Down the Funny Stairs
by Lenroot
Judges must beware of hard constructions and strained inferences, for there is no worse torture than those of the law.
–Francis Bacon, Sr.
Oh la.
Bump bump bump,
down the funny stairs.
–Richard Farina
The case against Amanda Knox has never been a search for the truth. Nowhere is this clearer than in the extraordinary “fluidity” with which prosecutors (and now judges) have changed their theories and facts. Prosecutors have now offered five different excuses for why the vital interrogation tapes went missing. They have revised the time of death upward into the zone of physical impossibility. They have offered five equally implausible motives for the murder. They have ignored the impossible-to-miss fact that key prosecution witnesses contradict one another.
Far from being scandalized by all this, the judges who have convicted Amanda Knox have accepted it calmly and with the greatest complacency. Facts are not stubborn things in Italian courts; they are infinitely malleable things, changeable at whim. Evidence disappears or is withheld. Theories that are advanced one day, disappear the next. Powerful, fact-driven defense arguments are simply ignored altogether.
It might, therefore, be useful to focus less on shape-shifting “facts,” and more on the absurd narrative framework that purports to hold them together. In focusing too much on the trees, we risk failing to note that we are being led into a vast, dark and forbidding forest, a forest full of strange sounds and grotesque, fantastical creatures and happenings.
When one steps back from the minute details of the case, it becomes immediately obvious that if you are to believe in Amanda Knox’s guilt you must enter the world of fantasy and willingly suspend disbelief on a massive scale. You must, in short, become a believer in outlandish fairy tales. Here is a starter selection of some of the extravagant absurdities and improbabilities to which you must subscribe:
- You have, first of all, to believe that Amanda Knox left the comforts of Raffaele’s apartment on a cold November night for no discernible reason, and you must ignore the fact that no security cameras or remotely credible witnesses provided evidence that she had.
- You must believe that Amanda armed herself for the occasion with a large kitchen knife carried in her bag, and you must ignore the fact that she was not in the habit of doing such things, that no one saw this happen, and that there is no physical evidence whatsoever that it did.
- You have to believe that by some as-yet-unspecified agency Knox met up with Guede, though, again, no remotely credible witness or camera puts them together. You must ignore the fact that she had previously had only the briefest introduction to Guede, and that the prosecution failed mightily despite enormous effort to find any further association between them.
- You have to assume that Amanda, a good student and athlete with no dark side or history of violence, could, without the barest hint of a plausible motive, butcher a lovely housemate whom she liked and esteemed.
- You have to assume that Meredith died at least two hours later than established medical science says is physically possible.
- You have to assume that Amanda cleaned up the scene of the murder so completely that no trace of her survived in the room where the murder took place–no DNA, fingerprints, hair, or traces of her clothing, etc. You must further ignore the fact that it is physically and scientifically impossible to clean a murder scene in this fashion without leaving evidence that you did so.
- You must assume that though the victim was hemorrhaging liters of blood, Amanda somehow managed to avoid getting even the smallest drop on her person or clothes, and somehow managed to avoid disturbing the blood in a way that signaled her presence.
- You have to assume that Amanda engaged in yet another masterful act of deception by staging a break-in, something she could only accomplish through a series of diabolically clever intermediate steps that include:
- Bringing a large rock into the apartment, opening the window in the direction of the wall, and then hurling the rock through so as to simulate its having come from the outside.
- Re-adjusting the windows, and then picking up bits of broken glass and throwing them across the room, precisely imitating the expected directional spray of a real break-in.
- Moving shards from the rock that broke off when it hit the floor to a new spot that would suggest an entirely different entry trajectory, consistent with the spray of glass.
- In an especially clever trompe l’oeil, grabbing the rock once again and rolling it into a shopping bag on the floor, thereby creating a touch of verisimilitude that would fool all but the most lynx-eyed Perugian detectives.
- You have to assume that instead of simply disposing of the murder weapon as any garden variety of criminal might have done, Amanda took the bloody knife back to the apartment where she continued to cook and prepare food with it over the next four days (No ordinary ghoul our Ms. Knox!).
- You have to assume that, instead of leaving the country like the victim’s friends did, or getting a lawyer as her Italian flatmates did, or even going to the American Embassy as her family recommended, Amanda preferred to play a grueling, 40-hour+ cat and mouse game with the police–a tactic so pleasant that it left her stressed and exhausted to the point that one officer asked her if she needed medical attention.
- You have to assume that the small army of investigators who awaited Amanda at the police station on November 5, some of whom were on special detail from Rome, were there just for the fun of it and because they had nothing better to do on a cold November midnight. You must further assume that the assemblage of this task force required no prior planning or authorization and had absolutely nothing to do with the fact Amanda’s mother was flying in the next day to take charge of the situation and assist her daughter.
- You have to assume that when Amanda did “crumble,” she did not: a) confess or b) attempt to shift the blame to her co-perpetrators, but c) blamed an innocent bystander she had every reason to expect would have an iron-clad alibi.
Surely, and as we are sane, reasonable people, the most fitting and proper response to this speculative daisy-chain of contrived nonsense is humor–derisive laughter, to be specific. It is just a breathtakingly foolish reconstruction of events and only card carrying fools would believe it.
The prosecution’s clean-up theory and claimed time of death defy the laws of nature. The other elements are merely wildly implausible. Taken together they are the stuff of fairy tales, and about as far from reality and sound judicial reasoning as it is humanly possible to be.
Unfortunately, recent experience shows that fairy tales pass as sound reasoning in the osmotic swamps of the Italian courts. And what, you ask, about bedrock legal protections such as the presumption of innocence, prosecutorial burden of proof, the neutrality of judges, and acquittal when there’s reasonable doubt?
The answer is these protections do not exist in Italy when powerful interests will them to disappear.
By way of winding all of this up, let’s briefly examine the competing, alternative hypothesis that Rudy Guede, acting alone, killed Meredith Kercher. Where the case against Amanda Knox is a speculative disaster, the case against Guede has the simple inevitability of truth.
- There is no evidence at all of Amanda Knox in the room where Meredith was murdered, but there is abundant and unimpeachable evidence against Guede. It includes bloody palm and finger prints, bloody shoe prints, and DNA on the victim’s clothes, on her personal property, and in her vagina.
- In the immediate aftermath of the murder, Guede left Meredith Kercher dying horribly and choking in her own blood as he went dancing at a club, where friends described his mood as being altered and his manner “rough and serious.”
- Guede admitted to being at the scene of the murder and only began naming Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as co-perpetrators after prosecutors offered a sweetheart deal that required him to do so. Previously he had maintained that Knox was not at the scene and that he did not even know who Sollecito was.
- Where Amanda Knox remained in Italy without a lawyer, Guede fled to Germany. After he was tracked down there, someone paid for a politically well connected team of lawyers to accompany him back to Italy before he could be interviewed by the Italian police.
- Unlike Knox, who had plenty of money, Guede was in constant need of funds, and the murder took place on “rent day,” a time when money was likely to be around because rent was paid in cash. The money that the victim had in her purse disappeared and the purse itself had Guede’s DNA on it.
- Unlike Knox, who had no history of criminality, Guede was a one man crime wave during the weeks leading up to the murder. He was arrested multiple times and his criminal modus operandi foreshadowed many of the elements of the Kercher murder: he broke in through second story windows, helped himself to food, defecated in the toilet, stole money and electronic items, and threatened people with knives.
Now, just a few short years after being the sole author of a heinous of murder, Rudy Guede is being allowed out of prison regularly in preparation for supervised release. He is enjoying the prospect of freedom even as two innocent young people are being hounded almost to the grave.
If you find yourself outraged and asking how this is remotely possible, you are well on your way to understanding the full infamy of the case. From the first, the effort to frame Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito has been linked to an equally determined effort to deflect attention from Guede and minimize the grave indications of his guilt.
We know for certain that this is so. What we don’t know is why.
~Lenroot Mays
Amanda Knox: Auguries of Innocence 
Throughout this case, the prosecution has offered excuse after excuse. From the mishandling of evidence, to the clearly illegal interrogation, the coercion they used to manipulate Amanda into implicating Lumumba, the withholding of files, changing the motive and much more. There are so many violations that if this gets to the ECHR, Italy should fasten their seatbelts. This is a gross miscarriage of justice.
Gross miscarriage is a severe understatement. It looks to me as though the prosecution planned this entire charade, and the judges went along with it to avoid offending their buddies.
And speaking of withheld files, whatever happened to the interrogation tapes? Were they really lost or do the police not want anyone to see them?
An excellent summation. I could not help laughing out at times. I have a special weakness for osmotic logic. If I’m not mistaken, it’s good old circular reasoning revived by Italy’s supreme court.
I don’t think the Italians quite realize how bad the phrase “osmotic thinking” sounds in English. It sound like a kind of anti-thought where you absorb the truth without thinking.
You mean the Italian judicial clowns. I’m sure most of the Italian people (outside the courts) are as embarrassed by what is happening in their legal system as we are.
The truly stunning thing about this case is that it really is that simple. It’s perfectly logical that Rudy Guede would break in to an empty house that he had some familiarity with, that his burglary would be unexpectedly interrupted by Meredith and that a confrontation between the two would end in tragedy. It makes perfect sense and all of the physical evidence of the case supports it. I do have a hard time understanding how he shifted from being a simple burglar to becoming the kind of monster that would cut an innocent woman’s throat and then sexually assault her as she dies, choking to death on her own blood. But it happened, it;s supported by the facts.
Any scenario that puts Knox and Sollecito at the house, let alone in the murder room, requires the tremendous back flips in logic that you outlined and the ignoring of the physical evidence.
It’s a stunningly simple case and yet here we are, six and half years later, and Amanda and Raffaele’s lives still hang in the balance, hoping that Hellmann and Zanetti aren’t the only principled, professional jurists in the Italian justice system.
It is hard to know what could have precipitated Guede’s killing rage. It is said that Meredith had some skill in martial arts. She clearly fought hard for her life–perhaps she hurt him. I am not sure we know enough about Guede’s background to be sure that he has not hurt someone badly before. I believe the profiler John Douglas suggests this possibility. I am sure Rudy Guede knew how to take care of himself. In any event, it is far easier for me to believe that a physically confident male committed the murder than that a small woman from relatively protected circumstances did it. And, of course, all of the evidence points to Guede.
Don’t quote me on this but I do believe the famed John Douglas estimates that possibly 25% or more of serial murderers/rapists start as burglars. This may include Ted Bundy.
That would make sense. It is typical to start with lesser crimes and escalate to graver ones. Amanda’s previous “crime” was a noise citation for a student party. And even then her friends testified that they asked her to speak to the cops (and thus get the ticket in her name) because she was sober and could be depended upon not to make things worse.
I have a theory as to what may have turned Guede from being a simple cat burglar to becoming a brutal murderer . It has been said that Meredith was good at judo , that she could be able to defend herself against an intruder or an attack . I am guessing that Meredith used her judo and became a formidable defence against Guede . That may have angered him and made him really fight back , resulting in him taking out his knife and murdering her.
Bank staff and shop assistants are advised not to oppose theaves because they may be injured or killed if they so .
We are on the same page about the rest of your comments regarding RG being an informer, the Caporalis and MK’s martial arts training. I completely agree that it is likely MK hurt and enraged RG.
I am not aware of any evidence to support this theory. No dna under her nails, defensive wounds, but not substantial, three significant cuts, which is rather small number for a prolonged struggle. Most likely Guede quickly overpowered Kercher before she had any time to coordinate a response.
Yes, I see it this way too. Ron Hendry’s reconstruction of the murder is very persuasive. Guede knocker her down and as rolled on to all fours he controlled her from on top–left hand on her face and throat, right hand wielding the knife, adjusting the angle with his wrist as she shook her head back and fort
~Lenroot
My belief is that Meredith’s training was enough to hurt Guede, but not enough to fend off his attack. Much as I wish it was, an orange belt isn’t always sufficient to defend against an armed assailant, especially if it is acquired from one of those commercial clubs that are more concerned with selling belts than the quality of their training (my own karate instructor was very disparaging of such places).
The reason I argue this is because alot of guilters try to use the fact that Meredith knew karate to back their claim that one assailant couldn’t have killed her, but they are very plainly wrong. She’d have to have reached a certain stage in her training, and even then, trying to fight an armed burglar (who likely has certain fighting skills of his own) would be extremely dangerous.
Thanks for the series of comments PS. I agree that Meredith may well have hurt Guede, sending him into a rage. The idea that there must have been multiple attackers is absurd. Guede is a tough, athletic kid who had doubtless been in fights before. He outweighed the victim by 30-40 pounds and could have handled her easily. Strictly no contest. It is one thing to train at martial arts in a gym and quite another to respond properly when someone bigger, stronger, and faster is attacking you in real life.
I would love to know who Harry Rag really is. I have an idea if we knew it would explain a lot. He obviously has some gut level personal stake in the issue.
That is the best rundown of this inane witch hunt I have read. How anyone can read this and not see the truth is hard to fathom.
Ask Harry Rag. He still believes they’re guilty, and he’s been presented with more than enough evidence to convince any sane person that he is wrong.
Great blog. This case is a travesty and an affront to any decent human being, once one takes the trouble to learn about it. The Auguries should help in that direction – although, you’re not appearing on tags for me, for some reason.
Thanks Mamguna. Obviously, I am new to this. If there are steps I could take to make this appear on tags let me know. I’ll do my best.
I can’t find it here http://wordpress.com/tag/amanda-knox/ for example. I don’t know what to do about that, though.
Maybe someone can help us. I am a real amateur with this technology. If people like what they are reading here it would be great to get news of the blog out to a wider audience.
I have read many articles on this topic but not better than this. You hit the nail squarely on the head of just how ridiculous this case has been from the start, and you did it with great literary style. I look forward to reading more from you on this topic.
Julie I couldn’t agree more. One of the best articles I have read on this case.
Likewise. I especially love the title of his previous article, “Dumbass Case”. Fewer words could better describe how poorly these investigations (and resulting trials) have been handled.
spot on
As the years have rolled by, I’ve come to suspect that a major factor in this debacle was a relatively early realisation, by cops in various Italian police departments, that they could have ended up being seen as responsible for leaving a nascent killer on the streets, having not bothered to even *charge* him with an offence after he was caught red-handed in Milan.
On that occasion;
– he was in possession of goods which unequivocally connected him to a recent burglary in Perugia (lawyer’s office),
– he was in possession of a woman’s gold watch which connected him with yet another in Perugia
– the same school had been broken into 3 weeks previously, also over a weekend, also by someone who had made themselves “at home” (as had the intruder at both the lawyer’s office and an immediate neighbour of Guede’s), and Guede freely admitted to travelling to Milan regularly, yet (supposedly) his alibi for that weekend wasn’t investigated.
That Guede committed ONLY the break-ins in which he was caught in the act, and the others from which he was carrying incriminating items is ……. unlikely.
I’d be willing to bet that by late 2007 the cops had a LOT more information about him, and other break-ins/thefts for which he would have been an obvious suspect, than they have made known publicly.
So, again; not some demented, over-the-top “face saving” (” la facca”) by dim-witted Itlalian cops and officials, but the very real threat that they might end up being seen as culpable – RESPONSIBLE – for the gruesome murder of a young foreigner.
I think you are right. I am developing a Guede file and will reread Nina Burleigh’s book. The other day I noticed that someone had developed a chart of all the missing DNA evidence in the case. It sure looked like there was a lot of corrupt intent. I suspect strongly that the missing evidence strengthened the case against Guede.
I think you’ve nailed the motivation of how this case was prosecuted. I have always believed the case wound up in the mud because;
– Mignini was desperate to resurrect his public image and a rapid resolution to this case was the perfect tonic.
– At some point the police realized they had the case entirely wrong, and that they had coerced a false statement in an effort to substantiate the erroneous theory they had concocted. Rather than face the music they dug in their heels.
But none of this ever fully explained why this extended into the courts. However, given the interbreeding between the investigative and judicial branches of the Italian Justice System it is very likely the courts became committed to protecting their investigative brethren. And to that extent, had Guede’s criminal activities leading up to the murder, and law enforcement’s failure to act on them become common knowledge, it could have led to a scandal of epic proportions that would have likely ended many careers. Apparently either Hellman and Zanetti missed a staff meeting or they were too ethical to throw Amanda and Raffaele under the bus just to save a few corrupt investigators/prosecutors.
I even gave thought to Paolo Caporali perhaps having played a role in this. After all, he had given Guede a tremendous amount of support in an effort to get him to turn his life around. Perhaps he didn’t want to see Guede fail and go to prison for life and so influenced the investigation. There is absolutely no evidence to support this idea – it’s actually counter to Caporali disowning Guede, calling him a failure and chronic liar – so just an idea for possible consideration.
It is hard to know for certain why the courts began to circle the wagons–one hears all manner of things. One of the things that made the most sense to me was proposed by the Italian journalist Meo Ponte. To paraphrase, Ponte said that it was Amanda Knox’s misfortune to be caught in a crossfire between warring factions within Italy. On one side were the entrenched bureaucrats of the court who were fiercely protective of their status and privileges. On the other side, were “reformers” who saw the Knox-Sollecito case as an example of a legal system gone haywire. Remember, that Rocco Girlanda and ten or so other members of Parliament wrote a letter to the President of Italy asking for an investigation into the case. This caused the court to see the case as a threat to its reputation, not a legal matter to be resolved on the basis of evidence.
I know at least some journalists believe that the fate of Knox and Sollecito was essentially sealed when Cassation confirmed their precautionary detention back in 2008–well before Mignini even brought charges. That decision required the court to in effect prejudge the case by finding that there were “grave indications” of guilt. If Knox and Sollecito were subsequently found innocent, that would mean that they had suffered horribly because of the high courts own grave errors. The resulting damage to the reputation of the court could not be allowed to happen, especially because Italy has been under fire for years because of abuses in its use of preventive detention. This line of thinking makes some sense to be too.
Your points about Mignini and police ineptness are good. It is worth noting that a British journalist named Bob Graham believed he had found evidence that Guede was actually a police informer and the the police were engaged in a coverup of the relationship. Another school of thought (or speculation) is that the Caporalis influenced the course of the investigation. It is true that Paolo Caporali openly disavowed Guede, but someone sent a team of lawyers to Germany after he had been arrested there and I am told Guede has continued to write glowingly of the family’s continued support. I trust person who told me this but need to get the sources.
Absent a full investigation (which assuredly will not happen), we will probably never know exactly why this railroad got started. What we know for certain is that there is no sustainable evidence against Knox and Sollecito and the various rationales for convicting them have proved embarrassing and absurd.
If Caporali didn’t play a part in this case, then how did Guede end up with such expensive lawyers? Certainly not out of his own pockets.
A very good beginning Lenroot. I like the analogy of getting hung up on the trees. There are many tree counters discussing this case. One must be an eagle and get well above the fluff. static and clutter and seek clarity.
I think an extremely persuasive aspect of this case is that there is a “triple whammy” of circumstances that can be independently verified apart from each other:
1. Reasonable doubt in Amanda’s guilt
2. Rudy Guede’s guilt as a lone attacker beyond a reasonable doubt
3. Legal authority incompetence/corruption
It is possible to independently corroborate all three to a high degree of assurance, without assuming any of the others, or relying on shared evidence/assumptions. For example, even if Amanda Knox were somehow guilty, the authorities still engaged in entirely inappropriate behavior, mishandled the evidence, etc. This to me is a powerful confirmation of the truth about this case that goes far above and beyond any pro-guilt parodies about springing OJ on a technicality or whatever is claimed.
Good points. Just on the simplest level how is it possible for there not to be reasonable doubt when one court gave Amanda the strongest form of acquittal possible, saying there was no evidence against her.
Yes , indeed ! I would like to raise the point you make tha Paolo Caporali may be involved behind the scenes . I have raised this point in several blogs . Perugia is a comparatively small ancient town and I think likely to have a feudality with perhaps the Caporali as ” Godfather ” , friends with Mignini , a wealthy family to whom all Perugia show defference . It may have been in their interest that Guedes illegal escapades not cast a shadow on them or their business . I have too for a long time reiterated that Guede might have been a police informer .
I’ll laugh at the absurdity of it all once Amanda and Raffaele are free. What a nightmare this must be for everyone involved.
Another question that has nagged me is why doesn’t the Kercher family seem to feel any anger toward Rudy Guede? I can understand how they could get too caught up in the tabloid witch hunt to consider Amanda and Raffaele’s innocence, but why protect the one person who is definitely guilty? They refuse to allow the semen stain on the pillow to be tested. Why?
The mystery about the Kercher family to me is why they fully endorsed Mignini’s theories before the defense had put on a case. They seem to accept that “Poor Rudy” as Mignini called him has become a scapegoat to some degree and was not the instigator of the murder. They don’t have much use for Raffaele, but reserve their hatred for Amanda. There seems to be some psychological and ideological “stuff” going on that has nothing to do fact or reason.
Religious motives?
Personally, I think they helped perpetuate the tabloid witch hunt. It will never make sense to me how they could act in such a way that is clearly not in Meredith’s best interests.
Don’t they care about the truth? How could they ignore the reports from the independent experts and what’s more, write a letter to the court asking the court not to take the forensics done by the independent experts seriously? How could they allow their lawyer to block Rudy’s cross-examination and argue against the testing of the semen stain?
Don’t they want the person who hurt Meredith behind bars? Nope, they want to cling to their little fantasy, tie it up with a bow and go after Amanda without fail for daring to defend herself against a crime that she says she is innocent of.
Them appearing in that crappy BBC 3 documentary, the same one where Rudy’s lawyer was allowed to speak and protest Rudy’s innocence was the last straw for me. There is something wrong with them and how they think. Their victim act is getting old. They usually only trot it out at convenient times, to rile up the public against Amanda. It’s only when they have a red arrow pointing straight at Amanda that they want to talk about how much Meredith must have suffered.
Did the Kerchers refuse to allow the semen to be analysed , or was it their lawyer Francesco Maresca , friend of Mignini ? I see the Kercher family as brow beaten , shell shocked , without any opinions . Clearly it is not in the interests of convicting Knox and Sollecito to have the semen confirmed as Guede’s . It is very important for Maresca that Knox and Sollecito are convicted , because he is seeking a multi million compensation from them , that everyone knows could not be sought from guede
I am not sure I share your assessment of the relationship between Maresca and the Kerchers. Maybe you are right but I am not certain. When I first began studying the case I looked upon Maresca as the bad guy, but my Italian friends and people better informed about the Italian courts told me that I was being naive. They told me that Maresca was doing exactly what the Kerchers had hired him to do. They could have hired a lawyer without becoming a civil party. By becoming a civil party they signaled that they were in complete agreement with the prosecution and wanted to exact penalties in addition to prison time. Remember the decision to hire Maresca came before the Kerchers had heard even an outline of the defense case.
As for the failure to test the semen stain, yes, it is completely indefensible.
~Lenroot
I don’t mean to pry but I have never heard of you (Lenroot Mays) and I am wondering if you have written other things. You have a definite talent at writing and saying things we all have thought and wanted to say but just didn’t have the talent to say it as well.
Thank you Julie–and Larry–for the kind words. As I said in the first post I have been around the case for a while. I have commented quite a few times over the years, but felt a need to try to develop some of my ideas more fully.
What this proves beyond reasonable doubt is that Italy’s justice system is no longer fit for purpose.
Beautiful piece. That there is even a trial is offensive as it lends the process legitimacy it doesn’t deserve.
I wonder if you’ve found any information on the following two items: first, do we have proof that Guede’s sweetheart deal required him to testify against Knox and Sollecito (surely the prosecution gave itself plausible deniability)?; second, I’ve never understood why even Hellmann seems to have ignored the established medical science showing that Kercher was killed within 3 hours of her 6:30 dinner – why did Hellmann leave this out of his discussion?
These questions may not have answers of course.
Best — Thor Klamet
Thanks Thor.
There is, of course, no record of any conversation between Guede’s lawyers regarding a sweetheart deal, and perhaps that is not the most precise way to describe what happened. In his earliest calls and writings from Germany, Guede was quite clear that Amanda was not at the cottage when Meredith was murdered. After he had lawyers, his story began to change. His lawyers shrewdly realized that his best course was to seek an abbreviated trial, stipulate as to the prosecution’s “facts” and then be eligible for a 1/3 reduction in sentence. The prosecution “facts” to which he was forced to stipulate included acknowledging that he acted in conjunction with Knox and Sollecito. He had to confirm the prosecution’s theory in order to get the sentence reduction.
It is terribly important to recall that while Guede’s “evidence” was insinuated into the trial of Knox and Sollecito via various stratagems, he never testified directly and was never cross examined by defense lawyers.
I don’t have Hellmann right in front of me. What I recall is that he did discuss time of death a bit, saying it was “not later” than 10:00 PM or something like that. I think he could have said more but his main points were that there was no evidence that Knox and Sollecito were at the scene.
It is worth recalling that it was Mignini who prevented the coroner from taking Merdith’s body temperature, which is the best way to estimate time of death. In this instance and others where the police used shoddy technique, the judges gave the benefit of the doubt to the parties that made the errors.
I also think this whole trial has been a travesty from the beginning. I feel bad for Knox and even worse for Sollecito, who is trapped in his own country if the guilty verdict remains. The polarized and emotional reaction to these two around the world is quite something.
I am puzzled by one issue:
I have read several blogs by these so-called deception experts, all or most of whom seem to have issues with Amanda’s credibility. One, “Eyes for Lies” is quite upfront about her belief that Amanda is involved in one way or another, stating directly that she must have had blood on her at some point. This particular expert calls her latest interview “stunning” and “shocking” and a huge indicator of guilt. (of some kind).
Amanda ‘s personality on TV certainly doesn’t come across very well, I will admit. She’s uncomfortable and not a strong speaker, but I also wonder why makes these experts so convinced she is lying outright. We assume that if we are innocent, it would not be a hard thing to convey but Amanda does make it sound difficult.
Any thoughts on this ?
Sure I have some ideas. I don’t know anything about “Eyes for Lies” specifically but is sounds like a bunch of nonsense, sort of like trying to predict the future by studying the entrails of animals. Modern investigative theory holds that you should pay far less attention to how a person acts and looks and more to what they say. Interestingly, people who are innocent often tell inconsistent stories. Since they are innocent, they don’t feel a need to be especially careful. What skilled investigators look for are stories that are pat and lacking in detail. Guilty people know they can be tripped up by detail so they provide few of them.
As regards Amanda’s TV personality, I respectfully disagree. She has not been perfect but overall she has been quite good and,to judge by the way most people react, helped herself. You have to remember that so much of what she previously said was overanalyzed and misrepresented that she has understandably become very careful and thinks before responding. But when asked directly if she had anything to do with the murder, she has strongly and unambiguously denied it.
In one respect Amanda deserves enormous credit. She does not show up for an interview with a lawyer and entourage. She just shows up by herself and asks whatever questions the interviewer wants to ask.
We all seem to assume we would do or act differently. Put yourself in front of a camera on national television and in front of a famous interviewer just check out how out of control your emotions and reactions can be. These experts are judging from contaminated source material influence by an unnatural environment. Just try filming yourself public speaking if you are not adept and have a good laugh at yourself.
The only comment I have to make about Amanda’s TV presentation is that she hasn’t mentioned Guede enough. She doesn’t need to mention him in name (I realise she’d be too polite to do that, so she could call him “the actual killer”), but she could at least mention that fact that he fled Italy and she didn’t. That would convince a lot more people. The problem is that there’s been such a media blackout surrounding Guede that people don’t realise he exists. I certainly didn’t before I started really researching this case. If more was done to mention him on CNN and so on then more people would realise AK’s innocence.
You wrote: “Moving shards from the rock that broke off when it hit the floor to a new spot that would suggest an entirely different entry trajectory, consistent with the spray of glass.” Are you saying the rock hit the floor? Then how did it end up in the shopping bag? Where are these shards from the rock? Thanks.
The crime scene photos show that a rock came in through the window, hit the floor and left shards, and then partially rolled into a shopping bag. The prosecution has the fantastical theory that the rock came in on a different trajectory and Amanda staged these details.
Might not the rock have been carried in a shopping bag and the bag with rock inside swung at the window ?
I think it is very unlikely that this happened. The most intelligent reconstruction I have seen was done by a forensic engineer named Ron Hendry and published several places. It is good stuff and goes into a painstakingly detailed explanation of what happened based upon crime scene photographs.
Mister Pink, I follow all threads, so I am aware of your PMF situation. At times you are chastised by the PMF fundamentalists. Someone with your critical thinking skills, and Thoughtful, should engage at JREF. This is a really important case for humankind. I am totally certain that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent so why not come to JREF after this, they actually welcome debate and dissent. It is a well mannered forum. Lenroot is a great conduit for bridge building here.
I will second the James Randi site for ongoing important discussion. Anyone not aware of it should be. It follow the
developments and storyline there everyday as it moves along.
Lenroot – thank you for your analysis and for creating this blog. I think your more-forest-less-trees approach is refreshing and valuable . And if nothing else, it’s helpful to see some intelligent sanity (yours and others’) regarding this case. Still, I hold out hope that a site like this may also help convince some to reconsider their belief in knox and sollecito’s guilt.
I have a criticism, however, that I hope you will consider. I was very disappointed by some of the comments in the previous post and comments section about the Kercher family. There were accusations of inappropriate behavior of theirs seemingly without evidence. (and shouldn’t we AK/RS supporters be especially careful about lack of evidence?) For instance, just because a Kercher works at the BBC doesn’t mean he’s at fault for lousy BBC reporting on this case. Lots of kercherless news organizations have done awful reporting on this case, so surely the BBC is capable of being horribly unfair to AK/RS all on their own. My concern is that it ultimately doesn’t help Amanda if a website supporting her is seen as lobbing unfounded accusations against Meredith Kercher’s family. I can’t imagine enduring what Rudy Guede and the Italian authorities have put them through, and I’m willing to cut them a lot of slack on their continued misguided trust in the Italian authorities. Remember, Amanda herself started with a similarly ill-placed trust in those same authorities.
Thanks Konellis. I am not sure that I agree but I am listening and my own views on the Kerchers are evolving. I may well write more about the subject later. The challenge, of course, will be to raise fair questions without pretending that you have all the answers. The BBC coverage is especially troubling to me. In the past year especially it has been outrageous.
The BBC Magazine published a piece about a book written by pro-guilt activists with a personal involvement in the case. Soon after that the Magazine allowed Andrea Vogt to critique Amanda’s book, Waiting to be Heard. The BBC is co-producing the Winterbottom film based upon Barbie Nadeau’s rather infamous book. Finally, in what may be the worst development of all, the BBC purchased a documentary by Andrea Vogt and Paul Russel that was pure pro-guilt propaganda and contained the completely outrageous suggestion that perhaps Rudy Guede was just a bystander, scapegoated after the fact. If Mignini had written and produced this documentary himself it would not have been different.
Over this whole period, almost nothing indicating the powerful defense case found its way into BBC programming. To me BBC bias is an objective fact. It is a notable outlier even in a media environment that has spawned a good deal bad reporting. Under the circumstances, I think it is fair to ask whether the fact that the victim’s brother is a BBC employee is not a relevant factor.
Co producer Paul Russel of the BBC hitpiece wrote the early book Darkness Decending with Graham Johnson. Johnson released a tell all book ” Hack – sex, drugs and scandal from inside the tabloid jungle ” in 2012.
Did the latest Johnson book reference the Knox-Sollecito case?
Lenroot
I haven’t read ” Hack ” yet – just recently stumbled across a reference to it. Thought I would just point it out. It certainly may
included some interesting data even if only between the lines.
Thanks James. It sounds like an interesting read anyway.
I wonder what the Kerchers think of the new Winterbottom film being produced. There is already one film about this case, and apparently they’re disgusted by it – despite the fact that the producers tried to be as unbiased as possible (they added the Guilter cartwheel and “RS phoned the Carabinieri after the Postal Police arrived” lies, as well as leaving out everything about Guede – but they also showed the police slapping AK during her interrogation and the fake HIV thing). Maybe the Kerchers will be OK with the Winterbottom film though because it’s guaranteed to be more biased. It’ll probably leave out everything about Guede, or mention him in one tiny scene without showing his flight from the country. Or, worse, it might try to paint him as a framed, innocent victim like Vogt’s BBC documentary did…
Konellis,
On some level, I understand the discomfort you seem to have in exposing the Kerchers’ behavior. However, the way you phrase it, that you “can’t imagine what the Italian authorities have put them through” makes it sound like they are victims being forced into these repeated trials, when they would prefer to remain on the sidelines and let the prosecutors do their jobs. The reality is that through their own civil attorney, the Kerchers are actively pushing forward with this, and stand to make millions from a final guilty verdict. In the process, they are deliberately choosing not to be appraised of some of the information while declaring at every press conference that they still are on a “journey for the truth.” Remember that their own attorney fought hard not to have the semen stain on the pillow under Meredith’s body analyze for DNA.
I think we can all feel tremendous sympathy for the unimaginable loss they have suffered, as I certainly do; and still be critical of the manner in which they may be active and knowing participants in the witch hunt of two innocent people.
Good points Laurie. I think we are all trying to walk a fine line here. I feel infinite sympathy for the Kerchers–lord knows how I would act if one of my children was murdered. But I believe it is also fair to ask respectful questions about how they behaved and how they might have used their media connections. After all, the fate of two innocent people hangs in the balance.
The bra clasp evidence is most curious, It seems too much seems to have been on one tiny spot to be explained by sliding on the floor or transfer from the gloves, and to be only found there. If there are 3 males lightly present and Raffaele heavily present, there must be an explanation. This does not include Raffaele touching it because the door was locked and Meredith was dead inside when he came to the cottage. Also he was watching videos at home while Meredith was being killed. The only explanation becomes applying his dna deliberately with a sample that was contaminated with other males. Maybe this was collected from his solitary confinement cell as soon as they lost his shoeprint evidence. They were already wedded to their theory, and this would be a small thing to assist justice.
Just to be clear, it is not universally accepted that Raffaele’s DNA is on the bra clasp. The defense does not concede this point at all. There is a dispute between experts. Further, your assertion that RS’s DNA is “heavily present” is not generally accepted either. Raffaele’s defense claims, with considerable justification in my view, that the clasp sample in question falls into the low copy number range and should have been handled differently.
So to some degree I would be answering a hypothetical: If it is Raffaele’s correctly tested DNA, how did it get there? That’s a big “if.”
I think the possibility that you raise–that of deliberate contamination–is a plausible if ultimately unprovable theory. The prosecution had just conceded the shoe print battle and needed something concrete to tie RS to the scene, so the suspicion makes some sense. I think it is also possible that the clasp was contaminated through shoddy collection and handling techniques. The experts I consult with regularly think both are distinct possibilities.
In this instance the chain of custody was blown completely and the collection techniques were so inept that the clasp never should have been allowed into evidence to begin with. The police are in an extraordinary position of power and we must hold them to some standards. I should also add that bra-clasp was stored in a way that made subsequent independent testing impossible. This can only have been the result of deliberate sabotage or incredible incompetence.
The reason I tend to believe his dna is present is because Hellmann did. I grew up with a very similar case where a cartridge case was planted, and confirmed by a commission of inquiry 12 weeks after a murder, to convict Arthur Allan Thomas. This was proved by forensics. This one would be harder, and making the allegation is ultimately unnecessary, but of interest to the case. If it is his dna, the path was not related to the events of that evening, so other possible paths are all of interest. This deliberate collection of material from his prison cell is compatible with the results if those are scientifically valid. The defence are by far best advised to not concede actual dna on the clasp of course.
I take your point and it is a good one. It is very telling to me also that the clasp was (seemingly deliberately) improperly stored and thus unavailable for further testing. This is really quite astonishing. What I have learned from all this is that DNA is a powerful tool to convict or exonerate IF the collection, handling, and analysis are done correctly. In this case, the chain of custody for the clasp was blown to smithereens and it should never have been accepted as evidence. The question of whose DNA is and is not on the clasp should be rendered mute because the sample itself is junk.
I would also add that the peaks were much stronger than the other male alleles detected but far below those of Meredith. If we assume Meredith’s DNA is representative of direct transfer, then how can you explain why Raffaele’s DNA, if it is Raffaele’s, is so much weaker? Never mind there is no reasonable scenario where someone could get their DNA on a bra clasp and no where else. The clasp is actually facing inward and pressed against the cloth of the strap. Realistically the clasp has to be unhooked before you could get your DNA on it, and how do you unhook it without transferring your DNA elsewhere? And finally, one of the clasps was severely deformed, strongly suggesting the clasp was pulled apart with great force. This would require grasping the strap on either side of the clasp and pulling, or grabbing the strap with one hand and pulling it away from Meredith (perhaps to drag her from the pool of blood?). In all of these scenarios the perpetrator would leave their DNA behind on the bra. Guede’s DNA was found on the bra, but not Raffaele’s. Sometimes it’s necessary to apply a little common sense to see what the evidence is telling you – that is, unless you want to shape the evidence to tell you what you want it to say.
Lenroot, this braclasp is important because it confounds the case for innocence. Actually the Naruto cartoon at 9 26 and the autopsy report bookend the alibi. So the bra clasp becomes a complicated narrative. It must be deconstructed by the method Sherlock Holmes employed, when he posits the unlikely becomes the fact.
I see it a different way Sampson. I don’t think it confounds the case for innocence at all. Experts disagree as to whether it really is RS’s DNA. Because of shocking lapses in chain of custody it is, properly speaking, not admissible evidence at all. Further, it is an anomalous result, inconsistent with other evidence. Ergo it should be rejected. If a Ph.D. student came up with this sort of outlier result, his dissertation director would tell him to go back and do the experiment again. Just so here. Unhappily, a retest is not possible because these geniuses destroyed the sample.
~Lenroot
As a working hypothesis, can we not assume that Sollecito’s DNA was transferred from the door handle to the clasp via the cops’ gloves?
Of course in a fair legal system, the clasp world have been disallowed on multiple grounds. The disappearance of source data files is one of them. But in Italy, one has to prove one’s innocence.
Why would we assume that? It is one possibility among others–if indeed it is Sollecito’s DNA. The thing I keep coming back to is that some of the most preeminent forensic scientists in Italy, the US, and the UK say the DNA work in this case absolutely does not do anything to establish guilt.
I have seen thousands (literally) of posts over the years detailing the chilling absurdity of this circus… and I’ve been waiting for someone to put together such a comprehensive list of ‘What You Have to Believe-s’ for Knox to be even remotely in the picture… I think people simply struggle to articulate the maddening nonsense that clouds these recent rulings.
But this is elegant and stunning. This should be shared and distributed widely.
Even as I read it I could feel myself getting agitated – as if for the first time! – that the Italian Courts are pushing two innocent people into the meat grinder on the premise of a fantasy-story a six year old might laugh off.
And for what?
Greetings Fordann–and thanks. I was agitated when I wrote that post. I found myself asking: “How could any sane, decent person believe such nonsense?”
All very interesting Lenroot , you certainly have examined and highlighted the whole erroneous structure of this case and travesty of injustice being inflicted on two clearly innocent people . I believe that the supreme court appeal presided over by Nencini was predetermined to convict , that Nencini
(Always Convicts)was set the task to insure that they were re-convicted .
Without Guede being present at their trials or cross examined , the trial of Guede and appeal have sealed the fate of Knox and Sollecito . The court of cassation has rattified , rubber stamped as irrefutable fact that Guede of his own telling did not actually commit the murder , that Knox and Sollecito were present and that they must have killed Meredith . The Nencini appeal or trial was to build a scenario and motivation around that fact . Knox and Sollecito had been established as the killers in Guedes trial , without any input of defence from their legal team . The Italian Supreme Court cannot permit them to be found innocent in another trial . We shall see what will happen at the defence appeal . The Supreme court has made a proceedural trap for itself that it cannot escape . This case may very well go all the way to the ECHR , where ultimately the travesty of Italian justice will be exposed yet again . I look forward to reading more !!!
Thanks Stolli. You have put your finger on several of the key points that would show up in any appeal: 1) That the ISC essentially ordered a conviction; 2) That Amanda and Raffaele were not tried before an impartial tribunal; and 3) That they were denied the right to examine a key witness against them.
If the ISC confirms the conviction, then AK & RS go to the ECHR and AK fights any extradition request. Maybe I am too much of a Candide figure, but I have not entirely given up hope that honor and decency will prevail in Italy. My Italian friends tell me that Nencini’s masterpiece is so completely idiotic that it simply cannot be accepted with a straight face. So we will see.
~Lenroot