surprise change of lead judges for the first appeal, but from Day One of the appeal (spaced out to one session a week by Judge Hellman to suit one of them) the defenses seemed much happier.

The prosecution were now on occasion publicly hinting that they were now stuck with the uphill battle. The defenses now seemed the side energized and confident. But please note these three things which suggest that they knew they were not all-powerful.

    1)  They appealed on very narrow grounds, essentially on some witness testimony and a small part of the forensic evidence, and they kept well away from the multiple alibis, mobile phones and computers, and forensic evidence in the hallway, bathroom, and Filomena’s room.

    2) They never argued that Rudy Guede was the lone-wolf killer in the case (the surprise preference in his report of Judge Hellman) and even put their own witnesses Alessi and Aviello on the stand to in effect try to prove otherwise.

    3) Knox legal advisor Ted Simon was reduced to arguing on TV that there was no evidence of Knox and Sollecito IN the bedroom, while never accounting for the mishmash of alibis or all the mixed-blood and footprint evidence just outside the door.

As Dr Galati’s appeal and public opinion in the three countries are showing, the defences may have mostly won the second battle, with Judge Hellman’s interim verdict and sentence (Knox was still sentenced to three years), but they seem to be falling far short of winning the war for the two clients.

Now the defences again face an uphill battle.

So here we go. An opportunity for any good pro-innocence lawyer to help to win the war for Knox and Sollecito. Forget the forensics for now. I offer these several dozen questions for you and/or Amanda Knox which, truthfully answered, might put many concerns to bed.

I will be happy to post here any real attempt at answering all of these questions by any qualified lawyer who is thoroughly on top of the case - or of course any attempt by Amanda Knox herself.   

    1. Why did you not mention the 16 second 12.07 phonecall to Meredith’s English phone on the 2nd November in your e-mail?  When explaining why you made this call, please also explain why it was to the English phone rather than Meredith’s Italian phone which you knew Meredith used for local calls?

    2. Why did you not mention this call when you phoned Filomena immediately afterwards?

    3. Why did you make so little effort to contact Meredith again after being told by Filomena to do so. Remember the logged 3 and 4 second phone calls?

    4. Why did you tell Filomena that you had already phoned the police when neither you, nor Raffaele, had.

    5. Can you and will you explain the contradiction between your panic at the cottage (as described in the e-mail) and the testimony of all the witnesses who subsequently arrived that you appeared calm, detached and initially unconcerned as to your friend’s whereabouts or safety?

    6. Why did you tell the postal police that Meredith often locked her bedroom door, even when it came to taking a shower, when this was simply not true, as Filomena testified?

    7. Can you and will you explain why you did not try either of Meredith’s phones at the cottage if you were indeed in such a panic about Meredith’s locked door?

    8. Can you and will you explain how you knew that Meredith’s throat had been cut when you were not, according to the witnesses’s testimony, a witness to the scene in Meredith’s bedroom after the door had been kicked in and, with the exception of probably a postal police officer or the ambulance crew, no one had looked underneath the duvet covering the body when you were there?

    9. What made you think that the body was in the cupboard (wardrobe) when it was in fact to the side of the wardrobe? Were you being flippant, stupid, or what, when you said that? Do you think it just a remarkable coincidence that the remark bears close comparison to the crime scene investigators conclusions, based on the blood at the scene, that Meredith had been shoved, on all fours, and head first,  at the door of the wardrobe? She was then turned over on the floor and moved again. How did you know that there was any position prior to her final place of rest?

    10. Will you ever be able to account for the 12.47 pm call to your mother in Seattle ( at 4.45 am Seattle time)? Do you remember this now because it was not mentioned in your e-mail nor were you able to remember it in your court testimony?

    11. Why do you think Raffaele told the police ““ contrary to your own alibi that you had spent the whole time with Raffaele at his apartment ““ that you had gone out at 9 pm and did not return until 1 am?

    12. Did you sleep through the music played for half an hour on Raffaele’s computer from 5.32 am?

    13. Were you telling the truth when you told the court that you and Raffaele ate dinner some time between 9.15 and 11 pm? Can you not narrow it down a bit more? The water leak occurred, you said, whilst washing up dishes after dinner. Why then did Raffaele’s father say that Raffaele told him at 8.42 pm about the water leak whilst washing up dishes?

    14. What was the problem about using the mop, rags, sponges etc already at Raffaele’s apartment, to clear up a water spill? Why was the mop from the girl’s cottage so essential and if it was, why not collect it immediately since it was just a short distance away?

    15. Why, when you knew that you were going to Gubbio with Raffaele on the 2nd November, did you not take a change of clothing with you, if needed, when you left the cottage on the afternoon of the 1st?

    16. Why did you need a shower at the cottage when you had already had one at Raffaele’s apartment the previous evening?

    17. If you had needed one again why not have it at his apartment, in a heated apartment, before you set off, or on your return, rather than have a shower on a cold day, in a cold flat?

    18. Why did you not notice the blood in the bathroom, and the bloody footprint on the bathmat, until after your shower? If the blood you then observed was already diluted and faded, how do you explain this?

    19. Do not ignore your blood on the faucet. In your own testimony you said that there was no blood in the bathroom when you and Raffaele left the flat on the afternoon of the 1st.  What is your considered take on this now? Did your ear piercings bleed when having that shower or drying afterwards? If so, why were you not perfectly clear about the matter in your e-mail?  But then again you said that the blood was caked dry, didn’t you?

    20. Why did Raffaele say that, on entering the flat with you, Filomena’s door was open and he saw the damage and mess inside, but you said, in your e-mail, that Filomena’s door was closed when you returned at 10.30 am? Did you subsequently look inside on that occasion, or not? It’s just that if you did, then why did you not mention the break in to Filomena prior to you and Raffaele returning to the cottage?

    21. You are a creative writer so please explain. What is the point of the word “also” in the following extract from your e-mail? “Laura’s door was open which meant that she wasn’t at home, and Filomena’s door was also closed”.

    22. In your trial testimony you mentioned shuffling along the corridor on the bathroom mat after your shower. From the bathroom to your room.  Because there was no towel in the bathroom. You had left it in your bedroom. Then back again. Why is this not mentioned in your e-mail?

    23. In your e-mail you stated that you changed for your shower in your bedroom, and then afterwards dressed in your bedroom. That makes sense. What you don’t explain is why, if you towelled and dressed in your bedroom, there was any need to shuffle back to the bathroom on the bathmat. Why not just carry it back?

    24. But why, in the same testimony, did you then change your mind as to where you had undressed for your shower? Not in your bedroom - saying so was a mistake you said - but you did not say where. Some people might think, uncharitably, that your change of mind was necessary to incorporate the double bathmat shuffle.

    25. Were there any things that you disliked about Meredith? Be honest because we know from her English friends and other sources that there were things that she disliked about you.

    26. Why are pages missing from your diary for October?

    27. Once again, and this time so that it makes some sense, please explain why you permitted the police, on your say so, to believe that poor Patrick Lumumba was involved in Meredith’s murder.  Clearly, had you been at the cottage you would have known that he was not, and had you not been there you could not have known that he was.

There are actually over 200 open questions on this site, and I can think of others, but I consider these between them to be the core several dozen that relate to the quirks,contradictions, omissions and inconsistencies in Amanda Knox’s own account and behaviour. Answer all of these and in the public eye Amanda Knox really could be home free.



An excellent post James and all questions you have listed are very rich food for thought.

Knox has to answer these questions.

One thing about the bathmat shuffle - I always wondered why a person would have to shuffle back on the said bathmat after being dry/dressed?

It simply doesn’t add up.I have never heard of a person doing that or such a need to do so in my life before quite simply I think she is lying.

What does concern me and I will quote you here:

“In 2011 an experienced criminal-case judge was initially appointed to preside over the first appeal. But quite suddenly, to the surprise of many in Italy and the alleged unhappiness of the judge himself, he was removed from the case, and Judge Hellman was appointed in his place”.

Why did this happen?  Is it political intervention?  Is this why Ted ‘whack a mole’ Simon was so smug after the verdict and even inferred that he is sure it will come out later what happened?

Posted by Black Dog on 05/01/12 at 01:34 AM | #

Thanks for a strong timely post James. We have heard that Ghirga and Bongiorno both considered leaving the case in 2009. Like Knox’s parents and all Perugia officialdom they know that she had a role.

Same with you, right, Ted Simon?! No wonder Hellman got rotated in. This will explode in Italy soon.


A favor we ask of those who read here and then fan out to other sites to rebut the shrill claims of the FOAKers. Please pass this on.

They seem to have NO lawyers permanently supporting the FOAK side who are really on top of the case - hopefully James’s post will determine this one way or the other. Maybe Ted Simon or Robert Barnett will step forward.

So of course the FOAKers are feeling outgunned right now by John Kercher’s mentions in his book of TJMK being run by lawyers. Guided by lawyers might be another way to put it but we have never hidden that many lawyers read and participate here.

These are just some of our main-poster lawyers (also other lawyers contribute in the comments): Commisario Montalbano, Cesare Becarria, Cardiol, HelloDalai, TomM, SomeAlibi, and of course James Raper. We have several lawyer friends right there in Perugia.

We never post on the legal aspects of the case without one or other lawyer seeing the posts before or soon after, and all of the above posters and some others have access to our publishing control panel.

I talk with Cesare Beccaria, an Italian lawyer who has a doctorate in jurisprudence from Bologne and a deep knowledge of Italian legal gamesmanship, every few days, and anything we say about Cassation and Dr Galati’s appeal always reflects his guidance.

All of our translated legal documents (which are actually translated by a great team over on PMF) are vetted by Italian lawyers before they are placed online. They were done in part to help the Kercher,s who mostly dont speak any Italian, and get no translation paid for by the Italian and UK governments.

So who are their own legal experts on the case? Just a few lawyers that have given drive-by analyses that are always riddled with errors. Plus a few cooks and hairdressers and mall salesmen and former security guards, Quite a team.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/01/12 at 02:33 AM | #

Ted Simon is not normally a sleazy guy and NBC Dateline like him - but he sure is unethical here.

Let us hope he was not unethical elsewhere in the case. But those rumors are growing stronger.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/01/12 at 05:49 AM | #

while Simon is an attorney with international expertise, hence the Knox family’s rationale for approaching him. One of his areas of expertise seems to be extradition. I always thought that if the verdict had not gone their way, that was Plan B—to get Knox back to the US. I would also remind you that he defended the despicable Ira Einhorn. He may or may not be sleazy, but some of his clients are/have been worse than Knox.

Posted by mojo on 05/01/12 at 08:40 AM | #

Excellent points, James, which I’ve taken up at my place [post not up till later].

It’s the outrageousness of the Hellman methodology, the lack of an alternative scenario and the way the Knox camp is continuing to bang on which need to be zeroed in on.

At my place:

What are they afraid of?

They know the appeal to the court of cassation is currently underway and that the point made ... about Hellman is a relevant one.  And if the Supreme Court overturns Hellman, then the whole thing begins again, only the prosecution will be far better organized with the benefit of hindsight and all those other little things which came out after the original conviction.  The legal counsel this time round will be the best Italy can provide because they’re peeved and important people in judicial circles, no longer allegedly at the mercy of Berlusconi, are in place to act.

Our supposed fixation with the case has been questioned and this was what I came up with, in my case:

What’s my own beef in this?  Very, very simple - true justice for Meredith Kercher, for the family to finally find closure, knowing the killers have been put behind bars.  Just as I would want for anyone in such a nightmare.

It’s wrong, so wrong, what has happened.  Well done to the clear-headed who have argued only on the evidence and who will not stop until some sort of justice is done for Meredith and her family.  Well done to you people loyal to Meredith’s memory, disappointed yet not discouraged.

Meredith could almost be our own daughter and we’d do exactly the same as we have in that situation too.

Posted by James Higham on 05/01/12 at 10:15 AM | #

My two cents.

As the Americans say, follow the money trail. There are two trails to be researched. One is the PR and related expenses (all payments to Italians must be investigated) and the other one is much simpler: money found with AK and how she explains her expenditures etc. just around the time of the murder.

Money talks. When it talks, people listen.

Economists are still trying to figure out why the girls with the least principle draw the most interest.

Posted by chami on 05/01/12 at 05:11 PM | #

Agree with Chami above.  Was the issue of Knox’s finances adequately investigated?

in the days following the murder, she made a deposit of €389, yet by her own admission (when discussing the issue of rent money) had not received funds from Patrick.  Add to that the money on her when she was arrested, over €200.

A sole withdrawal of €250, presumably for the rent, really doesn’t go very far to explain her financial situation in the days after the murder.

Posted by Rocket Queen on 05/01/12 at 05:48 PM | #

Has there ever been a plausible explanation as to why knox’s lamp was found under Meredith’s bed?

If the lamp was the only light source in AK’s room, then after AK showered she must have got dressed in the dark, not to mention that later on when the Police arrived, AK & RS made phone calls in AK’s room and closed the door, the phone calls would have been made in complete darkness.

Surely AK would have asked a very simple question, “Where’s my lamp?”…Maybe someone broke in and instead of stealing something of value, ie the laptop and jewellery in Filomena’s room, they stole AK’s lamp!

Posted by Urbanist on 05/01/12 at 08:43 PM | #

Dear James. 

This was a very good piece. 

Obviously there could be many more questions as the Kermit / Raper powerpoint document explains. 

I wish to highlight 2 of your “questions to Amanda” which are very important and not much discussed. 

17. If you had needed one [shower] again why not have it at his apartment, with hot water in a heated apartment, before you set off, or on your return, rather than have a cold shower, on a cold day, in a cold flat?

The above need not much comment being obvious that having a [cold] shower in a cold bathroom of a cold flat [with a broken window all night] and with blood all around, including on the side of the door of the bathroom. makes little sense. 

I am also very pleased you reported question 20.

20. Why did Raffaele say that, on entering the flat with you, Filomena’s door was open and he saw the damage and mess inside, but you said, in your e-mail, that Filomena’s door was closed when you returned at 10.30 am? Did you subsequently look inside on that occasion, or not? It’s just that if you did, then why did you not mention the break in to Filomena prior to you and Raffaele returning to the cottage?

This is a point which we have been discussing at length on PMF website but as far as I know it was barely picked up in the trials and certainly not stressed in the final discussion of PM.  It emerges from RS’ diary when he says ( Filomena’s door was wide open [“spalancata”] when they arrived at the flat showing the mess.  He even says “those moments I remember well as I was alarmed and agitated” [“quei momenti li ricordo bene perché ero agitato e allarmato”]. 

He sure does as the door of Filomena’s room was most likely open but, obviously, Amanda maintains it was closed otherwise she should have called the police immediately before the end of her first visit.  Sollecito most likely forgot to lie as this is a detail which incriminates AK. 

There are many other important behavioural elements which give them away that I wonder why we even bother with DNA, in any Court of Law such elements are sufficient without DNA ... below just a few examples

(a) proven lie: AK accusing Patrick repeatedly – crime for which she was convicted even in appeal [which makes Hellman’s logic completely faulty]

(b) proven and repeated lies about phone calls, computer, wake up time, whereabouts of AK and many others

(c) remembering [RS, see diary .. AK see police interrogation and memos] all very well but not the moments of the murder, even if eventful according to RS’ reconstruction (having sex) and to AK’s version (being present during a murder)

(d) AK said she was in panic for MK but when postal police arrived did not show panic and did not talk about MK much …  (and stayed out of sight during the discovery of the body as if taking distance from the crime scene)

(e) “I was there I cannot lie” [said by Amanda] can only refer to Pergola flat, there would be no reason to say such words if she had actually meant Raff’s flat

(f) Raff’s telephone call to police – apart from the time it was made - was highly incriminating. Even the man who responded clearly caught in the space of a few seconds Raff was strange and was uttering strange words ... “C’e’ una porta chiusa” (“there is a closed door” using an indefinite article as if again taking distance) and the fact “nothing was stolen” [how the hell did he know?], etc..

Guede clearly admitted in appeal the couple was there and his version is confirmed by many elements among which AK’s admission she was there. 

The lone wolf scenario surprisingly resuscitated by Hellman is contradicted by so many additional pieces of evidence (no mud or any mark on the outside wall, prints of shoes of Guede different from prints of naked feet in blood and prints found by luminol, state of Filomena’s room, window too high and in view of the street for a burglar, partial clean-up, RG’s shoeprints go directly out etc). The theory of the “fake break” in was accepted by all courts incl. Cassazione (RG), did convict Guede and will convict AK and RS too in the end. 

As rightly said at the end of the Kermit/Raper slides, the only alternative scenario is that AK and RS staged and cleaned up without killing but such scenario is a very very long shot never mentioned by defence.

Final point responding to Black Dog – politicians cannot influence the judiciary in Italy as judges are completely independent by Constitution.  So if you thought the rotation from S Matteini Chiari to Hellman were “politically motivated” such action would be a punishable crime for which at the moment we have no evidence. 

Certainly it is not a crime to say that C Pratillo Hellman gave one of the most illogical and poorly motivated verdicts of recent history on a very straightforward case and I trust he will soon be censored for that by Cassazione.

Posted by Popper on 05/01/12 at 08:55 PM | #

Hi James,

Of course, no competent lawyer actually believes RS and AK are 100% innocent.

To me, another central issue is that our legal procedures have been hijacked by distortion of the phrase “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.”

This distortion is exemplified by Hellmann’s Rulings, and by other well- known verdicts such as that in OJ Simpson’s Trial, and in Casey Anthony’s Trial.

Marcia Clark, prosecutor in OJ Simpson’s Trial, belatedly, but to her credit, pointed-out the nature of the distortion:

“Beyond any Imaginable Reason-to-Doubt” has been substituted for “Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.”

Hellmann’s Report is a prime example of that substitution.

Hellmann introduced numerous imagined-reasons-to-doubt that even Defense Counsel did not submit.

John Kercher wrote, in Chapter 10 Our Hope for Justice: Kindle Location 3656, that one of Judge Hellmann’s comments sounded more like a defense summing-up.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 05/01/12 at 09:08 PM | #

Didnt Ak say that on the night of 1st nov., 2007 she and Raf showered together and she shampooed her hair in the shower and Raf cleaned her ears etc.,

This was probably a thorough cleaning of themselves after the murder. So the need to go home the next morning to shower again in a cold house with blood in the bathroom is unbelievable. Besides it was winter.

If AK had seen Filomenas door open at 10.30 when she says she went home for her shower why did she not ring Filomena right away.

Then why her lamp was found under Merediths bed needs to be asked as well.

They are already caught in so many lies.

Posted by mason2 on 05/01/12 at 09:25 PM | #

@ Popper,

“In 2011 an experienced criminal-case judge was initially appointed to preside over the first appeal. But quite suddenly, to the surprise of many in Italy and the alleged unhappiness of the judge himself, he was removed from the case, and Judge Hellman was appointed in his place”

I was wondering why the initially appointed judge was ‘removed’ quite suddenly,to the surprise of many in Italy and indeed the judge himself. as quoted above.

I dont know if I have understood you correctly but are you suggesting his removal was just part of a routine rotation of judges on the circuit?

f so then this answers my question and thank you for that, but the above quote doesn’t suggest this.

Posted by Black Dog on 05/01/12 at 09:46 PM | #

James, you forgot the scream. She was the first one (am I correct?) to mention the scream which was later confirmed by other witnesses.

I also refuse to believe that the hard disks of the two laptops went bad and no information could be recovered. This is very clearly an inside job (done with money or favors) as the police usually asks some other agency to recover the data.

This is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday.  And now you know why.

Posted by chami on 05/01/12 at 10:02 PM | #

Hi Black Dog.

James merely mentioned what was public knowledge in Italy, and Popper pointed out that that anything irregular in Judge Hellman’s appointment would be a crime.

That’s all we know right now except for some ticked-off mutterings from the prosecution which Ms Comodi said were misreported.

I guess we have to presume that unless and until any new info comes out that everything was above board. It wont affect anything Cassation does.

By the way Dr Galati in his appeal has in effect indicated be believes the Hellman jury departed from Italian law, in the excessively wide scope and the appointment of C&V.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/01/12 at 10:03 PM | #

I now appreciate the full meaning behind the bath mat shuttle given the whereabouts of ak’s clothes.

I cry foul, I am enjoying a hot shower in a warm Hawaiian house with light trade winds and I still would never lose reach of my towel.

The whole scene of ak taking a cold shower in a cold house, on a cold day is pure rubbish. Fits her personality.  Chilling.

Posted by Professor Snape on 05/01/12 at 10:17 PM | #

Another question I would like AK, or any supporter of hers who is a lawyer, to answer is how she determined what time she ate dinner on the evening of 01-NOV-2007.  During her testimony, AK stated that she did not look at or have access to a clock yet she specifies the time of the dinner as after 21:30, as well as stating that she had turned off her phone, which she used both as a clock and an alarm clock.

She cannot have it both ways although she tries to.  If she turned off her phone and had no idea what time any of the events took place then she cannot say with any certainty that she had dinner with Raffaele after 21:30.

Posted by Stilicho on 05/01/12 at 10:47 PM | #

Reply to:  Posted by chami on 05/01/12 at 03:02 PM | #

The hard drives could have had data recovered upon submission to the manufacturer.  The reason this was not pursued is likely because nobody wanted to pay for it; they contained no evidence.  This has become an FOA straw man, naturally.  It was the computer used in evidence at the trial that showed Sollecito lied about his activity that night.  Nobody in the courtroom argued that he was mistaken about which computer he was using.

Posted by Stilicho on 05/01/12 at 11:00 PM | #

I was thinking recently about the Facebook page the pigs I mean Foakers set up. It reminds me of a popular song by a band from Milan, the song title is Heaven’s a Lie and its about people forcing their opinions and hiding the truth.

Ironically in their earlier albums they had three concept songs that are about three people who make a pact to commit a crime, only one is convicted, and the other two go free, while the third one keeps the secret, the last song in the trilogy is about one of the two who got free on his deathbed recanting on what he did and how he let another pay for the crime.

The lyrics of the one song are Set me Free with Your Love, Your Heaven’s a lie. They want to free Meredith? The only way to Free her is to show compassion for her soul and her family and stop the lies. Ironic a band so close to Perugia’s song captured this case through songs written years ago. I would love to play the songs in front of Amanda.

Posted by Severino518 on 05/02/12 at 12:52 AM | #

Thank you James. It’s good to know there are still those posting truth for Meredith.

Posted by friar fudd on 05/02/12 at 08:42 AM | #

Hi Severino

Sadly playing anything in front of Amanda Knox would be pointless. She has no soul having sold it years ago. She will find that the price is beyond her comprehension since fear of the truth will eat away at her.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 05/02/12 at 02:00 PM | #

Mignini & Comodi now accused “wasting public funds” by Agostino Chiappiniello.


Posted by Spencer on 05/02/12 at 02:45 PM | #

Hi Spencer, thanks, we’ll be posting on this. .

First, the costs of this case are still way below for example the three-plus million pounds the UK police have spent on the McCann kidnapping or murder case - and it isnt even their case (its Portugese).

The US spends an average of several million dollars for each prisoner kept on death row. Many cases here cost way more than the Perugia case. White collar cases can be up in the tens of millions. Society still comes out ahead.

Second, it WASNT meant to prove her guilt. It was to explain a very complex timeline.

What happened here was that the prosecution felt they needed a way to convey what they concluded happened on the night as the timeline is very complicated and obviously messed-around with by the perps.

But the full day of the closed-session presentation by the Rome specialists had the whole courtroom already turning green and in fact served the same purpose.

So to spare the courtroom more grief, the video was not shown in open session - and a conviction was won anyway.  A smart, humane call - for which now Mignini is now being roasted.

The publicity being given to this budget issue seems highly suspicious - and of all the US and UK papers, the Independent has for four years been the most biased.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/02/12 at 04:47 PM | #

Thanks Pete, seems highly suspicious indeed.

Do you think the Knox camp are worried it could be screened at a retrial, and so are using puppets like Chiappiniello to try to discredit it now to get it withdrawn - can’t see any other reason why they would object to it at this point, especially seeing as it wasn’t even used in open court.

Unless they are worried that it could accidentally go viral.  I suspect it shows a very convincing scenario…

Posted by Spencer on 05/02/12 at 05:25 PM | #

Hi Spencer

Yes I’m told that technically it was quite a brilliant recreation and so compelling that the defenses were despondent and maybe argued behind the scenes with Judge Massei to stop it being shown in open session.

It very convincingly shows THREE perps and makes it impossible for a jury to imagine the attack on Meredith being committed by a lone wolf (a lone wolf was Judge Hellman’s view - but he was never shown the video).

A lot of poeple now would like to see it and you can bet that the defenses will fight tooth and nail to stop it. If it did get out - or to Cassation or a new appeal trial- it sounds like the Hellman outcome could be toast.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/02/12 at 07:08 PM | #

On the surprise appointment of Judge Hellman (and Dr Zanetti) which James mentioned and which Black Dog in particular wanted to hear more about.

There are various sources in Italian for this (in addition to our own direct contacts) and this is what appears in the Italian version of Wikipedia

Although the Assize Court of Appeal was to be chaired by Dr. Sergio Matteini Chiari, Chairman of the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal in Perugia, in circumstances not well understood Dr. Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, who chairs the Labor Chamber of the Court, has been called on to preside over the appeal court, 

The judge to the side of the main judge, Dr. Massimo Zanetti, came from the Civil Section, and both had had limited experience with criminal trials both rather remote in time (only the cases of Spoleto and Orvieto).

Our perception is that the appointment of Judge Hellman and Judge Zanetti is a story with legs, and that people in Italy with real investigative skills could nail this one. Worth noting that a lot of people in Italy are very angry. The demo outside Judge Hellman’s court over his surprising verdict was not exactly an outlier.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/02/12 at 07:16 PM | #

Wasn’t there a Japanese computer created animation released of how they perceived Merediths death?

Posted by Black Dog on 05/02/12 at 09:46 PM | #

Sorry about posting this but this is the one I am referring to, I doubt the prosecutions so called massive waste of money was anywhere near this definiton or standard. Sorry again about you having to see the smiling faces of the killers.

Posted by Black Dog on 05/02/12 at 09:55 PM | #

Thank you James, for compiling such a comprehensive list of the questions we have all had in our minds forever. I think even if people are able to explain away half of these with anything other than feeble mumbles about “forgetting”, “not remembering” and “being absent minded”, they would redeem themselves in the public eye quite a bit.

The issue of AK’s lamp has been puzzling me too for quite some time. Meredith could not have borrowed it the night she was killed, she could not have borrowed it the night before as she was out very late celebrating Halloween and was likely to be too tired to do any reading. So, if we are to assume that she “borrowed” the lamp as many FOAkers would like to believe, she must have done it more than 2 days back. Funny how AK never thought of asking for it back despite it being the only source of light in her room.

Posted by Sara on 05/02/12 at 11:48 PM | #

Hi Sara,

The lamp is one of many glaring inconsistencies in the obviously fabricated story Amanda Knox told to her friends, family and the police.

Raffaele stating that nothing has been taken for instance, in the phantom burglary.

Surely (if indeed the police are now crawling all over your house) you would be alert and mindful of anything missing out of your room and notice something like your bedside lamp isn’t there?

Look at the pics before and after, on entering,the lamp is almost like a focal point in the room and must have some significance considering it is the only source of illumination you have.

Of course the highly detailed email to all and sundry that Knox mailed never even mentioned her allowing Meredith the use of her only source of illumination, her bedside lamp.

I am no detective, I am just an ordinary Joe but I immediately thought that her lamp had been used during the clean up exercise.

Posted by Black Dog on 05/03/12 at 01:10 AM | #

I am officially over arguing with the FOAkers, the way they demonize Mr.Kercher and lie about evidence and then call foul on anyone who calls them out on their behavior and trying to turn the tables as if they are the ones not out of line is disgusting. They are cowards.

Posted by Severino518 on 05/03/12 at 02:04 AM | #

Is there someone I can email with specific questions on the case?

For example, I want to know more about the hard drive of Sollecito where Foakers claim it was destroyed, is there a rebuttal to their argument?

Also, their claim that Mignini filmed everyone else interviewed except Amanda and Raffaele, is this true or false?

Posted by Severino518 on 05/03/12 at 07:46 AM | #

Hi Severino,

The hard drive of Sollecito’s Apple laptop wasn’t destroyed. He didn’t surf the Internet from 11.00pm to 1.00am on the night of the murder and he didn’t wake up after 10.00am the next day. He first interacted with his computer at 5.32am and he then played music for approximately half an hour.

Mignini said he usually records interviews. He didn’t say anything about filming them. He recorded the interviews with Meredith’s English friends because they were scheduled. Amanda Knox wasn’t called to the police station on 5 November 2007. She decided to accompany Sollecito, but no interview was scheduled.

The police told her that Sollecito had stopped providing her with an alibi and blamed her for his lies. She then admitted she was at the cottage and falsely accused Diya Lumumba of murder. Knox was questioned as a witness, not a suspect. The police weren’t required to record her questioning.

She signed two witness statements, admitting she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed.

Posted by The Machine on 05/03/12 at 12:27 PM | #

Hi Severino.

1) On emailing questions, sure, send us any list via the email contact button in the left column. We are building a master list of false and misleading claims to go on a page of their own and it is only taking so long because the list is so long and we want to get all rebuttals just right.

2) On the hard drive, in support of the Machine’s response just above, this is what Stilicho posted on Tuesday:

The hard drives could have had data recovered upon submission to the manufacturer.  The reason this was not pursued is likely because nobody wanted to pay for it; they contained no evidence.  This has become an FOA straw man, naturally.  It was the computer used in evidence at the trial that showed Sollecito lied about his activity that night.  Nobody in the courtroom argued that he was mistaken about which computer he was using.

3) On the filming of interviews, this is routinely done for SUSPECTS as the Machine observes. Not only was Knox not officially a suspect, she volunteered on the night for the interview. She could have set the terms (“I need my own lawyer and translator”) but she didn’t.

Mignini WASNT EVEN THERE. He wasnt even called in, though he was on duty at the questura on the night. 

When Knox was detained, she asked to write out a statement and Mignini simply observed. He asked no questions on the night and so Knox could again call the shots. That statement (first of two) was ultimately disallowed by the Supreme Court on the grounds that AK didnt have a lawyer present. But Mignini has maintained that they got it wrong - he asked no questions and so she didnt need one.

There are very full descriptions here of what actually happened on the night. Check the links in the right column for (1) the RS and AK alibis (2) Mignini and the MOF where his several interviews are (3) reports of trial sessions and especially of what AK said on the stand.

She admitted she was treated well on the night and given refreshments and to this day has not identified who she said roughed her up - which more than a dozen witnesses deny. We will hear from them at her calunnia trial and also her parents’ calunnia trial in due course.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/03/12 at 02:18 PM | #

Surely Meredith had her own bedside lamp so would never have needed to borrow AK’s lamp.  The fact that it was on the floor is very suspicious to me.  I believe it also had no fingerprints on it at all - strangely.  For those saying AK had no other light in her own room, she did have a window, right, and it is light/sunny in Italy?  However that still does not explain how why her lamp would be on the floor.  To say that RG used it in a clean-up would be ludicrous as he left all sorts of evidence behind.

Posted by believing on 05/04/12 at 10:35 PM | #

@believing - Yes, I am aware that AK’s room had a window of some kind. But is it really light and sunny all the time in Italy to the extent of never requiring a lamp, especially considering that it was winter and AK’s room has been described as really small and cramped? I do not know about it but I would guess not. Like I said, if we go by the theory of Meredith “borrowing” the lamp, she must have done it at least 2-3 days before. Did AK never need the lamp during those days considering that she seems to have spent quite a bit of time lazing around in the cottage. Did she never miss it? And of course, like you said, the fact that it was on the floor is extremely suspicious in itself. To suggest that Guede used it in the cleanup is really laughable because then we would have to assume that he cleaned up the room (taking care to just leave enough evidence to implicate himself) and the lamp itself yet failed to clean up his shit.

Posted by Sara on 05/05/12 at 05:07 AM | #

Have you heard there thing about the footprint, so according to the FOAkers the reason the bloody footprint is on the mat without any other footprints is because Guede ran to the shower to wash his feet and left the footprint. Funny because his shoeprints leads out the door, and why in gods name if he had shoes on would he wash his foot. Not to mention the fact that if he sneakers had blood on them, after he washed his feet and put back on his shoes, why no other prints?

Posted by Severino518 on 05/06/12 at 08:47 PM | #

Hi Severino.

The most powerful and persuasive parts of the trial were all behind closed doors. The post above this one describes the reconstruction of what went on over 15 minutes in the room. At trial they left the defenses dumb, but Hellman refused to have his court sit through them. 

The stretches required by the FOAKers to make their theory work just on what was NOT behind closed doors are absurd as Knox lawyer Ted Simon himself observed. Even Knox’s and Sollecitto’ own lawyers didnt try to shoot down the lone wolf theory and pin it all on Guede.

They never challenged the forensic evidence in the corridor and bathroom and Filomena’s room and the signs of a cleanup or staged breakin. They sensibly kept well away. Three useful posts are these; the first shows how the FOAK photoshopped the bathroom mat image:.


Mixed blood:

Filomena’s window:

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/06/12 at 10:43 PM | #

It has been pointed out to me that when I wrote “a cold shower, on a cold day, in a cold flat” I may well have been wrong as to the cold shower bit.

There are heaters that can provide instant hot water and the flat may well have had one of these, and as I don’t know any different I have edited my post accordingly.

Posted by James Raper on 05/07/12 at 09:16 PM | #

Truly excellent list. I especially like the pick up here:

21. You are a creative writer so please explain. What is the point of the word “also” in the following extract from your e-mail? “Laura’s door was open which meant that she wasn’t at home, and Filomena’s door was also closed”.

Obviously Knox had initially written “also opened”—just as Sollecito said—then realized that “opened” would blow her story, so she fixed it with a lazy edit.

Posted by brmull on 05/08/12 at 10:02 AM | #


I like that explanation. It should be noted that she also states that she ‘saw’ that Merediths bedroom door was locked. I would suggest that this type grammar is indicative of an overly cautious author.

Posted by starsdad on 05/17/12 at 04:34 AM | #

Peter, can you help me out, I have had a bunch of FOAkers claim the dna evidence was thrown out. Based on what I read it only appears that the Conti report mentions that the Lab team didn’t use international protocol so there could be contamination thought they didn’t provide any standards from Italy and its my understanding Dr. Stefani’s lab deals with thousands of forensic cases a year so its been inspected and met the European Union standards. What is this nonsense with them saying it was thrown out, did Hellman say this?

Posted by Severino518 on 05/17/12 at 05:02 AM | #

There is nothing called international protocol for evidence collection or DNA fingerprinting.

All countries follow their own conventions.

For DNA analysis, the instrument manufacturer provides good guidelines for reliable results.

There cannot be any standard on how to interpret the results. It is the interpretation of the results that are being questioned and we must agree that sometimes interpretations can be subjective.

All labs follow “good laboratory practices” and there are certiyfying agencies (ISO standards are universally applicable).

It is the C-V report that does not meet international peer review standards and must be thrown out. C-V comments on topics that are beyond their recognized expertise.

Man can believe the impossible, but man can never believe the improbable.  —Oscar Wilde

Posted by chami on 05/17/12 at 05:40 AM | #

Hi Severino

Yes, that FOAK claim is untrue. Actually its an insane point for them to make - the whole area constitutes a real minefield and (see below) could lead to case closed at one stroke. .

In addition to what Chami posted, which is correct, read the DNA posts via the link in the right column for DNA and especially the answers by Fly By Night and The Machine.

(As you know we have a new page coming online soon shooting down the hundreds of false claims.  Email me if you want to play a part.)

Please especially note and post elsewhere these key points.

1) Under the Italian system, evidence is weighted by judges and juries. NOTHING gets thrown out.

2) AK and RS STILL stand accused of the crime until the Supreme Court signs off.

3) Dr Galati has argued to the Supreme Court that not only was the scope of Hellman’s sentencing report illegal - so was the creation of the C&V report.

4) The defenses skipped ALL DNA tests in Rome. Had they been present, they could not have argued contamination and Hellman would not have hired C&V. A trick? We think so.

5) The defenses also delayed and delayed the required visit to the house by Dr Stefanoni to collect the bra clasp. Then they argued there was a delay. A trick? We think so. 

6) C&V never PROVED contamination, merely argued using mainly US protocols (via Hampikian?) that things could have been done differently.

7) C&V said there was some remaining untested DNA from the knife but did not test it. Hellman refused a prosecution request to have it tested. Dr Galati has appealed on that as well.

If Cassation does not disallow the C&V report that DNA will be tested. If it shows Meredith’s DNA as we expect THAT ONE FINDING would represent case closed and AK and RS back behind bars.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/17/12 at 02:35 PM | #

Always seemed strange to me that those two AS and RS only knew each other for what, just about two weeks prior to the murder. They must be like strangers today really….. no ?

They couldn’t really know each other well in oct/nov 2007.

I mean how much can you know about a person in such a short space of time. especially when your coked up almost all the time.

Remarkable how they lie through their teeth for each other for almost 7 years now.

I suppose they’ve repeated any one of the same three or four alibis (depends how they feel on any given day) so often they might even believe one of them themselves now.

They are both proven liars however i often wondered how it might have panned out for Knox if she had of played it a different way with the police.

If she had owned up to being present at the murder and admitted she took part in the clean up BUT didn’t commit the murder and was forced to get involve in the clean up, for fear of her own life.

Yes this would be another lie, but I think if a young girl told me that story, i would be more inclined to believe that she was frightened for her own life.

She is a cunning fox, they both are.

RS is now starting to crumble i hear, no longer providing her with an alibi. the stakes rise i see.

I hope they both go to prison for their full terms.

I wish they were dead actually, but i believe in an eye for an eye.

Posted by mollythecat on 10/29/14 at 05:31 PM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry A Mischievous Defense-Inspired Global Hoax - To Deflect From Some Bad News?

Or to previous entry My Letter To Claire Wachtell of HarperCollins Protesting How Distasteful Knox’s Book Promises To Be