Saturday, January 18, 2014

False Claims In Bongiorno’s Summation: That The Wound “Proved” Sollecito’s Big Knife Was Not The One

Posted by Our Main Posters

In defense summation on 9 January, nobody who really knows the case (such as Judge Nencini) would have bought many of Giulia Bongiorno’s outlandish arguments.

The post below this one illustrates how Bongiorno in about half her arguments tried to demonize and mischaracterize all of Perugia, as if somehow Perugia itself had become the real villain in forcing a rush to judgment and wrong conclusion. In fact Perugia took a huge hit from Meredith’s murder but has acted gracefully and competently ever since. 

This post by several of us after discussion in Comments is the first of two on Bongiorno’s claims about the large knife. The second one will follow next week by Ergon.

There is no question in our minds but that this IS the murder weapon. It was proved convincingly by way of the DNA tests done by the Scientific Police and Carabinieri. Here we prove it by way of human physiology and the autopsy.

Waving two knives with a manic expression, Bongiorno claimed that the the large knife in evidence was far too large for the wound in question - and anyway, anyone intent on murder would have easily pushed the large knife right through so there was no intent of murder anyway. Bongiorno dismissed the possibility that hyoid bone could have somehow stopped the blade, prevented it from penetrating, as the bone is not resistant enough.

The surface location of the hyoid Bone is shown in the Illustration above; its front is only a few millimeters below the skin: The hyoid bone is loop-shaped like a C, open at the back; this Hyoid loop encloses part of the airway:

The hyoid bone curves around the upper airway at the base of the tongue, and is also called the tongue-bone or the lingual-bone. It is located between the mouth and the larynx; therefore during inhalation air passes through the hyoid loop before it passes through the larynx, and during exhalation air passes through the larynx before it passes through the hyoid loop.

The hyoid is an integral factor in the swallowing, breathing, and phonation mechanisms. If transected in such a way as to connect its part of the airway directly to the atmosphere, as it was in this case, swallowing, breathing, and phonation will be seriously impaired, as they were in this case.

The coexistent bleeding from the also-transected Right Superior Thyroid Artery accelerated Meredith’s death, more by the drowning-effect of inhalation of the blood into her lungs, than by the loss of circulating-blood alone.

Both the hyoid bone and the jawbone are mobile, which is why we can chew, swallow, talk, smile laugh, and sing, the way that we do, each of us in our own unique way.

The Massei Prosecution Reconstruction depicted the killers making cuts obliquely from behind.

The fatal cut started on the Left, but crossed the midline to the Right.

Both the Right Superior Thyroid Artery, and the nearby Hyoid Bone, were severed but from Massei, it is not precisely clear where the hyoid loop was severed, and it seems that the cut did not include the midline skin; The Florence Appellate Court will have access to the relevant records.

Here is why the hyoid could not have damaged any knife:

It is an old rule of materials-physics that a softer substance cannot even scratch a harder substance.

[To some people this may be counter to their intuition, so I have passed it by an eminent MIT physicist, and he agrees with me that the knife blade would not show signs of damage caused by the stabbing in this case.]

As pointed-out recently on TJMK, some confusion has arisen, caused by a quotation in the Massei Report, where on p371is written: “”¦a single blow was apparently halted by the jawbone”¦”

The statement that a blow could be “apparently halted” by Meredith’s jawbone is at best a figure of speech, and the quotes of Prof Cingolani on page 152 of the Massei Translation clearly indicate that any cause and effect inference from the phrase “apparently halted by” did not mean it was stopped-by the jawbone:

Prof Cingolani “did not, however, have elements of certainty to establish that the blade which had caused the wound 4 centimetres deep had stopped at the said depth because [it was] stopped by the jawbone.”

Maybe there is a Judicial, translational, or typographical glitch and “by” the jawbone should have been “at” the jawbone.

Skin is soft and bone is harder but there is no way that the knife striking the jawbone would halt the knife in this case, the jaw would just roll with the strike, depending on the angle of attack. [The force was not even enough to mark the jawbone itself!]

Furthermore, contact between the knife and jawbone or hyoid bone would not mark the knife because living-bone is softer than the knife.

When your pet gnaws on a non-living cow-bone, neither the bone nor your pet’s teeth can bend; both your pet’s teeth and the bone can be broken or dislocated, and the bone gets scratches on it because it is still softer than the teeth, but your pet’s teeth do not get scratches on them, because they are harder even than the non-living bone.

If someone is stabbed in the back with a kitchen carving knife, penetrating ribs on its way to the heart, the knife may have no scratches at all, nor show any signs of damage caused by that action.

[Look at your own kitchen carving knife. It probably has no marks caused by striking chicken thigh bones. It will have fine parallel scratches created in the manufacturing process.]

Any implication-in, or inference-from the statement quoted above that stabbing Meredith’s neck with enough force to penetrate the layers of her neck and then strike bone would have the effect of signs of damage to the knife-blade is a figment of an uninformed imagination.

The kitchen-knife, found in Sollecito’s apartment, with Meredith’s DNA on the blade and Knox’s DNA on the handle, is the weapon that killed Meredith.


Any ideas how those large parallel scratches got on the blade? Just wondering.
Even tho most of us have known most of this for some time, I am glad you post…deeper each time.
The facts of this case are rather straight forward.
Evidence speaks for itself.

Posted by Bettina on 01/18/14 at 02:25 AM | #

Horrific and accurate.  YES THEY DID DO THIS.  Bettina… the scratches may have come from maniacal scrubbing, that’s my take anyway FWIW.

Posted by zinnia on 01/18/14 at 04:36 AM | #

Below is the latest Jan. 18th article by journalist Andrea Vogt:


Posted by True North on 01/18/14 at 05:18 AM | #

Thank you for the link, True North.
It is sometimes said that the first thing someone says carries the most weight.

“AK: Umm. There is certainty in the facts. It is clear that there is evidence that I was there when it happened. I was there. The prosecution is also not based on the supposition that I am a monster.”

“AK: Umm. There is certainty in the facts. It is clear that there is no evidence that I was there when it happened. I was not there. The prosecution is also based on the supposition that I am a monster.”

Above are two ‘versions’ of her first statement in reply to the interviewer. Which, most probably , is correct?

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 01/18/14 at 11:44 AM | #

Without any question of a doubt the large knife is the murder weapon.  How otherwise would Meredith’s DNA be upon the tip of the blade?

Anyone with an iota of sense would know that Sollecito was guilty after hearing his excuse for this; that he had pricked Meredith’s hand with the knife in question when she had eaten at his house!

There is good reason why his lies were becoming more and more ludicrous. He was involved in the murder and he therefore did not have the luxury of truth on his side.

Posted by MHILL4 on 01/18/14 at 02:35 PM | #


I’ll take a wild guess - the first one!

She often comes out with “it is clear that there is no evidence that I was there”. An innocent person wouldn’t say that, it’s too weak a statement and suggests she’s trying to gauge how it looks to others, rather than honestly express how she feels. In other words, she could have been there but she defies anyone to come up with the proof (cough, is she following the case?)

She has a lawyer to talk about evidence, why does <u>she</u> always have to act like one? Because she’s as guilty as sin and couldn’t pretend to innocence in a thousand years (in my view).

Posted by Odysseus on 01/18/14 at 03:10 PM | #

I just received the book Sex Lies and Handwriting
which I am almost halfway through. I would love to see this analysis done on Knox.

In the book there are profiles of the handwriting of many convicted murderers such as Charles Manson and Scott Peterson. Even Jack the Ripper. There is no escape with this type of analysis even to the point of knowing that a writer has erectile dysfunction.

It’s to do with people who write with large loops on top or large loops below the main wording. It has to do with the shape of letters in particular the letter I The upward stroke represents the mother influence while the downward stroke represents the father influence. A curled letter C indicates a ligature as in strangulation (The Boston Strangler for example) It even examines where a person puts commas as opposed to full stops.

Yes!  It would really be good to have the author Michelle DresBolt look at Knox writing.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 01/18/14 at 07:31 PM | #

I’ve just sent tweets to journalists from The Independent. Please retweet. Thanks. My name on Twitter is @harryrag

Posted by The Machine on 01/18/14 at 07:32 PM | #

Yes, there is an awful lot of distancing, modifying etc etc in the language used.
Innocent people tend to use the first person :
‘I did…’; ‘I was…’ etc - and with immediacy and strength (conviction).
There are some indications that AK has been tutored to say the ‘right’ things, but being truthful is not something that can be feigned.

Also, is it not so that using mantras too often, and in foolish situations, weakens them, and renders them ineffective?

Many thanks to TJMK posters for excellent post above - so clear and accurate. Much appreciated, and should help dispel any doubts, should there be any left to dispel.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 01/18/14 at 07:45 PM | #

The Sollecito family lawyer is quite something isn’t she?


The histrionics of her last appearance in court would have been mildy amusing if it wasn’t for the fact that an innocent girl was slaughtered with a knife she was wielding in the courtroom for the benefit of her paymasters.
I sometimes despair, but what keeps me going is that humanity always wins in the end.

Posted by DF2K on 01/18/14 at 10:22 PM | #

Zinnia…you may be right.

Posted by Bettina on 01/18/14 at 10:28 PM | #


Absolutely. Just that one small pathetic excuse is sufficient for most sensible people to conclude that he and his sad, child-like moll are inveterate liars engaged in cover-up; never mind all the crime-scene evidence that directly points to guilt beyond reasonable doubt

If by any slim chance our modern day Bonny & Clyde (Mandy & Raffy?) manage to get away with it we must all be as stupid as they think we are.

Posted by Odysseus on 01/18/14 at 11:33 PM | #

Howdy, Seeking,

Speaking of versions, what I find almost amusing if it weren’t so disgusting is the many character versions/updates of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.
First we know the rock-throwing, bruising, murderous Amanda 1.0, straight out of Seattle prep school. Amanda 2.0 is the Charles Manson groupie on trial, singing little songs between court sessions and almost detached from it all. Amanda 3.0 is in Capanne, ‘revealing’ intimate details about herself, and showing us her scary drawings. Amanda 4.0 is sadder but wiser, she wears makeup, shows us her legs on TV, and ‘remembers’ how she was friends with absolutely everybody, including Meredith and Patrick Lumumba.
Raffaele ‘Il Animale’ Sollecito 1.0 fantasized about donkeys, 2.0 looked distinguished with his Euro-scarf in the middle of all the commotion (I am European, I can say “Euro”, and I don’t have scarf envy), 3.0 remembered how he ‘pricked’ Meredith’s finger when they were ‘cooking’ together at his flat, 4.0 published rants on ‘Giuliano’, and 5.0 looks like the perfect Italian Lover (not really, though, more like Marcello Mastroianni after a few hard, gruelling sessions of estrogen injections).
Who are we to believe? The uncoached 1.0 (who committed the murder, in all likelihood), or the ‘newer’, coached updates?
I hope the Florence Court sees these chameleons for what they are and makes the right decision.

Posted by Bjorn on 01/19/14 at 06:04 AM | #

@the Machine : Thanks to have provided facts in the comments on the Charles Mudede post on the Stranger (Seattle’s newspaper).

@Grahame Rhodes : Handwriting analysis is just another scam, it’s easy to find psychopathic traits in psychopaths’writings once they’ve been convicted. On another note, why do how you keep pining for everything Knox, even on a Sollecito post ?

@The main posters : This post would be improved by re-stating the Bongiorno claims about the large knife in the beginning. As it is now, readers have to go through the long mass of Bongiorno theatrics to check what claims she made, and which ones are disproved by this post.

Posted by Sylviane on 01/19/14 at 06:21 AM | #

@The main posters : forget about my previous comment - you did provide Bongiorno’s claims. I guess it’s lack of sleep that’s preventing me from making head or tails of this post ! Sorry.

Posted by Sylviane on 01/19/14 at 06:25 AM | #

Hi, Sylviane, don’t worry about it, time is running out for everybody (I find some comfort in that), I personally don’t expect absolute accuracy, and I am grateful that a handful of people have managed to find time to contribute even a little to make things right after the Honourable Hellmann threw things into disarray, maybe he can still look himself in the mirror, but I wouldn’t be so sure.
Personally I find everybody’s comments essential for understanding, healing, and especially for putting things back on the right track, or for drawing people’s attention to some aspect that may have gone unnoticed. I also appreciate that this is somewhat of a protected environment, where we assume other people’s friendship for the sake of a common goal—for me that friendship is real (if not, Peter will make it so 😊), and I feel a genuine bond with anybody who is posting here.
Many people are jittery after the unbelievable Hellmann stunt because justice got a slap in the face, and many will not take this lying down—in some form or another, they will continue to seek justice no matter what happens in the next few days.
I am hopeful that the present Court will not be swayed by media, propaganda, threats, or general ignorance, but that is always a possibility, and we have to be mentally prepared for it—I am, however, very optimistic, and don’t expect anything less than Greatness from them, we shall see. I will remember, though, that any victory over fellow man carries a great deal of sadness, and this particular one will be very sad, because Meredith’s journey on Earth was cut short by three idiots who didn’t know what they were doing, and punishing them will not bring her back. Wiping away a tear, though, I want these idiots where they belong, and the name of that place is prison.

Posted by Bjorn on 01/19/14 at 08:42 AM | #

Hi Bjorn ,
Well said, about the community.

Regarding the multiple personas of the Two, it would be ridiculous if not connected to a cruel tragedy.
A balanced and emotionally stable personality is centred - they feel, think, and speak from ‘a core self’, (albeit with different facets ).
The disturbed or unstable individual is unable to be centred or to integrate their different aspects…thus we see wildly fluctuating images presented, as they lurch from one ‘role’ to another.
It’s sad to say the least, but unfortunately it also causes havoc and harm to those encountered - pulling them off centre - especially if they’re already vulnerable in that way.
*    *    *
You’re right too, to be cautious about the verdict coming. Never a good idea to over- raise one’s expectations. Though I do have faith in the judiciary here and now, as far as one can tell from being at a distance.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 01/19/14 at 11:30 AM | #


“Any ideas how those large parallel scratches got on the blade? Just wondering.”

There are two types of marks. One is a cleaning mark, along the length on the smooth side of the blade and it does not appear as a deep scratch. It is a mark of a hard scrubbing.

There is another set of scratches, these are about 1-1.5 cm long, close to the edge and perpendicular to the edge. These are the mark of the grinding during the manufacture of the knife.

This knife is made from a sheet of steel plate and the long axis of the knife is perpendicular to the grain direction (in which the steel sheet is drawn). The other knife of the kid is made from a sintered power called powder metallurgy.

People who shave regularly know pretty well that even the hardest steel edge will become blunt after a few days- only cutting hair on the face! Even if you are cutting simple vegetables, the knife gets blunt in a few months. It is true that they do not scratch the blade but the edge gets blunt none the less.

A small sand bag can stop a speeding bullet. In the same way, knife will lose force as it goes deeper. Anyone who has tried to stab a big chunk of meat knows this- you do not need a bone to stop the knife.

This knife is a common one and only a part of the edge has been damaged. Look carefully in the photo put up by Ergon and you will agree.

Posted by chami on 01/19/14 at 02:58 PM | #

Thanks to Westmarab for writing this pitch perfect tweet to journalists: #amandaknox will be found guilty 30 Jan. No need to rely on her PR. Read court documents here:

Please retweet. Thanks.

Posted by The Machine on 01/19/14 at 04:44 PM | #

Hi Sylviane. I’m sorry but I don’t understand your comment about me

“pining for everything Knox”??

Excuse me, but this is a strange comment and one I do not understand. The only thing I have ever pined for is justice for Meredith Kercher and if I get emotional concerning that it’s because over the last six years I have become appalled at the gross and dirty maneuverings by her family and supporters who have denigrated and insulted not just Meredith herself but the Kercher family as well.

Knox, as far as I’m concerned, is just a dirty sub human being. If that title is too strong for you then I’m sorry. I first started posting on this site and others just after the 1st of November 2007 when Meredith was just 21 years old. No! I am not pining for everything Knox.

One last thing, perhaps if you did some research regarding handwriting analysis then you would not be inclined to dismiss it all together. Admittedly there are aspect of it that could be brought into question but to dismiss all of it is tantamount to falling into the same trap that the FOA is fond of using.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 01/19/14 at 05:35 PM | #

I believe Sylviane is French, am I right? If so this may be about linguistics.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 01/19/14 at 05:57 PM | #

If she is found guilty on 30/01 realistically how long would it take to get her extradited? Is this something that happens quite quickly or can this take years as well, also in the mean time would she remain free?

Posted by distemper on 01/19/14 at 06:06 PM | #

@ chami:

I wasn’t sure what ” parallel” scratches Bettina was referring-to.

You pointed-out that:

“There are two types of marks. One is a cleaning mark, along the length on the smooth side of the blade and it does not appear as a deep scratch. It is a mark of a hard scrubbing.

There is another set of scratches, these are about 1-1.5 cm long, close to the edge and perpendicular to the edge. These are the mark of the grinding during the manufacture of the knife.”

I agree with you.

If Bettina was referring to your 2nd set she was referring to scratches created in the manufacturing process.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 01/19/14 at 07:15 PM | #

@Bjorn thanks for your post, I appreciate it.

@Graham_Rhodes you’re right, of course, and SeekingUnderstanding has guessed the origin of my mistake : I used absolutely the wrong verb. I can’t find any verb that would reflect what I meant, except “obsessing over”, but it’s way to strong to convey what I meant… Sorry, I’m stuck. My deepest apologies for the wrong meaning.

But I beg to differ on “handwriting analysis”. Graphology has a longstanding history of use in France for employement profiling - and as a result, it has been thorougly debunked. Its predictive value is well documented as inexistent or erratic at best - the only think it’s good at, is draining the pockets of the gullible corporations.

I sure did my research on graphology in the 90s, as an employee-to-be and a calligraphy amateur. Some people still researched it in 2000 : Illusory correlations in graphological inference.

Thankfully, the age of computers has made compulsory handwritten applications obsolete.

As with other pseudo-sciences (like phrenology), the only thing graphology really did was to provide well for graphologists ; nowadays they may be interested in finding gullible people outside of France.

Posted by Sylviane on 01/19/14 at 08:51 PM | #

Hi Sylvaine OK that’s fine. As far as handwriting is concerned I’m willing to keep an open mind since there are advances in disciplines all the time. Incidentally one of my very few favorite cities is Paris. It contains so many happy memories for me in particular there is a restaurant on the Champs Elysees called Fouquets which is a particular favorite. That and the Bateau Mouch (Excuse my bad spelling) Anyway thank you.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 01/19/14 at 09:46 PM | #

We all know the DM has been on the Knox bandwagon for years but what is interesting about the article below is the usual support for Knox is non-existent, looks like the car crash of a PR campaigne may be done and dusted.

Posted by Urbanist on 01/19/14 at 10:08 PM | #

Latest exposure of documents and transcripts by journalist Andrea Vogt.


Posted by True North on 01/19/14 at 10:42 PM | #

Hi True North

I just read the Hampikian report which you posted written by Andrea Vogt. It is obvious the reason they won’t release it is because it won’t stand up to any scrutiny. Dirty work here as once again Hampikian tries to keep his federal grant money flowing.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 01/20/14 at 12:26 AM | #

Hi distemper

Re your question “If she is found guilty on 30/01 realistically how long would it take to get her extradited? Is this something that happens quite quickly or can this take years as well, also in the mean time would she remain free?”

I do recommend to everybody to read all of our extradition posts which show it is really impossible for Knox to successfully fight extradition. :

If the 30 January outcome confirms the Massei verdict, in light of all of Knox’s foolishness we are expecting a no-more-nonsense very hard line.

The first scenario is that Judge Nencini instructs the Italian police to issue an immediate arrest warrant. An extradition request could follow almost immediately.

If it does, then US federal law enforcement will take Knox into custody to prevent her from going on the lam while the extradition request is considered. She could conceivably be in the USA federal prison system some time in February.

The other scenario is that her arrest warrant is delayed until the Supreme Court signs off. That could happen; but it would be extremely irregular.

In both the US and Italy, convicted murderers are kept under lock and key pending appeals not least to prevent them from making a PR hullaballoo and of course to prevent them from threatening or hurting others.

As Knox could be prone to both, and is causing intense irritation in Italy, the second scenario seems like a long shot at best.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/20/14 at 12:42 AM | #

God Peter, I hope you’re right. While I can at least register some kind of understanding for Knox sickness, (Please note no sorrow) I have always been appalled at the shear dirt that her supporters have thrown at the Kerchers. I will not denigrate this site by saying just how angry I have been over these last six, going on seven years, but seriously if I could get my hands on some of them then I too would be in jail. Having said that, and understanding that the forces of evil will try anything including breaking the law, I sincerely hope you are right. Once more, and to repeat myself if there is anything I can do of a concrete nature then just let me know.
Cheers and as always thank you. G

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 01/20/14 at 03:17 AM | #

Hi All,
SU, the Machine, Peter, and many other s (Main Posters, etc.), Odysseus (sp?), Dfks@ (or whatever it is) - I really enjoy and appreciate your comments.

I really want to say something because I notice that one member of our discussion group has, more than once, been unfairly dumped on by some (few) commenters, and while I don’t know him personally and have never communicated with him/her, I have followed this site (and books, and other info) on MK’s case since about 2008. 

I just feel it’s right (ethically imperative) to intervene for free speech and mutual respect.  It is starting to feel like bullying, (because the only person I’ve ever seen spoken to like that (rudely!) was GR.  It’s like there is something is boiling that is not explained by what I’ve read from the person being thusly criticized in Comments. 

I have been to over 30 countries, always alone, and not speaking any other language (fluently), I have not only survived but made lifelong friends and had amazing experiences, conducted business, etc., so I know how to communicate sufficiently and know how to interpret and forgive various misunderstandings due to language.  That is the context for my comments.

The original and later comments [Posted by Sylviane on 01/19/14 at 12:21 AM] remind me of others who have been overly (to my perspective) confrontational and hostile towards Grahame Rhodes about “racism” in the last year here when he was not being racist (he was making a point about institutional and cultural “racism” in various countries and by various peoples, about which Patrick has repeatedly stated similar about AK and her convenient, unfounded accusations about him), and on this thread about AK (insulting comments about his input about graphology, which is not without merit),  cause me to I feel I’m missing something because since I’ve been reading this site, he’s been a diligent, intellectually incisive, and critically thinking, and unfailing supporter of Meredith, as well as decrier of b.s. (shouldn’t we feel safe here to discuss things?). 

I feel there have been several times where Grahame has been attacked rudely over his comments, and that there was something else going on to explain the hostility and accusations that arose (which did not seem warranted by what I read by him).  This is supposed to be a place where we can freely discuss all things about Meredith’s murder and work towards obtaining justice for her (such as it is, since the life scales have been obliterated for her and her family).

GR is not a “troll” or a FOK freak, so please listen with understanding and don’t curtail discussion by picking on a target to make oneself feel better.  I’m angry and stressed about what’s going to happen in the appeal verdict too, but we are all here for the same purpose.  Shouldn’t we be a little more tolerant of each other when our goals are the same?

Thoughts for the community, sincerely conveyed.  :]

Posted by all4justice on 01/20/14 at 10:17 AM | #


Thankyou for reminding us to be the one community that we are - especially at this time.

This pre-verdict period is bound to be a time of tension, and it is often difficult-to-bear tension that can make us over react to some people, or react with ‘being tetchy’. .. as they say in Yorkshire!

As mentioned before, by several of us, the written nature of comments does put communication, (and especially reading intention), at a disadvantage, when we cannot read the body language of someone, nor hear the intonation that would no doubt convey their sincerity, and good purpose.

Because of this, I feel I need to approach commenting in a spirit of giving leeway, or forgiving. I re-read a comment to try and ascertain the wider motive, and inclination behind it, before rushing to conclusions.

If we are not entirely sure what someone means, we can always ask for clarification!

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 01/20/14 at 01:34 PM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Appeal Session #9: Sollecito Team Concludes, Prosecutor Crini Rebutts Defenses’ Claims

Or to previous entry Mignini And Giuttari Win Final Round In Spurious 2010 Conviction By Rogue Prosecutor And Judge