Political & economic headsup: US is demonstrating unsorted systems problems in spades. Do watch your investments. As Washington DC policy gets more & more off-target, big New York investors are betting very heavily that stocks will soon crash. Gross systems mismanagement 2017-20 tanked stocks several times.

Monday, November 05, 2018

Most Popular Least Controversial Issue In US Elections? Surprise, Surprise: Justice Reform

Posted by Peter Quennell

1. Chronic Reform Problem Worldwide

First, consider Italy.

Compared to most countries, Italy is far down the road in terms of effective policing, courts and rehabilitation. Its crime rate is comparatively low.

But its relatively minor need to speed up the court system is hampered because the parties in parliament tend to lock up at the nitty-gritty level, and so nothing gets done. Very common around the world.

Now consider the US.

This political lockup tendency is made worse in the US because, almost alone among the world’s countries, the US tends to elect or politically appoint its police chiefs, prosecutors and judges. (Italy’s system is career-path wall-to-wall.)

This tends to result in a hard line. Meaning mass incarceration has been ballooning through the roof.  Both main parties in the US, with a majority of its politicians former lawyers, tend to take quite a hard line too.

2. The US’s Surprising Reform Edge

But almost alone among the world’s countries, allowing the citizens to fix aspects of this system problem one by one, the US also has an ace up its sleeve. 

At election time, reform measures can be put on the ballot, and the electorate gets to decide on each one directly, thus leapfrogging the political infighting.

On Tuesday, a record number of justice-related proposals will be on various ballots.  VOX has a very long article with numerous examples of what various voters will get to decide.

Anti mass incarceration measures are being put before over 100 million voters this year.

3. A Likely Positive Spread Effect

And finding such common ground should have a strong ripple effect across the political landscape as a whole.

When adversaries work together for the first time on a joint venture that serves both their needs, they discover new pathways for collaboration. Like neuroplasticity in the brain, when we learn to do something that yields satisfaction, we rewire how we think and behave.

This is already taking place in the area of criminal justice reform, especially with juvenile offenders.

After decades in which the “war on crime” was a wedge issue that roiled tensions about racial injustice and public safety, Republicans and Democrats have been cooperating on an integrative model of restorative justice that serves interests on both sides.

No one wants to see at-risk youth jailed for rash mistakes that crossed the line into criminal conduct. We may not agree on much, but few Americans want to watch children enter the notorious “pipeline to prison.”

And no one likes to spend tax dollars needlessly. Keeping a teenager out of incarceration is far cheaper than surrendering him to it. Prevention programs that connect teens with adult community mentors cost far less than prosecution and imprisonment. Because those youth make amends to their victims, personal responsibility is codified and enforced.

People on the left are pleased by the social progressivism; people on the right are happy about cutting government spending. Everyone gets something when we exercise our capacity for ingenuity and enterprise, which are, in the end, signature American traits.

Friday, October 26, 2018

More False Claims Of Plot To Frame “An Innocent”, Again Zero Motive Or Confirming Hard Fact

Posted by The Machine

We posted on the dishonesties of Making a Murderer 1 here.

Making a Murderer 2 has again brought out countless conspiracy nuts on Twitter who believe there was a dastardly plot to frame Steven Avery.

I’ve repeatedly asked them to provide some exculpatory evidence that proves he is innocent and some proof the police framed him.

So far none of them has provided any evidence to substantiate their claims. They’re all labouring under the misapprehension that the crime scene must conform to their particular expectations.

It reminds me of Amanda Knox’s creepy supporters who claim the lack of her DNA in Meredith’s room is proof of her innocence.

Monday, October 15, 2018

Humanity Of Italian Courts Suddenly The Subject Of Worldwide News Stories

Posted by Peter Quennell

Gilberto Baschiera (above) was a bank manager in Forni di Sopra (below), a small town between the Dolomites and the Austrian Alps.

He was recently labeled an Italian Robin Hood and widely admired in Italy and elsewhere for assisting impoverished customers to get loans - by topping up their accounts provisionally from larger accounts.

Why he did this is that the bank-loans system itself was changed for the worse under former Prime Berlusconi’s exceptionally harsh and ineffective austerity measures. 

Over seven years, his total “borrowings” came to exceed the equivalent of $1 million as not all of the loans were paid back.

So he was charged and there was a trial. Now we have just seen a new wave of reporting.

Gilberto’s court sentence is announced as two years SUSPENDED.

This is routine under Italian law - he did not “dodge” a prison term as some reporting had it - but not a typical outcome in any other legal system.

Monday, September 24, 2018

Knox’s Lamp: The Very Incriminating Evidence Found INSIDE Meredith’s Locked Room

Posted by James Raper

[Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments]

1. The Elephant In The Room Of Which No-one Speaks

Throughout the case it has frequently been claimed that there was no actual evidence of Knox’s presence in the “murder room” or the “scene of the crime” defined (wrongly) as Meredith’s bedroom alone.

However, this is to omit, among other things, the highly incriminating presence of the black desk lamp, which was found, without any fingerprints on it, behind the door. (There was only one print of Knox in the entire house; there were none in her own room or bathroom or kitchen except on one glass.)

The bald facts are that (1) Knox had such a lamp, (2) Meredith had two working lights of her own; (3) Knox grudgingly admitted ownership of the lamp at trial in 2009, (4) it was the only working source of illumination for her own room, and (5) when Meredith’s locked door was forced open, there it was, knocked over on the floor.

The omission of this incriminating evidence spreads surprisingly far, almost as if the highly regimented Knox-Mellas PR had ordered: “There must be no attention drawn to this.”.

The prosecution questioned Knox about it at trial (see Part 3 below) but the defenses had not one question in rebuttal or explanation of their own.

Knox makes no mention of it in her book. Preston makes no mention of it in his. Candace Dempsey makes no mention of it in hers. John Douglas (see the Machine’s telling posts below) makes no mention of it in either of his. Mark Waterbury makes no mention of it in his. Nina Burleigh makes no mention of it in hers. Bruce Fischer makes no mention of it in his. Raffaele Sollecito makes no mention of it in his.

Steve Moore avoids mentioning it in his stints on TV. Michael Heavey never makes mention of it in his talks. Greg Hampikian avoids mention when he is on TV. Anne Bremner has avoided talking about it as well.  Frank Sforza never mentioned it on his abandoned blog. There is a foolish mention on the malicious Ground Report site, the intent being somehow to frame Guede with it - but there were those two working lights in Meredith’s room, and there is no footprint evidence that he stepped next door.

What precisely was the lamp doing there? If Knox or Sollecito carried it there, what were they doing with it that Meredith’s lights were of no help?

At trial and at pre-trial questionings Knox always failed to explain (see trial testimony in Part 3 below). Nor could she explain how she failed to notice it missing from her own room.

Regrettably this purpose of the lamp was not a question ever adequately addressed by any of the judges when considering Knox’s complicity in the crime. Let us redress that oversight now.

TJMK has previously carried 16 other posts listed in Part 4 below with significant mentions of the incriminating lamp.

This is my eighth evidence post on TJMK; the seven prior posts are listed in Part 5 below. Other posts have been on the forensics, behaviours, and court outcomes. My ebook is linked-to in Part 6.

Red star indicates position of lamp

2. An Exercise In Deducing Amanda Knox’s Role

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

Other possible options are that Meredith or Rudy Guede had taken it from Knox’s bedroom, without her consent.

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

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

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

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

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

How could she possibly have missed it? Her own room was quite small and cramped, and the desk lamp should have been either on her desk or her table by the bed. It would have been a fairly prominent item and it’s absence would be impossible to miss even if, while checking, she was only paying minimal attention at the time.

Furthermore, according to her account she had been in and out of her room when visiting the cottage earlier that morning. Her room was sunless at that time of day.

She had undressed for a shower in her room but had to return for a towel, and then return to her room again to get dressed. Never noticed that her lamp was missing? She would say she had no reason to actually check on that occasion.

Knox was, of course, lying (there are many aspects of her e-mail which are simply not credible), but she really had to say that she checked her room because there had been a burglary, did she not?

She has to convey the impression that she herself believed, innocently, that there had been a genuine burglary and in doing so she was hoping to draw the investigators’ attention away from two important matters.

The first was that the burglary was staged. That is now a settled judicial fact in the case.

The second was that there had been a post murder manipulation of the crime scene by the removal of blood traces (ultimately though the 2015 Supreme Court did not accord this the status of a judicial fact, largely due to omission of facts and obfuscation on its part).

Furthermore the 2015 Supreme Court did not even mention Knox’s lamp at all.

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

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

It is difficult to imagine what incriminating item Guede would have been looking for and why it would have been of particular importance to him, to the extent that he ignored everything else.

We have to bear in mind that the room already had incriminating forensic traces of his presence there, and fairly obvious ones at that, which it never occurred to him to remove. We know that he had blood on the sole of his left shoe but the positioning of these prints did not indicate that he was looking under the bed, or had anything to do with the lamp.

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

The very presence of that lamp there has to be considered as potentially incriminating, and of Knox. It is a fact that has to be assessed and evaluated, and Knox would surely have appreciated that questions would be asked and that adverse inferences could be drawn.

That this is obvious is recognized even by her own supporters whose response when not ignoring the lamp is to take Knox’s e-mail at face value and claim that her lamp was a plant by the police.

Yes, really.

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

Why would she leave it in there? Behind a locked door?

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

She might not have realized that the blood could be identified as hers, but the lamp would be a different matter, hard to explain.

In any event it was seemingly unwittingly left behind. An oversight which, at some point, must have occurred to her.

When might that have happened? It would have had to be when she was no longer in possession of Meredith’s keys, or, at least not in a position to retrieve these in time given the train of events set in motion next.

A perpetrator would not want to be found in possession of those keys. Still less, Sollecito. The knife could be cleaned, but the keys would be damning. 

On the face of it the keys could have been taken by Guede, but clearly the keys had remained in the possession of those who had arranged the staged burglary, and the post murder manipulation of the crime scene, and it is very improbable (as argued elsewhere) that Guede had any involvement with that.

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

Actually that could have been done, though not without some difficulty, and it would have fitted with a burglary and a violent assault on Meredith.

Though here the intelligent observer would have to assume from the circumstances, and no doubt Knox and Sollecito would have pondered on this, that Meredith had surprisingly been unable to thwart the lone intruder, had locked herself in to her room with her phones still with her, and would have undoubtedly called the emergency number for the police, while all this and the breaking down of her door, was going on.

However when exactly the oversight occurred to Knox needs to be considered. I personally believe that it was much later than most people would think. Certainly not just after the murder.

When was the plan to stage a burglary and remove the blood traces from the corridor put into operation?  Was it before or after they had listened to music for half an hour from 5.30 am and Knox had been seen by Quintavalle at his store at 7.45 am?

Given the nature of the headbanging rock music, may this have been a celebration of the stagings already accomplished, or were they nerving themselves to return to the cottage and put their plan into operation?

Personally I favour the notion that it was after listening to the music. When they finished the staging I have no idea, but it would still have been at a time in the morning when it was unlikely that anyone i.e Filomena would come calling. And they could still have cleared off to Gubbio for the day.

Perhaps it was always the case that Knox and Sollecito needed to be present when the murder was discovered, and in circumstances they could control in such a manner as to convince others of their complete lack of complicity in what had happened.

Maybe much of what then happened had already been pre-planned, including the story of Knox visiting the cottage to have a shower etc.

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

A discovery process which had initially seemed manageable became, with her error, laden with danger. The lamp had to be retrieved but, with Sollecito’s assistance, this could still be achieved in the confusion of Filomena and her friends attending the cottage and breaking down the door themselves.

Should Filomena have perhaps baulked at the idea of doing any damage, then I suspect Knox and Sollecito would have pressed her to authorise this, if not actually gone right ahead to do this themselves - and see how innocent that would have then made them look! Win-win!

What would complicate matters was if the police were also there, and so the possibility of anyone alerting the police had to be delayed.

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

From 12.07 until 12.35 am on the morning of the discovery of the murder, Knox and Filomena exchanged telephone calls, whereby Knox slowly ramped up the worry on Filomena’s part as to what was going on and Meredith’s safety.

As a consequence of the first call, by Knox, made from Sollecito’s bedsit, Filomena asked her to check certain things out e.g ring Meredith’s phones and keep her informed, but otherwise had not heard enough to indicate that she herself needed to return to the cottage, or that the police needed to be involved.

Incidentally, Knox had misled Filomena when asked by her whether she had yet tried calling Meredith by phone. Had Knox told Filomena the truth, that she had just tried Meredith’s english phone (for 16 seconds) Filomena would undoubtedly have been more than worried given that would have been after midday, when surely Meredith would have been up and about.

Was that the point of the omission, because Knox did not require Filomena to be that concerned yet? Time had yet to pass for Knox and Sollecito to compose themselves and for them to engage in the panic and search ritual which they were ready to describe. 

However Filomena remained concerned and called Knox twice more until Knox answered her from the cottage at 12.35 to inform her that her bedroom window had been broken and her room had been trashed.

Knox would have been fully aware what the effect would have been of the latter call. Filomena was adamant. Knox had to call the police. More importantly, for Knox, Filomena would now definitely be returning to the cottage, and quickly. Who would get there first? Filomena or the police? The answer, for Knox, would not be in doubt.

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

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

As to that call (4.47 am Seattle time, while Edda and Chris were still asleep, and prior to the discovery of Meredith”˜s body) Knox not only did not mention that in her e-mail but in taped conversation with her mother and in her trial testimony she steadfastly declined to recall that it had occurred.

Ostensibly the call would have been, of course, to report the break in. So what would be the problem with that? Indeed, Edda’s frustration with her daughter was eloquently expressed in her response during the taped conversation - “But nothing had happened yet!”  Knox clearly did not want to discuss her motive for the call, neither then nor later, nor as to what had transpired in conversation with her mother (and stepfather) before the discovery of Meredith’s body.

Not only was the timing of the 12.47 call inconvenient to her mother but I found it interesting to note from Knox’s phone records (covering 2nd Oct - 3rd November) that mother and daughter do not appear to have called or texted each other once by phone up until that 12.47 call.

It would appear then that in so far as they remained in direct communication with each other for that period it must have been by e-mail or Skype. Indeed Knox has referred to such communication being via internet café. One can therefore imagine that her mother was very surprised to receive that call.

It is also very difficult to accept that Knox could not recall a phone call she was not in the habit of making.

Until Knox published her book the only information that was available about the 12.47 call (apart from the phone log which showed that it lasted 88 seconds) came from her mother (who reported that her daughter was concerned about the break in) and her stepfather Chris Mellas.

Mellas says that he interrupted the conversation between mother and daughter to tell Amanda to get out of the cottage. In her book Knox tells us (her memory now having returned) that he yelled at her but that she was “spooked” enough without that.

But what had really happened to spook her? It was just a burglary after all, even if the matter of Meredith’s whereabouts was as yet unresolved. None of her own possessions had been stolen. Furthermore Filomena was on her way to take charge.

The call she made to her mother after the discovery of the murder (the one she remembered) was perfectly understandable, the prior call, without further context, less so. 

Readers will already know where I am coming from, but I believe that it was whilst walking back to the cottage with Sollecito that Knox realised her mistake with the lamp. However, it could have been earlier than that.

In any event this realisation would have set the cat amongst the pigeons for her. So, it was both a comfort and a rehearsal call, not simply because there had been a burglary, but because she knew a hazardous set of events was about to unfold on Romanelli’s arrival at the cottage. The fact that her mother and stepfather already had the jitters was not a good omen.

Still, retrieving the lamp and returning it to her own room remained feasible, provided the police were not there. However Romanelli had yet to arrive and time was running out.

Both Knox and Sollecito knew that any further delay in calling the police would look suspicious. Finally they did so, at 12.51, though it is probable that the postal police had unexpectedly arrived before then.

In my book I have argued that the likely time of arrival of the postal police was probably about 12.48-9. Indeed that may have been why Knox brought her call to her mother to an end.  (“Looks as if someone is coming. Gotta go now.”) 

I wonder if that is another reason why Knox would not want to remember the call, particularly during the taped conversation with her mother in the prison. She would not want to prompt her mother to that recollection. That wouldn’t fit with the claim, as related to the postal police, that they had already called the Carabinieri.

In any event, the opportunity to retrieve the lamp had been lost.

I have always thought that the oddities in Knox’s own account of events reveal and explain much even if, ostensibly, she appears to be giving an innocent account of everything. In her e-mail she refers to her panic and specifically links this to concern over Meredith’s whereabouts and safety.

However the panic suddenly subsided, and her concern was significantly lacking, non-existent actually, when the postal police made their surprise entrance before the arrival of Filomena and her friends. We can also see why she says, before that, that Sollecito would want, and allegedly attempt, to break Meredith’s door open.

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

As it happened, things did not turn out too bad for her in the immediate aftermath.

She was not, she thought, under immediate suspicion as she must have feared she would be. Seemingly nobody had twigged to the lamp business, nor to the staged burglary.

She must have thought the police immensely stupid for her to have got away with that, as she thought she had. She was also the centre of attention and coping reasonably well, but for that dicey moment when she was shown the drawer of knives in the kitchen.

Her confidence had soared sufficiently for her to even claim that she had checked her room and had found nothing missing!

But wait! What were those “hard facts” she claims the police had mentioned later during her fourth (5 Nov) pre-arrest interview?

Let me see. Hmm. Suspicions, certainly. Her alibi gone deep south. The locked door, the lamp, the quilt, the staged burglary? An e-mail in which she is just a bit too full of herself and the content of which, in places, was just a bit too unreal, daffy and lah-di-dah, to be true? The strange behaviour at the police station? Phone records? God, could they have phone records?

No wonder she didn’t ask the police to elaborate.

3. Amanda Knox Questioned On The Lamp At Trial

Giuliano Mignini:  Okay. Okay. Listen, another question. The lamp that was found in Meredith’s room, a black lamp with a red button, that was found in Meredith’s room, at the foot of the bed. Was it yours?
Amanda Knox:  I did have a lamp with a red button in my room, yes.
GM:  So the lamp was yours.
AK:  I suppose it was.
GM:  Was it missing from your room?
AK:  You know, I didn’t look.
GM:  Did Meredith have a lamp like that in her room?
AK:  I don’t know…

GM:  Now, another question. You told us before, this story about the door, about knocking down the door, that Raffaele tried to break down the door. You said that you tried to explain that sometimes she did have her door locked, you told us about this point. Now, I want to ask you this question: Raffaele didn’t by any chance try to break down the door to get back the lamp we talked about?
AK:  [perfectly calm reasonable voice] No, we didn’t know the lamp was in there.
GM:  You didn’t know that your lamp was in there?
AK:  In the sense that the lamp that was supposed to be in my room, I hadn’t even noticed it was missing. I tried—
GM:  You didn’t see that it was missing?
AK:  No, I didn’t see that it was missing.

Francesco Maresca:  In your room in via della Pergola, was there a central light?
Amanda Knox:  There was one but it didn’t work, so I used the little bedside lamp.
FM:  The lamp.
AK:  The little lamp, yes.
FM:  And you previously stated that you didn’t look for the lamp either; you only looked for your computer when you went into your room. You didn’t look for your money, you didn’t look for your lamp.
AK:  So, I saw the window only the second time that I entered the house. The first time I went into the house I didn’t even think of looking to see if anything was missing, because I saw going into the living room, it really looked like someone had just gone out of the house, everything was in order, just as I had left it. But the second time, I didn’t even think of looking for the lamp: the computer was the important thing for me. All my documents were in it.
FM:  But the first time, when you took your shower and then you returned to your room, first you undressed and then you dressed, all this, you did it without any light?
AK:  It was the middle of the morning, there was already light.
FM:  Did you open your shutters or were they already open?
AK:  I don’t remember.
FM:  To get to your room, to get to the window, you walked in the dark?
AK:  But it wasn’t dark in my room. Often—
FM:  I don’t know, I wasn’t there.
AK:  All right. Usually I only turned on that little lamp at night. Really at night, or in the evening, when I wanted to…So I didn’t even think of turning it on. It really wasn’t dark in my room when I went in.
GCM:  It wasn’t dark, but where was the light coming from? Natural light?
AK:  Natural.

4. Prior Posts With Significant Mention Of The Lamp

1. Click for Post:  Trial: Highlights Of The Testimony On 6 February And 7 February

2. Click for Post:  How The Media Should Approach The Case If Justice Is To Be Done And SEEN To Be Done

3. Click for Post:  Open Questions: An Experienced Trial Lawyer Recommends How To Zero In On the Truth

4. Click for Post:  Fifteenth Appeal Session: Prosecutor Manuela Comodi Starkly Explains All The Forensic Evidence

5. Click for Post:  How The Clean-Up And The Locked Door Contribute To The Very Strong Case For Guilt

6. Click for Post:  Amanda Knox Risks Penalties For Felony Claims No Different From What Already Cost Her 3 Years

7. Click for Post:  Given The Abundant Facts, What Scenario Is The Nencini Court Considering? Probably Not Unlike This

8. Click for Post:  Appeal Session #4: Today Lead Prosecutor Alessandro Crini Summarises The Prosecution’s Case

9. Click for Post:  Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz And Philly Lawyer Ted Simon Both Claim The Devil’s In The Details

10. Click for Post:  Knox & Sollecito Actions In The Week Prior To Arrest: An Incriminating Behavior Pattern For Sure

11. Click for Post:  Judge Nencini Issues Harsh Warning To Tell The Truth - So Amanda Knox Does The Precise Opposite

12. Click for Post:  Fifty Of The Most Common Myths Still Promoted Without Restraint By The Knox PR Campaign

13. Click for Post:  From David Marriott’s Parrot: Latest Talking Points To Be Beamed At The Unbelieving

14. Click for Post:  Questons For Knox: Adding A Dozen More To The Several Hundred Knox So Far Avoided

15. Click for Post:  A Critique In Five Parts Of The Fifth Chambers Motivation Report By Judges Marasca And Bruno #5

16. Click for Post:  Revenge Of The Knox, The Smear-All Book #12: Finally, We Nail Knox’s Self-Serving 2015 Afterword

5. My Prior TJMK Posts On The Physical Evidence

1. Click for Post:  Powerpoints #17: Why The Totality of Evidence Suggests Knox And Sollecito Are Guilty Just As Charged

2. Click for Post:  Despite Disinformation From Apologists And Even Supreme Court, Law & Science Support Damning DNA

3. Click for Post:  Multiple Attackers and the Compatibility of the Double DNA Knife (Exhibit 36)

4. Click for Post:  The Suspicious Behaviour And Evidence Contradicting the Mutual Alibis Of RS And AK

5. Click for Post:  Problems With Fred Davies #2: His Claims On Knives, Wounds And Stains Also Highly Mislead

6. Click for Post:  How The Clean-Up And The Locked Door Contribute To The Very Strong Case For Guilt

7. Click for Post:  Considering The Sad And Sensitive But Also Crucial Subject Of Meredith’s Time Of Death

6. My Book Of Which This Is A Part

Amazon US:  Justice on Trial: The Final Outcome - Evidence and Analysis in the Meredith Kercher Murder Case

Tuesday, September 18, 2018

Was A Vulnerable John Douglas Hijacked By ‘First Generation Crackpots’ To Lie About The Case?

Posted by Cardiol MD

First-generation crackpots Doug Preston, Michael Heavey, and Steve Moore

1. Overview Of This Post

In these four magnificent posts the Machine shows in devastating detail HOW John Douglas mis-stated the case.

Click for Post:  How With Myriad False Claims John Douglas Pushes To Forefront Of Pro-Knox Crackpots #1

Click for Post:  How With Myriad False Claims John Douglas Pushes To Forefront Of Pro-Knox Crackpots #2

Click for Post:  How With Myriad False Claims John Douglas Pushes To Forefront Of Pro-Knox Crackpots #3

Click for Post:  How With Myriad False Claims John Douglas Pushes To Forefront Of Pro-Knox Crackpots #4

Here I would like to examine one good possible reason WHY he mis-stated the case.

In this context, please take special note in Posts 2 and 3 of how the Knox PR shills and to a lesser extent the Sollecito PR shills increasingly misled in 2007-2010 about AK and RS and the evidence against them.

This helped to drown out genuine news of what was a very fair and decisive trial and the blatant corruption of the 2011 appeal court that came next.

Who were those shills? The list became very long but Doug Preston and Michael Heavey began large-scale lying from 2007 (to such an extent that even the defense counsel complained) and Steve Moore noisily picked up the load from 2009. 

2. John Douglas: The Public Persona We Already Knew

Douglas was born on June 18, 1945, in Brooklyn, New York City, so he is now aged 73. In 1995 John Douglas turned in his FBI badge and he retired at the tellingly early age of 49.

In the subsequent 23 years he wrote some books on past profiling cases which won some respect, even though not everybody marvels at the science of profiling and its so-so results and some even consider them something of a fraud. He gained a loyal readership and saw his alter ego repeatedly recreated in crime shows on TV.

But since 2004 Douglas does not seem to have written any books exclusively by himself. Much of what he wrote since was recycled, and he adopted some seemingly dogmatic and badly argued positions, for example on the JonBenet Ramsey and West Memphis Three cases.

In 2011-2013 John Douglas first wrote about Meredith’s case and, with Heavey, Moore and others, entered into a major lobbying campaign in the US. To quote from the Machine’s third post:

Douglas came late to the case and the “beautiful” Amanda Knox seems to have turned him into something of a whirling dervish. He has made false claims in several books, in postings on his own and other websites, in interviews, in a pitch to a near-empty room at the Congress, and in one or two forays into the State Department.

Peaking in 2013 before the Nencini appeal (the repeat of the annulled Hellman appeal), they were seemingly made to (1) poison the jury pool of an ongoing legal process and (2) inflame American public opinion to create pushbacks at the political level.

In his four posts so far, the Machine has meticulously demonstrated how John Douglas became detached from the realities of the case. He has been misleading millions on a grand scale. Literally dozens and dozens of his findings are flat-out wrong.

And Douglas did this with a remarkably angry and inflammatory contempt for the Italian investigators and judiciary.

In what the Machine examined John Douglas comes across as defamatory (against especially Dr Mignini), racist (against Rudy Guede), and xenophobic (against Italy in general) and utterly callous toward Meredith’s long-suffering family.

3. John Douglas: Telling Mental Signs In Public Domain

On October 13, 2017 an article by Ed Power about John Douglas’s mental health appeared in the British newspaper The Telegraph: The real Mindhunter: inside the head of FBI ‘serial killer whisperer’ John E Douglas.

The article was never questioned or rebutted. The sourcing is specific. The Telegraph, a respected source in itself, published this Article 10 months ago & it has apparently not been challenged since then even by his family.

And there is independent corroboration in an already-screened movie series, that addressed the subject of Douglas’s mental health, which was offered on Netflix beginning in December 2015.

The Telegraph article is well worth reading in its entirety and includes the following passage:

“...the ghoulish nature of the job eventually wore Douglas down. Nightmares and sleepless nights were increasingly frequent and he found it hard to communicate with his family….

Under immense pressure at work, he contracted viral encephalitis ““ a fever which doctors said “fried his brain”. His family were warned he would likely be left in a vegetative stage.

He recovered however,.........but the psychological trauma never quite lifted and he turned in his badge for good in 1995 aged just 49.”

So he was not aged more than 49 when he contracted viral encephalitis at least 23 years ago.

Complete recovery from viral encephalitis of this severity is unusual.  Any implication that it was “immense pressure at work” that caused his viral encephalitis is misleading.

Only a virus could have caused viral encephalitis. However, stress could have lowered his physiological resistance.

To size him up with confidence we really need to know more about this viral episode, but the HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) will almost certainly be enlisted to hinder fulfillment of that need.

Common sense tells us that Douglas’s fall from his former excellence into his current incompetence and gross negligence is probably a late consequence of his viral encephalitis,

This late consequence is analogous to Shingles as a late consequence of Chickenpox.

4. John Douglas: Was He Hijacked By The Knox PR?

The evidence for this seems pretty clear.

The last book with Douglas as sole author was in 2004. The AK Book “The Forgotten Killer” was published in 2013. His chapter was co-written with Mark Olshaker.

The co-authors of other chapters were the PR shills Douglas Preston, Michael Heavey, Steve Moore, and Jim Lovering. All have been exposed by us here over the years.

The Introduction was by Thomas Lee Wright, and the malicious grandstander Bruce Fischer introduced at least some of this team to one another; his fingerprints seem on the book as well as those of Marriott and the Knox-Mellases.

Let us allow a few of our past exposures to show how they originated almost all of Douglas’s false claims .

1. Doug Preston

Click for Post:  Doug Preston’s Nasty Ant-Italy Anti-Mignini Campaign To Stir Bigotry Hits A Wall

Click for Post:  New Mignini Interview Makes Doug Preston Look Increasingly Incompetent And Vindictive

Click for Post:  How Doug Preston’s Wrong Claims In His MOF Afterword Were Often Contradicted In The Past

2. Michael Heavey

Click for Post:  Why Prominent Knox Supporter Judge Heavey Faces An Uphill Task

Click for Post:  Prominent Seattle Knox PR Puppet Michael Heavey Might Be About To Take A Fall

Click for Post:  FOA’s Michael Heavey Sends A Pretentious Dishonest Letter To President Obama Copied To Congress

3. Steve Moore

Click for Post:  How With Myriad False Claims Steve Moore Pushes To Forefront Of Pro-Knox Crackpots

4. Thomas Lee Wright

Click for Post:  Fervent Knox Supporter Tom Wright Seemingly Strongarms Knox High School Into “Honoring” Her

5. Bruce Fischer

Click for Post:  Disarray And Decay In The Pro-Knox Parade: Bruce Fischer’s Epidemic Of Malicious Claims

5. My Own Conclusion

It will be easy for the media to take this further. John Douglas needs to speak up. In shilling for Knox… did he jump, or, was he pushed?

Monday, September 10, 2018

How With Myriad False Claims John Douglas Pushes To Forefront Of Pro-Knox Crackpots #4

Posted by The Machine

Muddled mindhunters Mark Olshaker, John Douglas, and Jim Clemente

[Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments]

1. Post And Series Overview

In the previous posts, I used the official court reports and court testimonies to prove John Douglas has made numerous demonstrably false claims.

They addressed false claims about (1) Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito’s questioning on 5-6 November 2007;  (2) the personas and backgrounds of Knox and Sollecito and some of the evidence against them; and (3) the persona and background of Rudy Guede and some of the evidence against him.

In this post, I will analyse a number of specific claims that John Douglas makes in his analysis of the crime scene in The Forgotten Killer. Note that the police processed the whole of the apartment for evidence and as it was distributed throughout they defined that as the crimescene.

All the courts accepted that, and the witness testimony and the judges’ reports make that overwhelmingly obvious. But bizarrely without any attempt at an explanation John Douglas redefines it as merely Meredith’s bedroom, and so all evidence elsewhere is ignored by him. For ex-FBI he sure adopts very strange methods.

Further reading:  TJMK/Wiki Evidence Points Masterlist: 400 points In 25 Parts

Further reading:  Totality of Evidence Suggests Knox And Sollecito Guilty Just As Charged

2. Some False Claims On Crimescene Evidence, Rebutted

Douglas’s claims incessantly contradict the definitive judgments of the Italian Supreme Court here.

Examples of his overarching claims include (1) there was proof of only one attacker and no proof of multiple attackers, (2) there is no indication of a female attacker, and (3) the break-in at the cottage was genuine and not staged to mislead investigators.

I will focus on rebutting these overarching claims in this post.

Devastatingly convincing closed-court recreation ignored by Douglas

1. False Claims By Douglas On Number Of Attackers Involved

“Had there been any specific indication of a female offender or multiple offenders, the pronouns would have been adjusted accordingly.”

But there were multiple indication of multiple offenders. Many hours at trial were devoted to this evidence, and in Post #3 in this series I explained how even the defenses had to fall back to accepting and trying to explain this. .

John Douglas clearly hasn’t read the official court reports, court testimonies or any of experts’ reports and he wasn’t in the court to hear the prosecution’s experts explain why they believe there were multiple assailants.

So he’s in no position to flatly claim Meredith killed by a lone attacker or address let alone refute the evidence for multiple attackers.

In fact, leaving aside the annulled Hellman, all courts up to and including the Supreme Court definitively ascertained that there were indeed multiple attackers, and that it’s a proven fact Amanda Knox was at the cottage when Meredith was killed and the break-in was staged.

All the judges involved in the case from 2007 through 2015 concluded this after examining the medical reports and listening to the testimonies and cross-examinations of numerous forensic experts, including those who actually examined Meredith’s body and those who recreated the pack attack.

The fine journalist Barbie Nadeau was in the courtroom when these experts testified at trial in 2009 and explained why they concluded there were multiple attackers.

“Countless forensic experts, including those who performed the autopsies on Kercher’s body, have testified that more than one person killed her based on the size and location of her injuries and the fact that she didn’t fight back””no hair or skin was found under her fingernails.”

And here is more testimony on the certainty of multiple attackers.

“countless prosecution witnesses, including two coroners who did examine Kercher’s body, testified that the 47 cuts and bruises indicated that “more than two hands” were at work.”

Further reading:  Supreme Court Confirms All Three Were There And Lied, RS & AK Apologists Desperate To Downplay That

Further reading:  Why Final AK & RS Appeal Against Guilty Verdict May Fail: Multiple Wounds = Multiple Attackers

One of many exhibits on the knives not mentioned by Douglas

2. False Claims By Douglas Denying Multiple Knives Involved

One of the main reasons why these forensic experts believe there were multiple attackers is there were different-sized knife wounds on Meredith’s neck.

The fine journalist Andrea Vogt who was also in court reported more details about this evidence.

“Injuries on Kercher’s body ‘consistent with attack by more than one person….  Wounds were from two different knives, Perugia courtroom is told…. Professor Gianaristide Norelli testified that the multiple lesions on Ms Kercher’s body were consistent with being held and attacked by more than one person. He said she died of suffocation and interpreted her stab wounds as having been inflicted as threats during a struggle. The wounds, mostly on the side of her neck, were possibly inflicted by two different knives, he said, but noted that one of the stab wounds was compatible with the alleged murder weapon.”

It’s worth noting the credentials of some of these forensic experts whom are about the best Italy has to offer and certainly on a par with any American expert:

Professor Norelli is the Chief of Legal Medicine at Firenze University and the President of the Italian Conference of Professors of Legal Medicine;  Mauro Bacci is a Professor of Forensic Science and Director of Forensic Medicine at the University of Perugia. Giuseppe Codispoti is the Assistant Chief of the Scientific Police.

The Italian Supreme Court has repeatedly acknowledged the certainty of two knives having been used in the attack on Meredith.

“expert results that because of the morphology of the injuries, attribute them to two different cutting weapons used by different individuals” (Judge Giordano’s Supreme Court report).

“the numerous wounds inflicted on the unfortunate victim, very probably with two knives.” (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report).

“Firstly, testifying in this direction are the two main wounds observed on the victim’s neck, on each side, with a diversified path and features, attributable most likely (even if the data is contested by the defense) to two different cutting weapons.” (Judge Marasca’s Supreme Court report).

Judge Chieffi in his report presents a concise summary of why the Supreme Court ascertained from the wounds that there were multiple attackers.

“From the examination of the stab wounds and the bruises found on the victim, a picture of massive injury in terms of number, distribution, and diversity emerged, especially with regard to the injuries inflicted on the face and neck (where the wounds were 4”8 centimetres deep), a picture which contrasted with the absence of defensive wounds; [7] a circumstance that was at odds with the fact that the young British student was equipped with a strong physique, trained in self”defence through a course in karate which she had taken; all of which led to the conclusion that the criminal action was necessarily carried out by several people acting together against the victim, who was placed in the position of being unable to defend herself or shield herself with her hands to avoid the repeated striking of vital parts such as the neck.

Also considering the type of activity undertaken by the attacker, it turned out to be very difficult to hypothesize an isolated and individual action, because it included acts aimed at disrobing the victim (who was unquestionably dressed when the attacker appeared), violating her private parts, and stabbing her with a knife; the victim was certainly seized by her wrists to prevent a reaction, so that Guedeʹs DNA was found on the cuff of the young English woman’s sweatshirt; but the diverse morphology of the wounds, their number, and their distribution led to the conclusion that there was more than one attacker.

In particular, it was found that many injuries were caused by activities of grasping, others by a pointed and cutting weapon; they were extremely different in size and degree of injury, and had reached the victim sometimes from the right and sometimes from the left. All of which led to the conclusion that more than one attacker, together, held the girl, limited her movements, and struck her from the right and from the left, depending on their position with respect to her, but above all they covered her mouth in order to prevent her from repeating the scream that was heard and reported by the two witnesses mentioned above.” (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report).

John Douglas doesn’t address any of this evidence on multiple attackers presented at great length in great detail in court.

Further reading:  Strong Proof That Raffaele Sollecito Also Stabbed Meredith Kercher Causing The Lesser Wound.

Further reading:  Multiple Attackers and the Compatibility of the Double DNA Knife (Exhibit 36)

Knox DNA profile outside bedroom not mentioned by Douglas

3. False Claims By Douglas On Locations And Implications Of DNA

Douglas erroneously claims that is scientifically impossible for the other attackers to have left none of their DNA at the crime scene - which he wrongly defines as merely Meredith’s bedroom.

“It is scientifically impossible for one offender to leave extensive DNA evidence and for others involved in the same assault to leave none.

But as I’ve already pointed out in the previous posts, Rudy Guede did NOT leave many DNA samples in Meredith’s room - he left just four samples. And it is flat-out wrong that the other two left none at the rest of the real crime scene: the complete apartment. .

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

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

John Douglas is entitled to make the far-fetched claim that Sollecito’s DNA on Meredith might have been due to contamination. However, it is deeply dishonest of him to pretend that Sollecito’s DNA was not found on Meredith’s bra clasp in the first place.

Douglas is not a forensic biologist and he has no special expertise in DNA evidence. He seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that DNA is like wet paint and that if the forensic police swabbing does not provide evidence of someone in a room, that is definitive proof they haven’t been in that room.

But no DNA expert ever claimed this. For one thing the priority given to the processing of Meredith’s room was for fingerprints, and not for DNA

Professor Peter Gill contradicts John Douglas with the following observation.

“Absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.”

Meredith had bruises around her neck, but the Scientific Police didn’t find any DNA of her attacker on her neck. If one adopts John Douglas’s strange logic, does he mean that nobody strangled Meredith?

The Scientific Police didn’t find any of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA in his car. Does the strange logic of Douglas mean that Sollecito never drove his car or was even inside it at all?

Many, many crimes and many many crimescenes come up short on DNA. In a UK Crime Ian Huntley admitted killing Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in his house. However, there were no traces of them in his house.

Further reading:  Omitted - How The DNA Processes And Evidence Points Were Deliberately Misrepresented

Further reading:  Ways To Rebut The Drive-By Critics Of The Case On The DNA Dimension

Mixed Knox and Meredith DNA’s not mentioned by Douglas

4. False Claims By Douglas On Presence Of A Female Attacker

John Douglas’s claim there is no specific indication of a female offender at the cottage is contradicted by multiple pieces of evidence implicating Knox.

The Italian Supreme noted that it’s a proven fact Amanda Knox was at the cottage when Meredith was killed because (1) she herself repeatedly admitted she was; (2) she knew specific details about the murder; and (3) the DNA evidence in the small bathroom provided “eloquent proof” that she washed Meredith’s blood off.

Explaining this further:

(1) The Italian Supreme Court noted that Amanda Knox repeatedly admitted she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed.

“Given this, we now note, with respect to Amanda Knox, that her presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact in the trial, in accord with her own admissions, also contained in the memoriale with her own signature, in the part where she tells that, as she was in the kitchen, while the young English woman had retired in the room of same Ms Kercher, together with another person for a sexual intercourse, she heard a harrowing scream, so piercing and unbearable that she let herself down squatting on the floor, covering her ears tight with her hands in order not to hear more of it.”

Amanda Knox admitted she was at the cottage in her 1:45am witness statement, her 5:45am witness statement and her handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007.

(2) The Supreme Court concluded that it is proven fact Amanda Knox was at the cottage when Meredith was killed as she knew specific details about the murder.

“About this, the judgement of reliability expressed by the lower [a quo] judge [Nencini] with reference to this part of the suspect’s narrative, [and] about the plausible implication from the fact herself was the first person mentioning for the first time [46] a possible sexual motive for the murder, at the time when the detective still did not have the cadaver examination, nor the autopsy result, nor the witnesses’ information, which collected only subsequently, about the victim’s terrible scream and about the time when it was heard (Nara Capezalli, Antonella Monocchia and others), is certainly to be subscribed to.

We make reference in particular to those declarations that the current appellant [Knox] on 11.6.2007 (p.96) inside the State Police headquarters. On the other hand, in the slanderous declaration against Lumumba, which earned her a conviction, the status of which is now protected as a final judgement [giudicato] [they] had a premise in the narrative, that is the presence of the young American woman, inside the house in via della Pergola, a circumstance which nobody at that time - except obviously the other people present in the house - could have known (quote p.96).”

Judge Chieffi also highlighted the fact that Amanda Knox knew specific details about the murder in his Supreme Court report and he criticised Judge Hellmann for not addressing this evidence.

“actual statements by the defendant demonstrating knowledge of details of the murder which turned out to coincide with what was later found by investigators. The court of first degree highlighted how Knox always stated that neither she nor Raffaele saw Meredithʹs room when the door was broken down, as they were both near the living room at that moment and did not enter the crime room, a fact which was confirmed by [other] testimony.

It was, however, noted that, on the other hand, all the English girls testifying at the hearing of 13 February 2009, stated that Knox “ on the evening of 2 November “ had told them that she was the one who found the body of her friend, that it was in front of the closet, covered with a quilt with a foot sticking out, that her throat had been cut and that there was blood everywhere, whereas in her testimony of 13 June 2009, Knox had denied having seen anything.

The fact of the multiple details given to her friends, potentially demonstrating knowledge gained prior to the intervention of the police “ even if she denied this in the interrogation “ was neglected without any explanation on why these elements were deemed irrelevant.

Judge Nencini noted in his report that Amanda Knox placed herself near the basketball ball in Piazza Grimana which was corroborated by another witness.

(3) The Supreme Court concluded it’s a proven fact Amanda Knox was at the cottage when Meredith was killed because her DNA was mixed with Meredith’s blood in the small bathroom.

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

According to the Scientific Police and renowned DNA expert Luciano Garofano, there were five samples of Knox’s DNA or blood mixed with Meredith’s blood in three different locations in the cottage.

Forensic police biologists testified about five spots where they had detected samples of “mixed blood” genetic material””spots of blood of both Knox and Kercher’s””in the bidet, on the sink, on the drain tap, on the Q-tip box in the bathroom and in a spot where prosecutors argued Knox and Sollecito staged a break-in. (Andrea Vogt, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 29 May 2009).

The mixed-blood evidence convinced Dr Stefanoni that Amanda Knox was involved in Meredith’s murder because they both must have been bleeding at the same time. John Douglas hasn’t addressed the mixed-blood evidence, presumably because he is completely unaware of it.

Further reading:  Beyond Massei: On The Seemingly Insuperable Mixed Blood Evidence By All The Expert Witnesses

Further reading:  Questions For Knox: Why So Many False Claims In Accounts Of Your Visit To The House?

Guede’s shoeprints in red head straight to front door, ignored by Douglas

5. False Claims By Douglas On The Footprints & Shoeprints

In post #3 I quoted Douglas claiming Guede was wandering around the apartment, as if the shoeprints and footprints prove that. 

But they don’t. Rudy Guede couldn’t have tracked Meredith’s blood into the small bathroom because he didn’t even go into the small bathroom after Meredith had been stabbed.

His bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith’s room and out of the cottage. This something that has been noted by multiple judges and the Supreme Court.

“As a consequence, the shape of the bare footprint on the sky-blue mat in the little bathroom cannot be attributed to Rudy, who, on leaving Meredith’s room (according to what the shoe prints show), directed himself towards the exit without deviating or stopping in other rooms.” (The Massei report, page 379).

Judge Nencini stated it would have been impossible for Guede to leave the bare bloody footprint on the bathmat.

“...the person who left the apartment without deviating from a straight path was wearing shoes on both feet, and it would thus have been objectively impossible for him to leave a bare footprint on the mat in the small bathroom.” (The Nencini report, page 76).

The Supreme Court also noted there is no evidence that Rudy Guede went into the small bathroom after Meredith had been stabbed.

“Not only that, but the above assumption also clashes with the available evidence regarding the bloody shoe prints which indicate that he left the room where the crime was committed to proceed directly to the exit door of the flat.” (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report).

The bloody footprint on the bathmat in the small bathroom completely debunks the PR lie that there was only one attacker because it couldn’t possibly belong to Rudy Guede.

Judge Nencini pointed out that there were irreconcilable differences between the bloody footprint on the bathmat and Guede’s foot.

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

Some of the individual measurements of Guede’s imprint are as much as 30% too small, but the relative proportions of length and breadth measurements are entirely wrong as well, both undershooting and overshooting by a large margin - 70% to 150%.

The bloody footprint is a near-perfect match for Sollecito’s foot with seven out of twelve individual measurements having a 100% correlation to Sollecito’s foot.

Andrea Vogt pointed out that the bloody footprint on the bathmat matched the precise characterisitics of Sollecito’s foot in a report for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

“All the elements are compatible with Mr. Sollecito’s foot,” Rinaldi said, pointing with a red laser to a millimeter-by-millimeter analysis of Sollecito’s footprint projected onto a big-screen in the courtroom. He used similar methods to exclude that the footprint on the bath mat could possibly be Guede’s or Knox’s.

“Those bare footprints cannot be mine,” said Sollecito in a spontaneous statement”¦. But the next witness, another print expert, again confirmed Rinaldi’s testimony, that the print, which only shows the top half of the foot, matches the precise characteristics of Sollecito’s foot”.

Judge Giordano noted in his Supreme Court that one of the reasons why the appeal judges were convinced there were multiple attackers is there were different-sized footprints in Meredith’s room.

Barbie Nadeau reported:

“footprints not attributable to Guede on the floor of the room where Meredith’s body lay, convinced the appeal judges that several people acted together.” Judge Giordano’s Supreme Court report, page 19).

According to two imprint experts from the Scientific Police - Rinaldi and Boemia - there was a woman’s bloody shoeprint on the pillow under Meredith’s body that matched Knox’s foot size, but was incompatible with Meredith’s foot size.

Worse for Knox, when the judge asked Rinaldi the size of an unidentified bloody shoeprint found on the pillow below Kercher’s body, he responded, “Between 36 and 38.” The judge then asked Rinaldi what size shoe Knox wears. “The Skecher shoe we sequestered belonging to Amanda Knox corresponds with size 37.”

Also Barbie Nadeau reported:

A bloody footprint from a smaller shoe was found on the pillow beneath Kercher’s head but it could not be positively identified as a match to any of the suspects.”

Forensic expert Luciano Garofano also believes there was a woman’s bloody shoe print in Meredith’s room.

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

Further reading:  The Incriminating Bathroom Evidence: Visual Analysis shows the Footprint IS Sollecito’s

Further reading:  Experienced Trial Lawyer: There’s Far More Evidence Than UK/US Courts Need For Guilt

No Guede DNA or prints outside or inside window, ignored by Douglas

6. False Claims By Douglas Denying Rearranged Crime Scene

These are the very narrow grounds on which Douglas attempts to base his claim:

“Perugia police officials believed the rock and broken window might have been indicators of staging””that is, making the crime look like something other than what it actually was. We reject this conclusion based on crime-scene photos of the exterior window. Photos reveal that prior to breaking the window, the rock first struck the inside edge of the exterior shutter, indicating it was thrown from outside. Freshly exposed wood under chipped paint and mineral fragments imbedded in the wood surface substantiate this finding. Glass-fracture examination of the window would prove this.”

It’s typical of John Douglas’s simple-minded and superficial approach that he doesn’t address the Supreme Court’s specific reasons for ascertaining the break-in was staged.

The only reason he puts forward for the break-in being genuine is there is allegedly a mark on the inside of the exterior shutter. Predictably, he doesn’t substantiate this claim with the crime-scene photo.

One of the main reasons why multiple judges and the Supreme Court concluded the break-in was faked was that four witnesses, including two police officers, testified that there were shards of glass on top of the clothes and objects strewn on Filomena Romanelli’s floor.

The courts considered that this proved the window was broken after the room had been ransacked and that the break-in was staged.

“Picking up the computer I noticed that I lifted some glass, in the sense that the glass was on top of things. I remember very well [the glass] on top of the computer bag because I was careful as it was all covered with glass. We mentioned this, saying, the burglar was an idiot, he did not take anything”¦ the jewelry is here, the computer is here”¦and in addition to the fact that he didn’t take anything, the pieces of glass are all on top of the things.” (Filomena Romanelli).

“The fact that the glass fragments from the window wound up on top of the strewn clothing and objects”¦ is surely incompatible with a breaking of the glass in a phase preceding the ransacking inside the room of the apartment. The window glass evidently was broken after entry into the cottage, by someone who was already inside and had already arranged the disorder that was then seen by the witnesses.” (Judge Nencini’s report).

Judge Chieffi summarises the reasons why the Supreme Court ascertained the break-in was staged in his report.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further reading:  Understanding Micheli: The Staged Scene - Who Returned To Move Meredith?

Further reading:  Explaining The Massei Report: A Visual Guide To The Staged Break-In Via Filomena’s Window

3. My Conclusions On How Douglas Misleads On Hard Evidence

John Douglas’ analysis of the crime scene - and I use the term “analysis”  loosely - is such a dishonest and misleading piece of work.

He removes all the incriminating pieces of DNA evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito from the crime scene and exaggerates the DNA evidence against Guede. He actually states “all the crime-scene DNA came from a single source: him” - which is demonstrably false.

He accepts everything Amanda Knox says as the gospel truth despite the fact she is a self-confessed liar and claims her alibi was she was at Sollecito’s apartment. He doesn’t address the computer and telephone records which provide irrefutable proof that Knox and Sollecito lied repeatedly about 1 and 2 November 2007.

He doesn’t say anything about Sollecito categorically stating Knox wasn’t at his apartment on the evening of the murder in his witness statement and this claim being corroborated by the mobile phone evidence. He doesn’t acknowlege that Sollecito admitted lying to the police.

He doesn’t say anything about Amanda Knox repeatedly admitting she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed and this being corroborated by the mixed-blood evidence and the fact she knew specific details about the murder.

He doesn’t say anything about the bloody footprint on the bathmat that matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito’s foot, but couldn’t possibly belong to Guede.

The fact John Douglas has airbrushed every single piece of incriminating evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito out of his analysis and pretends there is no evidence against them speaks volumes. If he had the tiniest modicum of honesty, he would at least acknowledge the fact Knox and Sollecito gave multlple false alibis.

John Douglas’ so-called analysis of the crime scene in The Forgotten Killer is nothing more than PR propaganda. It’s so ridiculously biased, one-sided and dishonest that it’s almost comical. It’s something you would expect from Goebbels or Pravda - not a respected FBI profiler.

It defies belief that anybody takes this dishonest charlatan seriously.

Wednesday, August 29, 2018

How With Myriad False Claims John Douglas Pushes To Forefront Of Pro-Knox Crackpots #3

Posted by The Machine

[Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments]

1. Post And Series Overview

My previous posts exposed John Douglas’s misrepresenation of the Amanda Knox “interrogation” and the personas of Knox and Sollecito.

This post exposes Douglas’s misrepresentation of Rudy Guede, and the next post will expose Douglas’s misrepresentation of the true crime scene and the hard evidence.

Douglas came late to the case and the “beautiful” Amanda Knox seems to have turned him into something of a whirling dervish. He has made false claims in several books, in postings on his own and other websites, in interviews, in a pitch to a near-empty room at the Congress, and in one or two forays into the State Department.

Peaking in 2013 before the Nencini appeal (the repeat of the annulled Hellman appeal), they were seemingly made to (1) poison the jury pool of an ongoing legal process and (2) inflame American public opinion to create pushbacks at the political level.

Note that Douglas again and again accused his Italian counterparts (counterparts the FBI trusts and heavily relies on) who he never once consulted or checked with.

And unsurprisingly for an obvious PR shill and mafia poodle, note that Douglas never mentions the Knox & Sollecito PR or the Heavey-Bremner FOA or the several blatant attempts to bend Italian courts.

2. WHY Rudy Guede Morphed 2007-2011

This quote from my previous post starkly revealed Douglas’s illusion about the real Amanda Knox.

Mark and I have spoken with many people around Amanda. It became clear to us that the Amanda Knox the prosecution and the media described did not exist in real life. She was a creation designed to serve their very specific needs and purposes.

No she wasn’t. As I showed, the prosecution and media (and around 30 judges)(and the Italian public) had a very clear-eyed and accurate view of the 2007-2010 Knox and Sollecito which John Douglas sure does not.

I noted that the PR had morphed Knox from loose cannon on drugs with zero work permit and zero academic intention in Perugia in 2007 to widows-weeds “I am the real victim here” Knox in 2010.

It was the infatuated Douglas who swallowed a PR creation as “the real deal” (as he did Steve Moore who like Knox had been practicing a fake act for several years). 

It was the same with Rudy Guede (and Giuliano Mignini which I will address later). Guede morphed - or was morphed - also.

And once again Douglas swallowed a PR creation.

From late 2007 to late 2008 Italians saw Guede as a mild quite popular basketball player with zero criminal record who had been enticed into a hazing of Meredith by two others whose close-ups were considerably less lovely.

In 2008 both the defense lawyers, and the Knox and Sollecito public relations (led by Curt Knox and the late David Marriott), and the Friends of Amanda (led by the mafia poodles Doug Preston and Michael Heavey from very early on) set about demonizing him.

The lawyers mainly demonized him in court (see below) and the PR demonized him in a huge onslaught in the American media (kept largely below the Italian radar).

Here are posts providing a good picture of the incendiary Knox & Sollecito PR campaigns.

Click for Post:  Knox PR Campaign: Have The Dishonest Talking Points Now Become A Trap?

Click for Post:  How The Strongarm Public Relations Resulted in Most Of The Media Getting It Wrong

Click for Post:  Powerpoints #16: We Now Examine The Compelling Evidence For The REAL Railroading From Hell

Click for Post:  Knox Public Relations Manager Starts Premature Crowing Years Before Legal Process Ends

Click for Post:  Fifty Of The Most Common Myths Still Promoted Without Restraint By The Knox PR Campaign

Click for Post:  From David Marriott’s Parrot: Latest Talking Points To Be Beamed At The Unbelieving

Profiler Douglas makes zero mention of all of this.

3. HOW Rudy Guede Morphed 2007-2011

From late 2007 after his return from Germany Guede sat in prison and assumed a fairly low profile. In the same period both Knox and Sollecito sought far higher profiles, not so much a team as frustrated mutual accusers. 

In November 2007 Knox framed Patrick. Then Sollecito damaged Knox, not only with police and prosecution but with the supervising courts.

In December 2007 Knox sought to win a major break from Dr Mignini but made no mention of Sollecito. Also in December 2007 each appealed to the Supreme Court for at minimum house arrest; in spring 2008 each appeal was rejected. Stays in prison continued. Tense relations continued.

Then in September 2008 the Knox and Sollecito defense teams both turned their guns on Rudy Guede. 

Claims have been made of a pact between Knox and her Italian former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, 24. It is alleged their lawyers have agreed to work together to blame the murder on Rudy Guede, 21, a part-time gardener from the Ivory Coast and the third accused.

Now, Guede’s lawyers are threatening to call for a separate trial for him alone - well away from the legal teams of the other two whom they fear could prejudice his case. It is a pact, says Guede’s lawyer Walter Biscotti, that can be traced back to July when Sollecito sent Knox a bouquet of yellow flowers on her 21st birthday which both celebrated in prison. “˜There is a clear desire to make Rudy the guilty party, and it’s clear they will try anything,’ Biscotti said.

There were three direct effects of this shafting of Guede.

(1) Rudy Guede’s team opted for the separate fast track trial in which he essentially accepted all the evidence - helpful in commiting Knox and Sollecito to trial and not helpful to their case in court as the Micheli Report was a widely-read document. 

(2) Judge Micheli forcefully concluded based in part on numerous interviews (1) that Guede was not the demon he was being made out to be, and (2) that in light of dozens of items of evidence (see my next post) Meredith had been subjected to a pack attack.

(3) As Guede was away serving his sentence during trial and thereafter and not in the courtroom the PR and defense teams could demonize him almost daily with zero comeback (the prosecution thought it was fruitless grandstanding, and rode it out).

So much for “the forgotten killer”. How did that go again?

Here is an example of the incendiary tone now adopted by the public relations (and Michael Heavey) as channeled by the PR shill Peter Popham.

Two weeks after the murder, scientists found bloody fingerprints on a cushion under Mez’s body which belonged to a drug dealer and serial house-breaker called Rudy Guede, who had gone on the run right after the murder.

In contrast, here is the outcome of the Guede trial late in October 2008, note the cool-headed official tone not intimidated by the PR.

[Judge] Micheli agreed with prosecutors that more than one person took part in the sexual assault and murder, dismissing claims that the 47 bruises and knife wounds on Kercher’s body could have been made by a single attacker.

He upheld the testimony of a neighbour who heard more than one person fleeing Kercher’s house, adding that while footprints there might not definitely belong to Knox and Sollecito, they did indicate more than one attacker.

He stood by forensic evidence indicating Kercher’s and Knox’s DNA on a knife found at Sollecito’s house…. which investigators suspect is the murder weapon, and ruled Sollecito’s DNA on Kercher’s bra strap as reliable evidence.

He dismissed as “fantasy”, the claim that Knox, Sollecito and Guede planned to involve Kercher in an orgy inspired by “Halloween parties” instead describing the fatal encounter as unplanned.

In 2009 the prosecution laid out a vast array of evidence all of it pointing to several attackers: the autopsy, the DNA, the recreation of the attack, the obviously-adjusted crime scene, the computer and phone records.

The defense portion of the trial was loaded with anti-Guede innuendo but all their attempts to prove he was a burglar and lone-wolf killer failed markedly.  The “best” shot was the attempt to tie Guede to a break-in at a lawyers’ offices.

Click for Post:  The Serial-Burglar Arm Of The Rudy Guede Hoax: Testimony 2009 In Court Provided ZERO Proof

Late in 2009 Judge Massei set out at more length the very clear case for a pack attack, subsequently agreed-to by the Nencini appeal court (2014), and also three times by the Supreme Court of Italy (2010, 2013, 2015).

In 2010 as the previous post and this fine series by Cesare Beccaria shows, Knox and Sollecito were seemingly STILL blaming one another as much as they ever were Rudy Guede.

Click for Post:  How Each of The Three Subtly But Surely Pushed The Other Two Closer to The Fire

In 2010 the defenses finally split from the increasingly absurd public relations stance on Guede and they went their different ways.

(1) The defense finally caved in to the overwhelming proof of a pack attack. They dropped lone-wolf arguments with Guede as sole perpetrator and attempted other tactics, not successfully. 

Hellman appeal witness Aviello was a failed attempt of the defenses to prove that Guede attacked Meredith with others.

Hellman appeal witness Alessi was a failed attempt of the defenses to prove the attack was by another group entirely.

Neither could produce even an ounce of evidence. Never once in court 2007-2015 was the pack-attack evidence pointing to the three charged shaken.

At the outer edge of my timeline (when the PR was morphing Guede more and the defenses morphing him less) Cardiol wrote of the defense headache he represented. (Read also the 44 comments that Cardiol’s inspired, complex post sparked).

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

That was after the Hellman appeal but before his annulment by the Supreme Court. And even later, after the Nencini appeal (and the Douglas books) but before the bent Marasca-Bruno outcome (the macho Sollecito had made his second visit to the Dominican Republic at this point) SomeAlibi picked up the threads .

Click for Post:  Spitting In the Wind: Sollecito News Conference Backfires On Him AND Knox - What The Media Missed

(2) Meanwhile the PR and FOA crackpots are STILL denying the pack attack, as avidly promoted by, among others, John Douglas.

See Grahame Rhodes’s very telling sendup of Heavey on his quixotic mission to save his little angel, and PatAz’s Heavey expose.

Click for Post:  To Create Points With More Traction For His Yawnfests, Mr Heavey Convenes A Mock Court”¦

Click for Post:  After 6 Years Heavey Is Still Heedless Of His Errors Pointed Out Again & Again & Again

In their books Knox and Sollecito both demonized Guede and tried to sell him as a lonewolf killer.

In these posts Marcello explains just how far short they fall, and Chimera derides Knox at greater length in the huge Knox-book series.

Click for Post:  Questions For Knox and Sollecito: Why Claim Rudy Guede Did It Alone When So Much Proof Against?

Click for Post:    The 518 Lies In “Waiting To Be Heard” by Amanda Knox.

Profiler Douglas makes zero mention of all of this.

4. False Claims By Douglas Re Rudy Guede

1. False Claim By John Douglas on Guede’s Alleged Criminal Background

“Guede has the history; he was an experienced criminal”

John Douglas hasn’t substantiated the claims above and he can’t because Rudy Guede didn’t have any criminal convictions for breaking and entering or any other crimes at the time of Meredith’s murder.

Very extensive investigations by police of Guede’s past are described at length in the Micheli report on our Case Wiki.

Read those and you will know they had not heard of him before and he was not secretly working for them. They show him as mild, funny, popular, well-funded, and diligent in activities he liked.  The real Guede had zero reason to break in, steal money, deal drugs, or attack anyone. 

2. False Claim By John Douglas on Guede’s Alleged Criminal Background

“Rudy had committed other breaking-and-entering crimes and often used a knife.”

That doesn’t necessarily mean that Guede didn’t ever break into any properties, but as Judge Micheli noted, there is no proof that he ever committed any break-ins anywhere in his life.

On this Guede has been much lied-about. See more on this in Part 3 above and also this post, and this post.

3. False Claim By John Douglas on Guede’s Alleged Criminal Background

“He’s a sadistic individual with a violent past.”

John Douglas hasn’t substantiated his claim that Rudy Guede had a violent past. He can’t refer to any criminal convictions for violence because Guede didn’t have any at the time of the murder. Guede was only on the police radar because of a minor incident in Milan just before.

4. False Claim By John Douglas on Guede’s Actions At The Crime Scene.

“He put the blanket over her because he was wandering around the apartment and didn’t want to see her.”

John Douglas’ claim that Rudy Guede was wandering around the apartment is contradicted by the forensic evidence. His bloody shoe prints led straight out of Meredith’s room and out of the cottage. The Massei report, page 379:

“As a consequence, the shape of the bare footprint on the sky-blue mat in the little bathroom cannot be attributed to Rudy, who, on leaving Meredith’s room (according to what the shoe prints show), directed himself towards the exit without deviating or stopping in other rooms.”

5. False Claim By John Douglas on Guede’s Alleged Criminal Background

“You should be able to find other “canvases” of his like that ““ not necessarily homicide, but you should find a violent past in this person’s background. I know that he committed some robberies, but I’ll bet money there are more cases that he may have been involved in which remain unsolved. I don’t know, maybe before he came to Perugia ““ whatever he may have been escaping previously.”

Sure, do foolishly bet some money. John Douglas doesn’t seem to be aware of the fact that Rudy Guede came to Perugia when he was five years old and that he clearly hadn’t been involved in unsolved crimes before his arrival at that age.

John Douglas seems intent on over-egging the pudding in order to portray Guede in the worst possible light i.e. an experienced criminal with a violent past in order to persuade the public that he is the lone killer.

6. False Claim By John Douglas on Guede’s DNA At The Crime Scene

“On top of everything else, his DNA was all over the crime scene.”... “Rudy’s DNA is all over the crime scene in Meredith’s bedroom and Amanda and Raffaele’s is absent”

The claim that Rudy Guede’s DNA was all over the crime scene must be one of the widely-propagated PR lies in the media.

In fact there was only one sample of Guede’s DNA on Meredith body and just four samples of his DNA in Meredith’s room. In total, there were only five samples of his DNA at the cottage.

His DNA was found on a vaginal swab, on the sleeve of Meredith’s tracksuit, on her bra, on the zip of her purse and on some toilet paper in the bathroom that Filomena and Laura shared.

Judge Giordano sentencing report, page 5:

“”¦also a genetic profile, from the Y haplotype on the vaginal swab, in which no traces of semen were found; DNA on the toilet paper in the bathroom near the room of Mezzetti, where unflushed faeces were found; on the bag found on the bed; on the left cuff of the blue sweatshirt (described as a “zippered shirt” in the first inspection, discovered smeared with blood near the body and partly underneath it); and on the right side of the bra found by the foot of Kercher’s body”¦”

“No-one disputes that Rudy Guede was at the cottage when Meredith was killed. However, John Douglas exaggerates the DNA evidence against him. Saying Rudy Guede’s DNA “was all over the crime scene” sounds more damning than saying the Scientific Police found five samples of Rudy Guede’s DNA at the crime scene, less than Knox’s.

5. My Conclusions On This Area

The burden of proof is invariably lowered when it comes to Guede, and inevitably raised when it comes to Knox and Sollecito.

John Douglas clearly isn’t interested in hard facts - he just wants to lay all the blame at Guede’s feet.

As far as John Douglas and Amanda Knox’s supporters are concerned, the presumption of innocence doesn’t apply to Rudy Guede.

So there is no need for him to stand trial for the crimes he has allegedly committed. Straight to prison and case closed.

Wednesday, August 22, 2018

How With Myriad False Claims John Douglas Pushes To Forefront Of Pro-Knox Crackpots #2

Posted by The Machine

[Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments]

1. Post & Series Overview

In Part One I used the official courts reports and court testimonies to show how John Douglas made at least a dozen demonstrably false claims about Knox’s and Sollecito’s questioning on 5-6 November 2007.

It is extremely obvious that he did zero real investigation, zero real fact-checking, zero reading of the official court reports and court testimonies. Instead he mindlessly simply repeated the PR lies propagated in the media by Amanda Knox’s family and supporters.

In this post, I’ll analyse the ill-researched John Douglas’s claims about the personas and backgrounds of Knox and Sollecito and the evidence against them, and I’ll compare those claims to the official court reports and accurate media reports to ascertain their accuracy, veracity, and honesty.

I shall also provide a summary of how Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were portrayed in the mainstream media to see whether John Douglas’ claims have been influenced by the PR campaign.

In the next post I will do the same for so-called “Forgotten Killer” and supposed lone-wolf Rudy Guede

2. WHY Knox And Sollecito Morphed 2007-2010

Both Knox and Sollecito have morphed considerably. Their families and PR and a very strong case were primary causes of this.

Those who missed the 2007-2009 happenings (as John Douglas and the Netflix production team did) can get fanatically sold on a fake Knox and fake Sollecito which are really only PR designer creations. This morphing was to become quite deliberate as part of the attempt to poison public opinion against the strong case.

It is well-documented (though Douglas is unaware) that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito mostly did not get along. Same wth Curt Knox and Edda Mellas. Same with Francesco Sollecito and Raffaele Sollecito. Often each pair has been close to open war.

The nature of Curt Knox V Edda Mellas can be read about in this post and the nature of Francesco Sollecito V Raffaele Sollecito can be read about in this post. In both cases lots to hide. This was probably the decisive factor in going for hardline and dishonest public relations (which repeatedly irritated the defenses). 

The nature of Amanda Knox V Raffaele Sollecito can be read about in this post and there is much much more in both this series and this series. 

Profiler Douglas makes zero mention of all of this.

3. HOW Knox And Sollecito Morphed 2007-2010

On 1 November 2007, the night Meredith died, Knox and Sollecito were essentially low-achieving druggies with few friends and limited financial resources. Knox had a drug-dealer in tow (see False Claim 5 below.)

Knox is sold as an “exchange student” but as this post explains she was not even enrolled at the university - a very rare occurrence, one that left her supervisor-less and largely fund-less - a loose cannon with no way those around her could seek her control.

On 5-6 November 2007, as I explained in the previous post, Knox and Sollecito each broke explosively and unexpectedly under minimal pressure at the Central Police Station. On that night Sollecito blamed Knox, and so Knox blamed Patrick. 

(Thereafter for EIGHT YEARS through 2015 Sollecito never ever even once in court supported Knox’s final alibi, despite her chronic and often-obvious desperation. The nearest Sollecito ever came was this instance which of course was not in a courtroom. Knox had already aired her considerable irritation to all of Italy!) 

In Nov and Dec 2007, despite the ill-researched John Douglas’s claims (see False Claim 2 below), Knox and Mignini were not at loggerheads. He had been at the house three times with her prior to 5-6 November and had concluded that with the help of drugs (probably cocaine on the night as Sollecito’s defense said at trial) a hazing of Meredith with knives was fully intended but the death blow may possibly have been spontaneous.

On 6 November 2007 Mignini patiently heard her out and on 17 Dec he gave her quite a break: very unusually he acceded to her request to interrogate her - actually her first-ever interrogation - in a long session which could have resulted in her going home.

Through early 2008 this relatively naive trusting Knox persisted. But then as Knox describes in her book she was taught by her lawyers and parents to actively distrust a fictionally hardline Mignini and aggressively scramble the truth.

From then on through 2008 Knox tried to charm a cold, hard Sollecito remotely, and in September 2008 this truce was agreed. All blame from now on was to be Guede’s. Drugs were more or less to be denied and a bid for lesser charges went out the window.

Throughout trial in 2009 all Italy observed two more Knoxes. The really daffy bubbly one and the really callous and meanspirited one.

Finally from 2010 we saw the widows-weeds “I am the real victim here” Amanda Knox retooled by the PR.

The one who wrote a massively dishonest book, and barked at the Nencini appeal from a distance, and makes blood-money out of killing Meredith, and encourages stalking of Meredith’s family and justice officials in Italy. The one that wails to gullible paying crowds and on TV “I am the real victim here”.

Profiler Douglas makes zero mention of all of this.

4. False Claims By Douglas Re Knox & Sollecito

1. False Claims By Douglas On Personas

Douglas was a profiler? Really? You’d never know it from his way-off-base portrayals of Knox and Sollecito.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito’s high-profile supporters in the media constantly drew attention to and expressly highlighted the differences between Knox and Sollecito’s privileged middle-class backgrounds and Rudy Guede’s less fortunate background.

It was often pointed out that Amanda Knox had attended a Jesuit high school in Seattle and claimed (probably falsely) that she was an honors student and her parents were professionals - Curt Knox is an accountant and her mother is a maths teacher.

Mark and I have spoken with many people around Amanda. It became clear to us that the Amanda Knox the prosecution and the media described did not exist in real life. She was a creation designed to serve their very specific needs and purposes. Teachers and fellow students at Seattle Prep described Amanda with terms such as “bright,” “sweet” and “kind.”

Actually the restrained prosecutors and restrained Italian media mostly got the 2007-2010 Knoxes correctly sized up. Italians could repeatedly see and judge Knox for themselves. They knew about the drugs (see False Claim 5) and saw Patrick framed. Demonization of the “beautiful” Knox (as Douglas calls her repeatedly) by jealous little people and bigoted cops is a figment of a xenophobic and ill-informed mind. Nothing else.

Raffaele Sollecito’s advantaged background was also repeatedly referred to in the media. He was an IT student and the son of a wealthy urologist who had set him up with his own apartment in Perugia, and provided him with a black Audi A3, and an expensive Apple laptop.

They were essentially putting forward the argument that Knox and Sollecito are innocent specifically because they were two middle-class “kids” from respectable backgrounds.

In sharp contrast Rudy Guede is “clearly guilty” because he came from a disadvantaged background. He was often referred to in the media as a “drifter”, “drug dealer” and “petty criminal” with a history of breaking and entering despite the fact he had lived in Perugia since the age of five and he had zero convictions for drug dealing, breaking and entering or any other crimes (see my next post).

Any inconvenient facts about Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were brushed under the carpet and were conspicuous by their absence in the PR narrative.

Highlighting the privileged backgrounds of Knox and Sollecito was a proven successful strategy on the part of PR consultant David Marriott and early legal supporter Anne Bremner. Many people don’t want to believe that young people from respectable middle-class backgrounds are capable of committing horrific murders.

Vincent Bugliosi - the chief prosecutor in the Charles Manson trial - pointed out that many people in killer Tex Watson’s hometown refused to believe that he could have been involved in the murders because of his background.

“Tex Watson, Manson’s “˜chief lieutenant’ at the murder scene, was from Farmersville, Texas, hometown of World War II hero Audie Murphy. Watson was a football, basketball, and track star. He had almost an A average in high school. And when the people in Farmersville learned he was being charged with these murders, the general consensus was this is absolutely impossible, it must be a case of mistaken identity.”

Many people in Seattle refused to believe that Amanda Knox could have been involved in Meredith’s murder because of her middle-class upbringing. Time and time again, her high-profile supporters in the media claimed she was incapable of murder because of her background.

Disgraced legal talking head Anne Bremner - who was a co-creator of the Friends of Amanda - said she couldn’t accept what was being printed in the press about Amanda Knox because she had attended a Jesuit school.

“Her relatives and I, who saw her grow up as a regular student at the Jesuit Seattle Prep. School couldn’t accept it.”

Disgraced former CBS consultant Paul Ciolino claimed that Jesuit-educated high school girls don’t commit murder.

“Jesuit-educated high school girls who are high honors students “¦ don’t participate in orgies and homicides. They don’t do it. And if you can tell me of one that does, I’d sure like to see her.”

Steve Moore argued that Amanda Knox isn’t a violent person because she was an honor student (as mentioned above we have never seen proof of that.)

“This was an honor student; she is not a violent person.”

If someone’s guilt or innocence could be determined by their backgrounds, there would be no need for criminal trials. Lady Justice is symbolically depicted as wearing a blindfold. The blindfold represents impartiality and the ideal that justice should be applied without regard to wealth, power or any other status.

There’s a very good reason for this - killers, sex offenders and other criminals really do come from all walks of life. Nobody with an ounce of common sense assumes someone must be innocent or guilty of murder or sexual assault because of their background, their status or their wealth. 

If you assume that nice girls from respectable backgrounds don’t commit murder a la Anne Bremner, Paul Ciolino and Steve Moore, you would be mistaken.

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

John Douglas interviewed Charles Manson and knew of his “family” mostly of girls so Douglas has no excuse for assuming that middle-class girls from respectable backgrounds are incapable of murder.

Leslie Van Houten was an honors student and a homecoming queen. She came from a middle class background; her father was an auctioneer and her mother was a school teacher. She took part in the savage murders of Leno and Rosemary LaBianca. She along with Patricia Krenwinkel attacked and stabbed Rosemary LaBianca. Van Houten tied the electrical cord from a lamp around La Bianca’s neck and put a pillow case over her head before stabbing her 16 times in the lower back.

Patricia Krenwinkel came from a fairly normal background. Her father was an insurance salesman. She graduated from high school and then attended a Catholic college for a semester before moving in with her sister. Krenwinkel participated in the Tate and LaBianca murders. She stabbed Abigail Folger more than 70 times. When the police found Folger’s body, they thought she was wearing a red dress.

Profiler Douglas makes zero mention of all of this.

One of the numerous knives in Sollecito’s collection

2. False Claims By Douglas On Motive

Again and again John Douglas and colleagues repeat the PR myth that Mignini described a satanic murder, proving yet again that he has unquestioningly believed whatever he has been told by Amanda Knox’s dishonest supporters without doing any fact-checking for himself.

How, in the name of all that is rational, could Amanda and Raffaele have participated in this satanic orgy of sex and murder Mignini so imaginatively described?

But this team and this prosecutor came up with a bizarre criminal conspiracy involving satanic sex orgies and rituals. And this crime, according to the prosecutor, was perpetrated by people never before involved in Satanism or violence or group sex.

Both [this and the West Memphis case] were rushes to judgment, prosecuted as satanic ritual murders on the basis of fear and superstition rather than solid evidence and analysis.

Since there was a strong satanic component it was supposed to take place on Halloween. But since that didn’t work out, the Day of the Dead would be just as auspicious.

He doesn’t substantiate his claims or refer to any of the official court reports or court testimonies. Did it not cross his mind to actually check to see whether Mignini had ever claimed Meredith had been killed in a satanic ritual? If he had bothered to have checked, he would have realised there are NO quotations from Mignini himself claiming Meredith had been killed in a satanic ritual.

In fact Italy knows Mignini is a satanism skeptic and he often propounds that on TV. 

He has repeatedly DENIED claiming that Meredith was killed in a sacrificial rite (a deliberate false rumor from the defense) and has strongly questioned satanism as a motive for other crimes.

For example in his letter to the Seattle reporter Linda Byron:

“On the “˜sacrificial rite’ question, I have never said that Meredith Kercher was the victim of a “˜sacrificial rite.’ “

For example in his interview with Drew Griffin on CNN:

Drew Griffin: “You’ve never said that Meredith’s death was a satanic rite?”

Mignini: “I have never said that. I have never understood who has and continues to say that. I read, there was a reporter ““ I don’t know his name; I mention it because I noticed it ““ who continues to repeat this claim that, perhaps, knowing full well that it’s not like that.

“I have never said that there might have been a satanic rite. I’ve never said it, so I would like to know who made it up.”

For example in his published statement in Corriere

Mr. Spezi’s text says: “”¦ a strangely similar background, for two different cases, behind which the magistrate thought he could see satanic orgies on the occasion of Halloween for Amanda, and ritual blood sacrifices as a worship to the Devil in the Monster of Florence case”¦”.

This is an assertion that Mr. Spezi and crime-fiction author Douglas Preston have been repeating for years, but does not find the smallest confirmation in the documentation of the two trials, nor in the scenario put forward by the prosecution in which the Meredith murder (which didn’t happen on Halloween but on the subsequent night) was the consequence of a sex hazing to which Meredith herself did not intend to take part, and, above all, it was the consequence of a climate of hostility which built up progressively between the Coulsdon girl and Amanda because of their different habits, and because of Meredith’s suspicion about alleged money thefts by Knox.

Profiler Douglas makes zero mention of all of this.

3. False Claims By Douglas On DNA Evidence

“How, in the name of all that is rational, could Amanda and Raffaele have participated in this satanic orgy of sex and murder Mignini so imaginatively described and yet not leave any of their own DNA on the scene?”

It’s untrue that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA wasn’t found at the crime scene. John Douglas limits the crime scene to Meredith’s room despite the fact that the Scientific Police collected significant DNA and forensic evidence from the whole cottage, including the small bathroom, the large bathroom, the hallway and Filomena’s room.

There were more incriminating pieces of DNA evidence against Amanda Knox (6) than there were against Rudy Guede (5). According to the Scientific Police, there were five instances of Knox’s DNA or blood mixed with Meredith’s blood in three different locations in the cottage.

After the trial, the Kerchers’ lawyer, Francesco Maresca, said the mixed blood evidence was the most damning piece of evidence against Amanda Knox. The jury agreed that it was a damning piece of evidence. Barbie Nadeau points out in Angel Face that the jurors accepted the mixed blood evidence.

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

It’s also untrue that Sollecito didn’t leave any of his DNA in Meredith’s room. It’s an indisputable fact that Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. His DNA was identified by two separate DNA tests. I won’t address the knife, the bra clasp and the mixed-blood evidence in this post for the sake of brevity.

Profiler Douglas makes zero mention of all of this.

4. False Claims By Douglas On Other Evidence

“Suffice it to say that there is no evidence ““ repeat, NO EVIDENCE ““ to indicate that Amanda and Raffaele were even present at the crime scene”

Suffice it to say? In fact there was a MOUNTAIN of evidence. See here for 400 evidence points, which between them at trial in 2008 and again at appeal in 2013 were devastating. .

In final judgment even the Supreme Court disagrees with John Douglas. It noted that it’s a proven fact Amanda Knox was at the cottage when Meredith was killed because (1) she repeatedly admitted she was (2) she knew specific details about the murder and (3) the DNA evidence in the small bathroom provided “eloquent proof” she washed Meredith’s blood off.

“Given this, we now note, with respect to Amanda Knox, that her presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact in the trial, in accord with her own admissions, also contained in the memoriale with her own signature, in the part where she tells that, as she was in the kitchen, while the young English woman had retired in the room of same Ms Kercher, together with another person for a sexual intercourse, she heard a harrowing scream, so piercing and unbearable that she let herself down squatting on the floor, covering her ears tight with her hands in order not to hear more of it.

About this, the judgement of reliability expressed by the lower [a quo] judge [Nencini] with reference to this part of the suspect’s narrative, [and] about the plausible implication from the fact herself was the first person mentioning for the first time [46] a possible sexual motive for the murder, at the time when the detective still did not have the cadaver examination, nor the autopsy result, nor the witnesses’ information, which collected only subsequently, about the victim’s terrible scream and about the time when it was heard (Nara Capezalli, Antonella Monocchia and others), is certainly to be subscribed to.

We make reference in particular to those declarations that the current appellant [Knox] on 11.6.2007 (p.96) inside the State Police headquarters. On the other hand, in the slanderous declaration against Lumumba, which earned her a conviction, the status of which is now protected as a final judgement [giudicato] [they] had a premise in the narrative, that is the presence of the young American woman, inside the house in via della Pergola, a circumstance which nobody at that time - except obviously the other people present in the house - could have known (quote p.96).

“According to the slanderous statements of Ms. Knox, she had returned home in the company of Lumumba, whom she had met by chance in Piazza Grimana, and when Ms. Kercher arrived in the house, Knox’s companion, directed sexual attentions toward the English woman, then he went together with her to he room from which the harrowing scream came. So, it was Lumumba who killed Meredith and she could affirm this since she was on the scene of the crime herself, albeit in another room. (p.97)

“Another element against her [Amanda Knox] is the mixed traces, her and the victim’s one, in the “˜small bathroom’, an eloquent proof that anyway she had come into contact with the blood of the latter, which she tried to wash away from herself (it was, it seems, diluted blood, while the biological traces belonging to her would be the consequence of epithelial rubbing). “The fact is very suspicious, but it’s not decisive, besides the known considerations about the sure nature and attribution of the traces in question.”

John Douglas clearly hasn’t read any of the official court reports, so he hasn’t addressed let alone refuted the evidence the Supreme Court cited which led it to conclude that it’s a “proven fact” Amanda Knox was at the cottage when Meredith was killed.

Profiler Douglas makes zero mention of all of this.

5. False Claims By Douglas On Drug Use

For the most part, John Douglas sticks closely to the PR narrative about Rudy Guede being an experienced criminal whilst completely ignoring the fact that Amanda Knox and Raffaele both had previous brushes with the police and other inconvenient facts that portray them in a negative light.

He reluctantly acknowledges the fact Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito used marijuana. (Anne Bremner refused to go even this far. She categorically stated Amanda Knox didn’t use marijuana, despite not being in a position to make firm assurances.)

“They used marijuana, but that’s not some hard core drug that will change a normal personality.”

Really?! And Knox and Sollecito had both admitted they had used drugs - as part of their defense - and these admissions were widely reported in the media. It was also established in court in 2009 that they had smoked marijuana.

“Both Amanda and Raffaele were using drugs; there are multiple corroborating statements to this effect (page 19, statements of Romanelli, hearing of February 7, 2009; statements of Mezzetti, hearing of February 14, 2009; page 164, hearing of March 27, 2009, statements of Antonio Galizia, Carabinieri [C.ri] station commander in Giovinazzo, who testified that in September 2003 Raffaele Sollecito was found in possession of 2.67 grams of hashish; in the tapped intercepts, Amanda had several times made reference to marijuana use).” (Massei report, page 62).

However, Douglas is simply assuming with no proof that they didn’t take any hard drugs. According to Amanda Knox, Sollecito had taken heroin and cocaine.

“According to Amanda’s prison diaries, Raf had been reminiscing about his incredible highs on heroin and cocaine”¦” (Barbie Nadeau, Angel Face, Kindle edition, page 163).

More damning, Mignini knew Knox started sleeping with a dangerous cocaine dealer even before she arrived in Perugia. He stated at the trial that Sollecito and Knox ran with a crowd who often used stupefying drugs.  Here’s Barbie Nadeau, The Daily Beast, 20 November 2009:

“He also hinted that Knox and Sollecito might have been in a drug-fueled frenzy when they allegedly killed Kercher. He outlined the effects of cocaine and acid, and told the judges and jury how Knox and Sollecito ran with a crowd that often used these “stupificante,” or stupefying drugs.”

That Amanda Knox was mixing with people who used hard drugs was widely known in Italy even before the trial.

According to police and trial reports from 2007-2008 and Italian media accounts, Knox had a sexual relationship with the cocaine dealer, and was in contact him in the days before and even after Meredith’s murder. (That helped to put him away.) She even invited him home and slept with him there, with Meredith in the next room.

Read about it here and there’s more here.  In English the Daily Telegraph also reports.

Profiler Douglas makes zero mention of all of this.

6. False Claims By Douglas On Prior Police Record

“Amanda and Raffaele had no history of any sort of violence or sexual perversion.”

If John Douglas had actually bothered to read the Massei report, he would have known Sollecito was monitored at university after being caught watching hardcore pornography featuring bestiality:

“”¦and educators at the boy’s ONAOSI college were shocked by a film “˜very much hard-core”¦where there were scenes of sex with animals with animals,’ at which next they activated a monitoring on the boy to try to understand him. (Pages 130 and 131, hearing 27.3.2009, statements by Tavernesi Francesco).” (Massei report, page 61).

He would have also known that Raffaele Sollecito had a previous brush with the police in 2003.

“...Antonio Galizia, Carabinieri [C.ri] station commander in Giovinazzo, who testified that in September 2003 Raffaele Sollecito was found in possession of 2.67 grams of hashish.” (The Massei report, page 62).

John Douglas seems to be unaware that Amanda Knox also had a previous brush with the police.  According to Andrew Malone in an article on the Mail Online website, Amanda Knox was charged with hosting a party that got seriously out of hand, with students high on drink and drugs, and throwing rocks into the road, forcing cars to swerve. He claimed the students then threw rocks at the windows of neighbours who had called the police. Knox was fined $269 (£135) at the Municipal Court after the incident (crime No: 071830624).

Barbie Nadeau also reported on the same incident and claimed Knox had been arrested:

...and her only brush with the law was a disturbing-the-peace arrest for a house party she threw.” (Barbie Nadeau, Angel Face, Kindle edition, page 6).

According to the police ticket written by Seattle Police officer Jason Bender, Knox was issued with an infraction for the noise violation and warned about the rock throwing:

“I issued S1/Knox this infraction for the noise violation and a warning for the rock throwing. I explained how dangerous and juvenile that action was….  There’s no history or experience related to violence or mental illness in their backgrounds.”

A number of judges, who presumably saw their psychological reports, commented on Knox and Sollecito’s characters and made it clear they thought they were psychologically disturbed and dangerous.

Judge Massimo Riccarelli stated:

[Knox was] “privy of any refraining inhibitions and could reoffend. “From the reconstruction there is the concrete possibility of reoffending and the [alleged] role of Amanda Knox was by no means secondary,”

He also described her as “crafty and cunning” with a “multi-faced personality, unattached to reality with an elevated, one would say fatal capacity” to repeat her offence.

Judge Claudia Matteini made the following comments about Amanda Knox:

“Meredith was a girl full of life and enthusiasm, who for the sole purpose of having some pleasure and sensation during a boring day spent smoking joints, was subjected to acts of brutality and cruelty that are disgusting to any normal person. In such a situation the danger of repetition of the crime is certainly very high and can’t be considered to have diminished due to the mere passage of time, during which as a reminder you have never shown any sign of remorse or reconsideration of your life.”

“Even the behaviors you mention in your motion requesting release, which are presented as being in your favor, could be read differently in the opinion of this judge…. Your conduct after the murder is symptomatic of a personality which, considering your young age, provokes no small measure of dismay and apprehension, considering how extremely easy it was for you to control your states of mind.”

The Italian Supreme Court said the following to Raffaele Sollecito:

“You are a flight risk because of the gravity of the charges. Your danger to society matches your weak character and your personality, which we can’t define in terms of harmless juvenile stereotypes, since the context includes the habitual use of drugs.”

A number of psychologists believe Amanda Knox has exhibited the traits of a psychopath. Dr Coline Covington wrote an article Signs that suggest Amanda Knox is a psychopath in which she explained that Amanda Knox’s behaviour in the courtroom showed the signs of a psychopathic personality.

Dr Covington is a highly experienced American psychotherapist. She was the former Editor of the Journal of Analytical Psychology as well as the former Chair of the British Psychoanalytic Council and she has also worked for the London police.

Kate Mansey in The Sunday Mirror reported that Sollecito had bragged about idolising a serial killer and also hinted at his depression.

Suspect’s killer idol by Kate Mansey

“A PRIME suspect in the killing of British student Meredith Kercher bragged about idolising a notorious serial killer just days before her murder. “Italian Raffaele Sollecito used his online diary to praise the “Monster of Foligno”, a convict serving a life sentence for the murders of two young children.

“The discovery came after Sollecito appeared in court last Monday to give prosecutors the password to his computer. “The 23-year-old student and his American girlfriend Amanda Knox are being held on suspicion of murdering Meredith, 21, a fellow student in Perugia on November 1 last year.

“He read about killer Luigi Chiatti when he found out he had studied at the town’s ONAOSI college years before. On October 13 Sollecito wrote on his blog about previous students.  “The one I admire the most is the Monster of Foligno,” he said. “I know there have been salacious goings-on at the college but the one common denominator is depression.”

The IT student also wrote of his interest in “extreme experiences” and hinted at his depression, saying he felt he was “entering a dark tunnel without an exit”.

Profiler Douglas makes zero mention of all of this.

5. My Conclusions On This Area

In his interview with Krista Erickson, John Douglas claimed he had all the information necessary to analyse the case and conclude that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent.

“I won’t do an analysis unless I am provided with all the information necessary. In this case, I had everything I needed. In fact, more than I’ve had in other cases.”

He didn’t specify that all the information he had been given came from Amanda Knox’s supporters and it clearly didn’t include any of the official court reports or court testimonies.

So far, I’ve analysed John Douglas’ claims about Knox and Sollecito’s questioning on 5 November 2007, the personas and backgrounds of Knox and Sollecito, and some of the DNA evidence and other evidence against them. Douglas hasn’t cited even ONCE any of the official court reports or court testimonies - not even once - or provided any verbatim quotations from anyone directly involved in the case.

Tellingly John Douglas doesn’t cite any sources for the specific claims he makes - which suggests he knows his sources aren’t trustworthy or reliable. Unsubstantiated claims from anonymous sources are not acceptable in academia, science or law.

John Douglas has just repeated many of the PR lies that have been widely propagated in the media with regard to the backgrounds of Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede and some of the DNA evidence against without doing any real fact-checking at all.

Thursday, August 16, 2018

How With Myriad False Claims John Douglas Pushes To Forefront Of Pro-Knox Crackpots #1

Posted by The Machine

Muddled mindhunters Mark Olshaker, John Douglas, and Jim Clemente

[Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments]

1. Overview Of This Series

This is the first in a series on the myriad claims John Douglas has made about Meredith’s case starting early in 2013.

That was from after the bent Hellman appeal in 2011 to after the Supreme Court annulled Hellman’s outcome in mid 2013 but before the Nencini rerun of the appeal in 2013-14. All of the besotted Knox apologists in 2013 went from deep joy to despondence and desperation. 

At that point, there were numerous court translations on our Wiki, the prosecution had given some excellent interviews, and there were several very good books out. The mafia poodles Heavey, Preston, Moore, Hampikian and Fischer had been thoroughly exposed. It really was about time the unhinged conspiracy theories were put to rest.

So what happens? A new mafia poodle, John Douglas, explodes out of nowhere, with MORE fabrications, MORE defamations, and MORE condescending hate talk!

Douglas has made further abusive and inaccurate claims about law enforcement (amazingly, he never contacted any of them), about the crime scene, the hard evidence, the witness evidence, the time-lines, the police and prosecution, and so on.

His bizarre claims (illegal if made in Italy) were pushed hard in several books, in postings on his own and other websites, in interviews, in a pitch to a near-empty room at the Congress, and in one or two forays into the State Department.

2. Who Exactly Is John Douglas?

Douglas is a former crime specialist long retired from the FBI and best known for being one of the first criminal profilers. In 1996 he published the popular Mindhunter: Inside the FBI’s Elite Serial Crime Unit, which inspired the popular Netflix series. The two FBI profilers - Jason Gideon and David Rossi - in the long-running TV series Criminal Minds are explicitly based on him. He has also written other books about criminal psychology.

He apparently coined the term “serial killer” and is credited with helping to expand our understanding of murderous psychopathy. He was a consultant to Thomas Harris when the crime writer was researching Silence of the Lambs and to Peter Jackson on the film Lovely Bones.

Most quotes will come from his long sections on the case in (1) Law and Disorder with colleague Mark Olshaker; another colleague, Jim Clemente, propagates their nonsense a lot in podcasts and YouTubes; and (2) the absurdly titled Forgotten Killer: Rudy Guede and the Murder of Meredith Kercher, written with Knox fans Douglas Preston, Steve Moore and Michael Heavey.

As Douglas was pretty wildly wrong in his takes on the hard facts and psychologies of every one of the main characters (the three charged, prosecutors and police, several others) which is supposedly his main area of expertise, I will start with that area.

Then in the next several posts I will examine other Douglas claims. I’ll conclude with the amazing number of red flags Douglas ignored, going back to Knox’s time in Seattle. They may not faze a PR shill, but they should give pause to any competent, honest investigator.

Obvious red flags include Knox’s reputation at high-school and college, her heavy drug use starting in Seattle, Knox’s reason for being in Perugia (hint: it was not to study), her financial situation, the chronic antagonisms between Knox and Sollecito (who Douglas barely mentions), the breaks she was given in 2007-08, her disastrous stint on the stand at trial in 2009 (touched on below), the mountain of evidence, the devastating official reconstructions, the bent appeal court in 2011, and the mid-2013 Cassation annulment report.

3. Bizarre Precursor A Year Earlier

Hard to believe! But exactly one year prior to Douglas exploding himself into the case ANOTHER mafia poodle, Saul Kassin, a profiler with John Jay College of Criminal Science in New York, did the same thing. He retreated whiny and discredited. Take a look.

Click for Post:  Saul Kassin: An Example Of How The Knox Campaign Is Misleading American Experts And Audiences

Click for Post:  Rebutting Saul Kassin’s Substantive Claim Of Forced Confession

Click for Post:  Correcting Saul Kassin’s Massively Inaccurate Description Of Amanda Knox’s So-Called Confession

Click for Post:  How Saul Kassin Framed Many Fine Italian Justice Officials - And Then Played Victim When Corrected

4. AK and RS Sessions with Police On 5 November 2007

In this post I’ll analyse some of the claims (there are more) he has made about Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito’s questioning on 5 November 2007, which he based almost exclusively on their own misleading accounts and the absurd inventions of Steve Moore, and I’ll compare those claims to the official court reports and court testimonies to ascertain their accuracy and veracity.

See here for just how well we understand this area. We finally have full knowledge of it almost minute by minute and word by word. There was zero interrogation as Italy defines it prior to arrest, her behavior had made investigators curious but not made her a witness, let alone a suspect, and she was never “targeted” before she broke under zero pressure. All four discussions are on record, and Knox signed every page of all four reports.

John Douglas’s claim #1

“On the evening of November 5, police asked both Amanda and Raffaele to come to the station to discuss apparent inconsistencies in their accounts.”

Untrue. This claim is demonstrably false. Neither the police nor the prosecutors brought Knox in for questioning on 5 November 2007.

Amanda Knox herself testified in court that she wasn’t called to come to the police station on 5 November 2007.

Carlo Pacelli: “For what reason did you go to the Questura on November 5? Were you called?”
Amanda Knox: “No, I wasn’t called. I went with Raffaele because I didn’t want to be alone.”

Monica Napoleoni, the head of Perugia’s homicide squad, said they told Knox she should go home to rest, but Knox insisted on staying:

Amanda also came that evening, the evening of the 5th. We said to Amanda that she could go home to rest. Since, during those days, she was always saying, always complaining that she wanted to rest, wanted to eat, we said: “˜Look, you’ve eaten; you can go and rest yourself. If there’s a need, we’ll call you.’

John Douglas’s claim #2

“During that time, according to the police, he [Raffaele Sollecito] began wavering on his story that Amanda had slept over with him and that they’d been together the entire night of the murder. Maybe she had gone out for a while””around 9:00 P.M. or so””and hadn’t come back until 1:30 A.M.; he wasn’t sure.”

Untrue. John Douglas presents the above comments as if they are verbatim quotations from Sollecito. They are not. He makes no reference to any sources to substantiate his claim.

In fact Sollecito categorically stated Amanda Knox wasn’t with him that evening in his witness statement.

“At 9pm I went home alone and Amanda said that she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends. We said goodbye. I went home, I rolled myself a spliff and made some dinner.”

“I remember Amanda wasn’t back yet. I surfed on the Internet for a couple of hours after my father’s phone call, and I stopped only when Amanda came back, about one in the morning, I think.”

Sollecito’s claim that Amanda Knox wasn’t at his apartment that evening is corroborated by the mobile phone evidence. From the Nencini report, 2014, page 132.

“At 8:18 pm and 12 seconds, Amanda Marie Knox received a text message sent to her by Patrick Lumumba, in which he informed her that it would not be necessary for her to go to the bar to carry out her usual work. At the time of receipt, Amanda Marie Knox’s handset connected via the sector 3 mast at Torre dell’Acquedotto, 5 dell’Aquila, as shown by phone records entered in evidence. This mast cannot be reached from the vicinity of 130 Corso Garibaldi, the home of Raffaele Sollecito. According to the findings of the judicial police entered in evidence, this mast could be reached by anyone in Via Rocchi, Piazza Cavallotti or Piazza 4 Novembre, all locations in Perugia which are intermediate between 130 Corso Garibaldi, the home of Raffaele Sollecito, and Via Alessi, where the “Le Chic” bar is located

“From this set of facts established in the case, Amanda Marie Knox’s claim, according to which she received Patrick Lumumba’s text message while she was at 130 Corso Garibaldi, appears false. Given the mast connected to and the time, it is reasonable to assume that, when Amanda received the message, she had already left Raffaele Sollecito’s home and was on her way to the “˜Le Chic’ bar. Presumably, she then turned around and went back.”

John Douglas’s claim #3

John Douglas talks as if RS and AK never lied and for example he doesn’t address the fact that Raffaele Sollecito admitted lying to the police and blamed Knox for his lies.

Untrue. There is overwhelming proof theiy both lied. For example:

“In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.”

This inconvenient fact has been brushed under the carpet by Amanda Knox’s supporters for years. The fact Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito lied to the police before they were questioned on 5 November 2007 is critically important for a couple of reasons: (1) their lies can’t be attributed to police coercion or brutality and (2) it clearly indicates they were both trying to hide another inconvenient truth. This begs the question: what inconvenient truth were they trying to hide?

John Douglas has never answered this question, probably because he is blissfully ignorant of all the lies Knox and Sollecito told the police and others. Amanda Knox’s high-profile supporters don’t address the lies that Knox and Sollecito told before and after 5 November 2007. For example, the filmmakers responsible for Amanda Knox on Netflix only focused on Amanda Knox’s false and malicious allegation against Diya Lumumba - not on any of the lies before and after 5 November 2007.

It’s easy to understand why they don’t address these lies - there isn’t a plausible innocent explanation for them. Instead they pretend or insinuate that Knox and Sollecito only lied because they were coerced and/or beaten by the police on 5 November 2007 and that’s the approach John Douglas adopts.

Judge Marasca from the Supreme Court couldn’t pretend that Knox and Sollecito didn’t lie repeatedly to the police. He had no choice but to address them because Judge Massei and Judge Nencini detailed their lies in their own reports. He acknowledges that Amanda Knox lied, and claimed she had lied to cover for Rudy Guede.

Judge Marasca’s Supreme Court report:

“Elements of strong suspicion are also in the inconsistencies and lies which the suspect woman [Amanda Knox] committed over the statements she released on various occasions, especially in the places where her narrative was contradicted by the telephone records which show different incoming SMS messages”.

“However, the said calunnia is another circumstantial element against the appellant, insofar as it can be considered a strategy in order to cover up for Mr. Guede, whom she had an interest to protect because of fear of retaliatory accusations against her.”

Guede was of course Douglas’s solitary “forgotten” lone-wolf killer. How does he explain that one?

John Douglas’s claim #4

John Douglas also resorts to another common tactic used by Amanda Knox’s supporters to explain her multiple contradictory accounts of what she was doing and where she was on 1 November 2007 and her false and malicious accusation against Diya Lumumba:  he provides a detailed and categoric eyewitness account of what happened at the police station on 5 November 2007, even though he was not even present.

“A policewoman called her “stupid” and a “liar” and slapped her on the back of her head. They repeated the blow every time she didn’t give them an answer. They gave her nothing to eat or drink and didn’t allow her to go to the bathroom. It was as if they were going to keep punishing her until she remembered.”

Untrue. Of course, John Douglas can’t substantiate any of his claims above because he wasn’t present when Knox was questioned. Furthermore, he is contradicting what Knox testified in court -  she admitted she was given something to eat and drink.

Reported by Richard Owen, in The Times, 1 March 2009:

Ms Napoleoni told the court that while she was at the police station Ms Knox had been “˜treated very well. She was given water, chamomile tea and breakfast. She was given cakes from a vending machine and then taken to the canteen at the police station for something to eat.’

Reported by Richard Owen, in The Times, 15 March 2009:

Ms Donnino said that Ms Knox had been “˜comforted’ by police, given food and drink, and had at no stage been hit or threatened.

John Follain in his book Death in Perugia, page 134, also reports that Knox was given food and drink during her questioning:

During the questioning, detectives repeatedly went to fetch her a snack, water, and hot drinks, including chamomile tea.

From the relevant court transcript:

Monica Napoleoni: Amanda was given something to drink several times. She was brought hot chamomile; she was taken to the bar of the Questura to eat. First she was given brioches from the little [vending] machine.
Carlo Pacelli: These methods of treatment, how did they translate into practice? With what behaviour/actions [were they carried out] in actual fact? Earlier, you recalled that they actually brought her something to eat”¦
MN: It’s true. That morning, I remember that Inspector Ficarra actually took her to the bar to eat as soon as it opened. But before [that], we have little [vending] machines on the ground floor, and she was brought water, she was brought hot drinks, she was brought a snack. But also Raffaele, he was given something to drink; it’s not as though they were kept “¦ absolutely.

Giuliano Mignini:  Had types of comfort been offered to her?
Anna Donnino:  Well, during the evening, yes, in the sense that I remember that someone went down to the ground floor; it was the middle of the night, so in the station at that hour there are those automatic distributors; there’s nothing else; someone went to the ground floor and brought everybody something to drink, some hot drinks and something to eat. I myself had a coffee, so I believe that she also had something.

John Douglas doesn’t substantiate his claim that Amanda Knox was slapped. According to the corroborative eyewitness testimony of the people who were actually present when Knox was questioned - Anna Donnino, Monica Napoleoni and Rita Ficarra - she wasn’t hit.

The witnesses who were present when Knox was questioned, including her interpreter, testified under oath at the trial in 2009 that she wasn’t hit. (Under Italian law, witnesses must testify under oath, while defendants do not, so are not required by law to be truthful on the stand.)

From the relevant court transcript:

Giuliano Mignini: Do you recall, shall we say, that night between the 1st and then the spontaneous declarations and then the order for arrest, who and what was with her, other than you, whether there were other subjects that spoke with us, how they behaved? Did [she] undergo/experience violent [sic: NdT: “violente” in Italian, probably typo for “violenze” = “violence/force/assault”] by any chance?
Rita Ficarra: Absolutely not.
GM: Was she intimidated, threatened?
RF: No. I, as I said earlier, I came in that evening and there were some colleagues from the Rome SCO, I was with Inspector Fausto Passeri, then I saw come out, that is come out from the entry-door to the offices of the Flying [Squad] the Assistant Zugarini and Monica Napoleoni, who appeared for an instant just outside there, then we went back in calmly, because the discussion we had with her was quite calm.

Giuliano Mignini: [was there] violence “¦?
Monica Napoleoni: But absolutely not!

Mignini:  You remember it”¦ you’ve described it; however, I’ll ask it. Was she threatened? Did she suffer any beatings?
Anna Donnino: Absolutely not.
GM: She suffered maltreatments?
AD:  Absolutely not.
Carlo Pacelli:  In completing and consolidating in cross-examination the questions by the public prosecutor, I refer to the morning of the 6th of November, to the time when Miss Knox had made her summary information. In that circumstance, Miss Knox was struck on the head with punches and slaps?
Anna Donnino:  Absolutely not.
CP:  In particular, was she struck on the head by a police woman?
AD:  Absolutely not!
CP:  Miss Knox was, however, threatened?
AD:  No, I can exclude that categorically!
CP:  With thirty years of prison”¦ ?
AD:  No, no, absolutely not.
CP:  Was she, however, sworn at, in the sense that she was told she was a liar?
AD:  I was in the room the whole night, and I saw nothing of all this.
CP:  So the statements that had been made had been made spontaneously, voluntarily?
AD:  Yes.
Carlo Della Valla:  This”¦
Giancarlo Massei:  Pardon, but let’s ask questions”¦ if you please.
CP:  You were also present then during the summary informations made at 5:45?
AD:  Yes.
CP:  And were they done in the same way and methods as those of 1:45?
AD:  I would say yes. Absolutely yes.
CP:  To remove any shadow of doubt from this whole matter, as far as the summary information provided at 5:45 Miss Knox was struck on the head with punches and slaps?
AD:  No.
CP:  In particular, was she struck on the head by a policewoman?
AD:  No.

Even Amanda Knox’s lawyer, Luciano Ghirga, distanced himself in the Italian media from these allegations, and never ever lodged any complaint which he would have been required to do under Italian law if he believed her.

There were pressures from the police, but we never said she was hit.

John Douglas’s claim #5

What seems to have happened is that in his fear and fatigue, Raffaele eventually confused and transposed the nights of October 31 and November 1.

Untrue. Although John Douglas doesn’t specifically refer to Sollecito’s unequivocal claim that Amanda Knox wasn’t at his apartment on the evening of the murder or the fact he blamed her for his lies, he is clearly trying to account for his conflicting statements.

His claim that Sollecito was suffering from fatigue is laughable - Sollecito was literally questioned for a couple of hours before he stopped providing Knox with an alibi.

His pathetic excuse that Sollecito seems to have confused the nights of 31 October and 1 November is ridiculous beyond words. Sollecito was clearly referring to 1 November 2007. His witness statement is a chronological account of what he claims he and Knox did on the evening of 1 November and the morning of 2 November 2007. He was being questioned specifically about the night of the murder and the following day..

John Douglas’s claim #6

“Both hinged on a questionable confession after many hours of police interrogation without a lawyer present””one by a scared and confused seventeen-year-old boy; the other by a girl just out of her teens who barely spoke the language being shouted at her.”

Untrue. The only one reported shouting - wailing and beating her head - was Knox herself. And Raffaele Sollecito wasn’t 17, he was 23 years old. I don’t know how it’s possible for Douglas to get such basic facts wrong. Did it even cross his mind to actually research the case?

Douglas’s intention is clear - he wants to infantilise both Knox and Sollecito by referring to them as a “boy” and “girl” in an effort to emphasize their naivety and immaturity in order to explain away their lies and inconsistent statements.

John Douglas’s claim #7

Douglas seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that Amanda Knox was questioned only in Italian and all night. This is almost certainly due to the fact that Amanda Knox’s family and supporters initially claimed she wasn’t provided with an interpreter for an all-night session.

Untrue. According to Barbie Nadeau in The Daily Beast, Amanda Knox’s session began at about 11:00pm.

“Since Knox was already at the police station [in the company of Raffaele Sollecito], the head of the murder squad decided to ask her a few questions. Her interrogation started at about 11pm.”

It was not in fact interrogation: Knox was invited merely to build a list of visitors to the house, which exists and is in evidence. There was little progress till the interpreter arrived. After Amanda Knox had made her witness statement at 1:45am, she wasn’t questioned again that evening. She herself decided to made another witness statement at 5:45am, with the same interpreter, but she wasn’t asked any questions. She herself refused a lawyer.

John Douglas’s claim #8

Altogether, Amanda was interrogated over a forty-hour period (an average workweek) by twelve detectives. This is known as “tag teaming.” The interrogators remain fresh and at the top of their game while the suspect grows increasingly exhausted and isolated.

Untrue. None of that happened. All four sessions as a person with possible useful information (not a witness, let alone suspect) over 4 days were quite brief, Knox signed all pages of the 4 reports, and a mere several officers were listed as present at each.

On 5-6 November, according to Anna Donnino, who arrived at the police station at about 12:30am, there was a total of three people in the room with Knox:

Anna Donnino: “I had been made to enter a room where in fact there was Inspector Ficarra at a small table, another colleague from SCO (I only remember his first name; he was called Ivano), a police officer, and there was Miss Knox seated. I seated myself beside her.”

That makes Knox, two small Italian women, and a kindly Rome officer who was essentially an onlooker. Not exactly terrifying.

John Douglas’s claim #9

“Though she said it was dreamlike and she couldn’t tell if it had actually happened, she “˜recalled’ Patrick having sex with Meredith, but she didn’t remember whether he had had to force her.”

Untrue. Yet again John Douglas repeats a popular PR lie and he doesn’t substantiate his claim with a verbatim quotation from Amanda Knox. She makes no mention of a dream or vision in her two witness statements.

She categorically stated that she met Diya Lumumba at Piazza Grimana and that they went to the cottage on Via della Pergola. In her first witness statement, she claims that Lumumba killed Meredith.

This is from the 1:45 am statement.

I responded to the message by telling him that we would see each other at once; I then left the house, telling my boyfriend that I had to go to work. In view of the fact that during the afternoon I had smoked a joint, I felt confused, since I do not frequently make use of mind-altering substances, nor of heavier substances.

I met Patrik immediately afterward, at the basketball court on Piazza Grimana, and together we went [to my] home. I do not recall whether Meredith was there or arrived afterward. I struggle to remember those moments, but Patrik had sex with Meredith, with whom he was infatuated, but I do not recall whether Meredith had been threatened beforehand. I recall confusedly that he killed her.

This is from the 5:45 am statement.

I wish to relate spontaneously what happened because these events have deeply bothered me and I am really afraid of Patrick”¦  I met him in the evening of November 1st 2007, after sending him a reply message saying “I will see you”. We met soon after at about 21.00 at the basketball court of Piazza Grimana. We went to my apartment in Via della Pergola n. 7.

I do not clearly remember if Meredith was already at home or if she came later, what I can say is that Patrick and Meredith went into Meredith’s room, while I think I stayed in the kitchen. I cannot remember how long they stayed together in the room but I can only say that at a certain point I heard Meredith screaming and as I was scared I plugged up my ears.

John Douglas’s claim #10

In an interview with American journalist and Amanda Knox fan Krista Ericksson, John Douglas mindlessly repeats more PR lies.

KE: What about Amanda’s confessions during the interrogations?

JD: To be interrogated from 10 pm until 6 am in the morning? These are not sophisticated young people ““ it would not take a dozen interrogators to break them. I know the tricks, I know what they do in there; I’ve done it. No one could hold up. I couldn’t hold up - especially over 5 days.

Untrue. The PR myth that Amanda Knox was subjected to an all-night session or any arduous sessions previously was debunked a long time ago.

According to Barbie Nadeau in The Daily Beast, Amanda Knox’s impromptu session began at about 11:00pm.

“Since Knox was already at the police station [in the company of Raffaele Sollecito], the head of the murder squad decided to ask her a few questions. Her interrogation started at about 11pm.”

Again, it was not in fact interrogation: Knox was invited merely to build a list of visitors to the house, which exists and is in evidence. After Amanda Knox had made her witness statement at 1:45am, she wasn’t questioned again that evening. She decided to made another witness statement at 5:45am, but she wasn’t asked any questions.

John Douglas’s claim #11

In the same Krista Ericksson interview, yet again John Douglas alludes to Amanda Knox being tag-teamed by 12 police officers on 5 November 2007. The infamous lie that Steve Moore has tried so hard to spread very widely among the gullible.

KE: Amanda, while under interrogation accused another man, Patrick Lumumba. Why would she have done that?
JD: The police knew they had negroid hairs at the crime scene. Amanda exchanged texts the night before with Patrick Lumumba, who’s of African descent, like Guede (Note: Lumumba owned the bar where Amanda worked as a waitress. He told her she wasn’t needed for work that night). Because the DNA evidence had not come back yet, they jumped to the conclusion the hairs belonged to Lumumba. They interrogated her accordingly. The tactics used was to have Amanda say what the police wanted. You get people to confess under this psychological torture.

Untrue. What torture? Douglas sounds dangerously deluded here and should perhaps be banned from the central police station.

There is a written record entered into evidence and a signed statement Knox insisted upon. The single subject of this voluntary, spontaneous discussion (Knox building a list of visitors to the house) was described above, as were those few present (two small women and a male onlooker from Rome).

There is zero proof that any of them jumped to conclusions or that they “interrogated” Knox “accordingly”. Knox simply cracked spontaneously when a message she denied sending was spotted on the cellphone she shared with the officers.

There is no mention of negroid hairs in the official court reports.

John Douglas’s claim #12

He repeatedly implies the interrogators had foreknowledge of the Knox-Lumumba text exchange.

They brought her into an interrogation room… They had checked the records of Amanda’s mobile phone. The last exchange was a text from Patrick Lumumba saying she didn’t have to come to work that night because business was slow and a texted reply from her:

Untrue. It was ascertained in court that the police didn’t know that Diya Lumumba had sent Amanda Knox a text message. Here is the relevant trial testimony/

GCM: In this message, was there the name of the person it was meant for?
AK: No, it was the message I wrote to my boss. The one that said “Va bene. Ci vediamo piu tardi. Buonata serate.”
GCM: But it could have been a message to anyone. Could you see from the message to whom it was written?
AK: Actually, I don’t know if the information is in telphone”¦
GCM: But they didn’t say it has him, but they said it was him!
AK: No, They didn’t say it was him, but they said “We know who it is, we who it is. You were with him, you met him.”

All courts of course disbelieved that last part, they had no idea who Patrick was, and Knox served three years for maliciously framing him. The Supreme Court twice ruled that all appeals were concluded. Knox is a felon for life, though Douglas never ever mentions this. 

5. An Assessment Of Douglas’s Claims So Far

John Douglas hasn’t substantiated any of his claims about Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito’s questioning on 5 November 2007. He hasn’t referred to any of the official court reports or court testimonies. He never bothered to listen to both sides of the story by speaking to the prosecutors or some of the police officers involved in the case. Instead he has mindlessly repeated the PR lies that were widely propagated in the media by Amanda Knox’s family and supporters.

To say his articles and books about the Meredith Kercher case lack academic rigour would be a massive understatement. He is like a dim-witted high school student who is too lazy to do any of his own research and just copies the work of other dim-witted and lazy students. His standard of work with regard to the Meredith Kercher case isn’t acceptable for teenage high-school students let alone at undergraduates at university. It seems that he has plagiarised the work of the class dunce i.e. Steve Moore without bothering to fact-check any of his claims. It’s hard to believe that John Douglas actually went to university and has a degree and doctorate.

As for Steve Moore and Michael Heavey, Douglas’s constant companions in 2013, they tried hard to use their respective backgrounds in the FBI and law to bolster their credibility and underline their expertise and trustworthiness when trying to persuade the public that Amanda Knox is innocent.

However, their effect on the case was minimal. They really proved only that being a former FBI agent or a judge counts for absolutely nothing if you don’t bother to read a single page of any of the official court reports and court testimonies, and instead unquestioningly believe whatever Amanda Knox and her PR, her family and her supporters say, without bothering to do any fact-checking.

This simple-minded and superficial approach is the reason why Steve Moore and Michael Heavey have got so many basic facts about the case wrong.

Expecting an expert to substantiate their claims is not unreasonable. Providing proof is essential in academia, science and law. It’s one of most basic skills taught in schools. Any high school history student knows it’s important to support their points with evidence and analyse and evaluate the trustworthiness and usefulness of sources.

It should be self-evident even to a half-wit that the accused, their family and supporters might not be trustworthy and reliable sources and nothing they say should be taken at face value and accepted as the gospel truth. That’s the reason why it is critical to fact-check their claims and listen to the other side of the story i.e. read the official court reports and court testimonies or speak to the prosecutors or some of the police officers involved in the case..

Knowing there are two sides to every story and being mindful of the importance of reserving judgment before hearing both sides is not some hitherto unknown truth. This piece of wisdom has been around for over two thousand years:

“The first to speak in court sounds right”” until the cross-examination begins.” (Proverbs 18:17).

It defies belief that so many of Amanda Knox’s high-profile supporters and journalists have accepted what Amanda Knox and her supporters say as the gospel truth, especially as she is a self-confessed liar who has been convicted of lying by all courts, including the Italian Supreme Court.

Thursday, August 02, 2018

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

Posted by The Machine

1. Post Overview

There were two starkly contrasting takes on the DNA evidence in Italy. The zombie hoax version still somewhat persists in the US and UK. 

In fact, Dr Stefanoni’s team in 2007-2008 and the Carabinieri labs in 2013 did absolutely impeccable work - with defense observers always looking on, and never, ever complaining or intervening.

The misrepresenting of the DNA evidence in 2011 by the illegal “independent” consultancy of Conti & Vecchiotti was shot down in all points in this court presentation which, amazingly, was seemingly unknown to the 2015 Supreme Court.

But too many people do not know that Judge Chieffi from the Supreme Court said there was no evidence of contamination in his report. Or that Dr Biondo carried out a peer review of Dr Stefanoni’s forensic investigation.  Or that a world-renowned DNA expert said the DNA evidence against Sollecito was “very strong”.

For lawyers and others here seeking to understand the real case at courtroom depth an overview of all our posts is now being assembled in our little factory.  I do recommend these posts as prior reading.

Click for Post:  The Hundreds Of DNA Samples Taken And Analyses Done, Shown In Table Form, by Olleosnep

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

Click for Post:  Despite Disinformation From Apologists And Even Supreme Court, Law & Science Support Damning DNA, by James Raper

2. Effective Points Worth Hammering

1. Is LCN DNA evidence fit for purpose and scientifically robust?

Amanda Knox’s supporters have lambasted the DNA evidence against Knox and Sollecito because included LCN DNA evidence, but a number of G7 countries have accept LCN DNA evidence as valid, including America, for years.

So is it robust? In a word: yes. LCN DNA evidence was first used by the Forensic Science Service in England in 1999. Professor Brian Caddy carried out an independent review of LCN DNA evidence in 2008 and concluded it was fit for purpose and scientifically robust.

“I am satisfied low template DNA is fit for purpose within the criminal justice system.

“I found that the technique, as developed by all the forensic suppliers, is scientifically robust and appropriate for use in police investigations.”

Andrew Rennison, the Forensic Science Regulator, said: “I’m satisfied the science is safe and fit for purpose, but there is work to be done around collection and interpretation.”

The Crown Prosecution Service has listed the countries where LCN DNA evidence has been used as evidence.

“LCN methods have been used as evidence in a number of countries, ie; United States (New York), New Zealand, Holland, Italy, Germany, Croatia, Austria and Switzerland.”

2. Is there any evidence the bra clasp ane knife were contaminated?

No. Judge Chieffi - who is an equal counterpart of Judge Marasca - pointed out in his Supreme Court report that the claim of contamination is an unproven hypothesis and there is no evidence of contamination:

“The unproven hypothesis of contamination was taken as an axiom, once again despite the available information, to nullify the probative value of the data collected by the consultants as per article 360 of the Criminal Procedure Code, although the data acquired did not support this conclusion.” (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 94).

3. Was Dr Stefanoni’s forensic investigation peer-reviewed?

Yes. Dr. Renato Biondo, the head of the DNA Unit of the Scientific Police, reviewed Dr. Stefanoni’s investigation and the forensic findings in 2008. He confirmed that all the forensic findings were accurate and reliable.

He also praised the work of Dr. Stefanoni and her team: “We are confirming the reliability of the information collected from the scene of the crime and at the same time, the professionalism and excellence of our work.”

4. Was Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp?

Yes. This wasn’t disputed by any forensic scientist in court. Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was identified by two separate DNA tests.

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

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

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

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erla7Ley4Tw&t=1892s

DNA expert Luciano Garofano said the result of the DNA test on the bra clasp was “perfect”. He is a former Caribinieri General and has more than 32 years of forensic experience

5. Could the bra clasp have been contaminated in the laboratory?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Could the bra clasp have been contaminated in the cottage?

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

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

Professor Novelli also ruled out environmental contamination. He pointed out in court there’s more likelihood of meteorite striking the courtroom in Perugia than there is of the bra clasp being contaminated by dust at the cottage.

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

He also ruled out contamination in the laboratory.

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

7. Could a forensic investigator have contaminated the bra clasp?

Highly unlikely. As far as I’m aware, there is still not one peer-reviewed scientific study published in a prestigious journal demonstrating tertiary transfer of touch DNA.

Why should a judge or juror favor a lower probability transfer scenario - tertiary transfer via sloppy forensic technicians - over a higher probability transfer scenario - primary transfer in the course of murder and/or staging - given the fact Sollecito also gave multiple false alibis and lied repeatedly to the police, the bloody footprint matched the precise characteristics of his foot, one of the bare bloody footprints revealed by Luminol matched his foot and Meredith’s DNA was found on the blade of his kitchen knife?

8. How did Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA get onto Meredith’s bra clasp?

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

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

9. Were there several other male DNA profiles on Meredith’s bra clasp?

Professor Balding and Luciano Garofalo both said there was the DNA profile of one unknown male on Meredith’s bra clasp.

“...in some cases we have peaks that correspond to a fourth person.” (Professor Balding).

“The fourth person is not Guede, it seems. This mystery fourth person hasn’t been mentioned much.” (Luciano Garofano, Darkness Descending).

There wasn’t a full DNA profile for this unknown male. Professor Balding didn’t attach any importance to it and explained these extra peaks are routine:

“The extra peaks are all low, so the extra individuals contributed very little DNA.  That kind of extraneous DNA is routine in low-template work: our environment is covered with DNA from breath and touch, including a lot of fragmentary DNA from degraded cells that can show up in low-template analyses.  There is virtually no crime sample that doesn’t have some environmental DNA on it, from individuals not directly involved in the crime.”

10. Was Meredith Kercher’s DNA on the blade of Raffaele Sollecito’s kitchen knife?

Yes. Undoubtedly. A number of forensic experts - Dr Stefanoni, Dr Biondo, Professor Novelli, Professor Torricelli, Luciano Garofano, Elizabeth Johnson, Greg Hampikian and Bruce Budowle - have all confirmed that sample 36-b, which was extracted from the blade of the knife, was Meredith Kercher’s DNA.

“In his report submitted on 6 September 2011 to the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia, Prof. Giuseppe Novelli, consultant of the Prosecutor, wrote the following observations on this point: “[...] the consultant [Stefanoni] also did a statistical calculation with the purpose of determining the probability that the profile could belong to someone other than the victim. The calculation of the Random Match Probability came to 1 chance in 300 million billion. This value computed in this manner makes it possible to attribute the analyzed trace with absolute certainty to exactly one person, which the consultant holds to be the victim Meredith Kercher.” (Page 11 of the above-cited report) (The Nencini report, page 230).

11. Could the knife have been contaminated?

Dr Stefanoni analysed the traces on the knife six days after last handling Meredith’s DNA. This means laboratory contamination can be ruled out.

As I’ve already pointed out, Conti and Vecchiotti ruled out contamination in the laboratory.

Judge Micheli ruled out contamination during the collection phase because the knife was sequestered from Sollecito’s apartment on Corso Garibaldi by a different police team to the one that collected evidence from the cottage on Via della Pergola on the same day.

12. Could Meredith’s DNA got onto the blade of Sollecito’s kitchen knife by accident?

Sollecito claimed in his prison diary that he had accidentally pricked Meredith’s hand whilst cooking:

“The fact there is Meredith’s DNA on the kitchen knife is because once when we were all cooking together I accidentally pricked her hand. I apologised immediately and she said it was not a problem.”

Meredith had never been to Sollecito’s apartment. He later admitted that the above account isn’t true.

13. Didn’t new tests on the knife prove Meredith Kercher’s DNA wasn’t on the blade?

A further DNA sample 36-b was tested by the Carabinieri RIS DNA experts Major Berti and Captain Barni in 2013. The sample was attributed to Amanda Knox. A different test on a different DNA sample doesn’t invalidate the test result of sample 36-b.

14. Did Dr. Stefanoni and the forensic technicians break international protocols?

No. There is no universally accepted set of international standards for the collection and testing of DNA evidence. DNA protocols vary from country to country, and in America they vary from state to state. For example, New York state accepts LCN DNA tests in criminal trials.

The Italian Scientific Police follow the guidelines of the ENFSI - the European Network Forensic Science Institutes. Dr. Stefanoni observed that they followed these specific guidelines whereas Conti and Vecchiotti basically picked and mixed a random selection of international opinions:

“We followed the guidelines of the ENFSI, theirs is just a collage of different international opinions”.

Conti and Vecchiotti cited obscure American publications such as the Missouri State Highway Patrol Handbook and the Wisconsin Crime Laboratory Physical Evidence Handbook, not international protocols. The Scientific Police are under no obligation to follow the DNA protocols of the Missouri State Highway Patrol or the Wisconsin Crime Laboratory.