Presuming Guilt and Manufacturing Evidence: A Primer for Framing the Innocent
by Lenroot
We must also keep in mind that forensic science is performed, and testified about, by people – not by impartial, implacable machines. Like Procrustes, these people often have preconceived ideas – they have their own interests, and their bosses who may even possess a thought or two. They are part of a culture, and part of a political realm. Thinking of forensic test results as if they were produced in a manner that is somehow isolated from these realities is a fundamental mistake.
—Mark Waterbury
Real evidence is usually vague and unsatisfactory. It has to be examined—sifted. But here the whole thing is cut and dried. No, my friend, this evidence has been very cleverly manufactured—so cleverly that it has defeated its own ends.
—Agatha Christie
The presumption of innocence is critical to a fair trial, and a judge who presumes innocence will necessarily view the evidence differently than one who presumes guilt. Hence, my thesis:
Grave irregularities with the evidence in the Amanda Knox case are among the major reasons her trials have been manifestly unfair. The Italian courts presumed her guilty, not innocent, and because they presumed guilt, they sanctioned multiple serious evidentiary errors.
Further, it is apparent that the Italian Supreme Court’s oddball requirement that lower courts think “osmotically” about the evidence was merely a coded way of saying “you must presume and find Amanda Knox guilty.”
What follows here is not so much new information as a repackaging of it with a view to challenging “common sense” skepticism about defense claims. I want people to understand that when Knox supporters like me suggest that the evidence was sliced, diced, marinated, and oh-so-lovingly cooked we have specific misdeeds in mind.
The Italian police and prosecutors, aided and abetted by biased courts, did all of the following:
- They destroyed evidence
- They withheld evidence
- They misrepresented evidence
- They did not follow-up on obvious investigative leads
- They likely planted or otherwise tampered with evidence.
It is also clear that prosecution witnesses knowingly perjured themselves and that judges like Massei and Nencini, who presumed guilt from the first, did not make a good faith effort to understand testimony, nor were they open to the possibility of being influenced by it.
Let’s begin with an incontestable fact: the prosecution’s so-called “DNA evidence,” having been subject to international scrutiny, is now melting faster than the Wicked Witch of the West in the presence of water. I refer you to this site:
An intellectually rigorous type who calls himself “Diocletian” has exhaustively analyzed the DNA evidence to establish what we have, what has been suppressed, and, most importantly, what malign patterns lie hidden in a wilderness of confusing detail. The conclusions of research are so compelling that they are worth quoting verbatim:
- The prosecution hid the results of early and decisive DNA testing excluding Sollecito as the sexual assailant, securing on improper grounds the pretrial incarceration of Sollecito and Knox (and Lumumba) to the severe prejudice of the defense.
- The prosecution concealed the initial results for tests performed on the two key items of evidence , i.e., the kitchen knife (Rep. 36B) and the bra-clasp (Rep. 165B), and instead, produced only the results of suspicious “do over” tests (reruns), without disclosing the data from the initial tests or even the fact that the subsequent tests are “do overs”.
- The prosecution concealed that the kitchen knife profile was generated within a series of tests for which 90 percent of the results have been suppressed, strongly suggesting the occurrence of a severe contamination event that the prosecution continues to hide.
- The prosecution claims that contamination of the bra clasp was impossible, even though the bra clasp profile was processed during a series of tests for which there is documented proof of contamination.
- The prosecution falsely portrayed the DNA lab as pristine and perfectly maintained, even though the lab’s own documents demonstrate that it was plagued with repeated contamination events and machine malfunctions that were known to the lab.
- The prosecution has withheld the results from a massive number of DNA tests (well over 100), including probably exculpatory profiles relating to the sexual assault and the secondary crime scene downstairs.
- The prosecution has hidden all of the records of the DNA amplification process—the most likely place for laboratory contamination to have occurred—including all of the contamination control tests for this process.
Realistically speaking, it cannot get worse than these indications of fraud and incompetence. Now comes word that Peter Gill, a preeminent forensic geneticist in the U.K., has devoted an entire chapter in his new book to the trashing of the DNA evidence in the Knox case.
So, let’s play a game. What do Dr. Carla Vecchiotti (Italy), Dr. Bruce Budowle (U.S.) and Dr. Peter Gill (U.K.) have in common? Well, each is a highly respected forensic geneticist within his/her own country (Budowle and Gill are world renowned). Each has also reviewed the DNA “evidence” in the case thoroughly, and each firmly opines that it provides absolutely no reliable indication that Amanda Knox is guilty.
Unfortunately for the honor of Italy and its courts, problems with the evidence go well beyond the fraud and other insurmountable problems with the DNA. I’ll cite some of the more egregious examples.
Evidence that was lost, destroyed, or went missing
Suppressed Interrogation Tapes. Although news reports indicated that the tapes of Amanda’s initial interrogation were being transcribed, they suddenly went missing, accompanied by a blizzard of the-dog-ate-my-homework excuses. The defense has consistently maintained that the tapes would reveal precisely how police bullied and manipulated Amanda into making false statements.
Destruction of Computer Hard Drives. The hard drives on four different computers were damaged or destroyed by police “experts.” Several drives were vital to the defense, including one containing photographs and video that gave the lie to speculation that Amanda and the victim did not get along. The police explanation as to how the drives were compromised was absurd and it is likely the damage was intentional.
Suppressed CCTV Video. Suppressed video from a strategically placed CCTV camera would, with a very high degree of probability, have conclusively established whether or not Amanda and Raffaele ever left his apartment on the night of the murder. Again, the various police excuses for not producing the video were contradictory and absurd—we didn’t check until it was too late—the camera was broken—the camera was turned the wrong way, etc.
Destruction of the Knife DNA. In a clear violation of accepted protocol, the knife DNA sample was improperly handled and, in effect, tested out of existence. It cannot now be reexamined by either defense or independent experts as would normally be required.
Destruction of the Bra-Clasp Evidence. The bra-clasp was accidentally-on-purpose stored in an entirely inappropriate manner with the result that reexamination by defense and independent experts became impossible. Given the well documented deceit and malfeasance associated with the clasp, it is hard to believe that the destruction was merely accidental.
Evidence that was misrepresented in court
Patrizia Stefanoni, the police technician, deliberately and seriously misled the court at least twice. First, her contention that there had never been contamination in her lab was, as is now obvious, a damnable, cynical lie. As we have just recently learned, and as she has certainly known all along, there was massive contamination in her little shop of horrors.
Even worse, Stefanoni testified that certain footprints revealed by Luminol were made in blood, even though the scientific tests she performed told her unequivocally that this was false.
A standard method for discovering hidden blood stains involves the preliminary application of Luminol followed by the retesting of areas of interest with tetramethylbenzidine (TMB). If and only if you get a positive reaction to both tests do you presume the sample may be blood, in which case it is sent to the lab to have the finding confirmed. You are never—literally, not ever— entitled to say a sample is blood absent laboratory confirmation.
Stefanoni’s testimony is a study in malicious deviousness. She claimed the prints were made in blood on the basis of the preliminary Luminol test alone, while hiding the negative TMB test and performing no true confirmatory test in a lab (or so she said). It is worth noting as well that the stains in question yielded no genetic material as blood would have done.
If Stefanoni’s testimony does not constitute perjury, I do not for the life of me know what would.
Rinaldi, the police print “expert,” surely deserves a place in this rogue’s gallery of perjurers too. Are we really supposed to take seriously the claim that he failed somehow to immediately recognize that the sole of Raffaele’s Nikes did not match the prints left at the scene? Surely, a true print expert could manage something so simple as counting concentric rings in a pattern.
The initial claim that the prints were Raffaele’s was easily proved false, indicating that Rinaldi is either completely incompetent or completely dishonest. It has to be one or the other and I am betting on the latter.
This is no trivial matter because there was never evidence against Raffaele sufficient to warrant preventive detention. In effect, Rinaldi bailed the prosecution out by lying to the court so that Raffaele could be jailed along with Amanda. The Sollecito family eventually discovered the ruse on its own, forcing the police to go back to an unsecured crime scene six weeks later, at which point the miracle of the bra-clasp “discovery” conveniently supplied an ex post facto rationale for keeping Raffaele locked up.
I mean please and by all that’s holy. What is it about the concept of dirty cops that you fail to understand?
Investigative leads that were ignored
The key example here is the frankly unbelievable decision not to test the semen stain. A defense expert discovered what appeared to be fresh seminal fluid smeared by Guede’s shoes—clearly indicating that it was deposited in his presence at the time of the murder. Yet, when the defense team asked the court to allow genetic testing, the prosecution and the victim’s family lawyer went berserk and moved heaven and earth to prevent it.
Stop, take a deep breath, and think about the full implications of this for a minute. You have a murder and sexual assault on your hands, and a top forensic scientist finds what he is convinced is a semen stain associated with the murder. But it was the prosecution, not the defense, that successfully fought to keep this obviously relevant evidence out.
Truly astonishing. In Italy, it would seem, legal proceedings are an exercise in hiding the truth, not searching for it. And the victim’s family appears to be motivated by something other than a desire to know who really committed the murder.
Here are other investigative flaws:
- The coroner was not allowed to take the victim’s body temperature until well after the point where doing so was useless. Although the time of death can be accurately estimated from a number of other factors, the lack of normal precision allowed the prosecution to monkey around with the issue endlessly.
- The police failed to identify and interview local citizens whose features are clearly visible at relevant times on available CCTV footage from a nearby parking garage. Some of these persons might well have proved to be useful witnesses.
- The police failed to canvass the neighborhood during the days following the murder, but when a cub reporter uncovered two addled and completely unreliable witnesses many months later, the police accepted everything they said at face value and did nothing to verify their improbable stories.
If the aim is to uncover the truth about the murder, these flaws are inexcusable. If the aim is to hide the truth, they make a great deal of sense.
Absurdly biased evidentiary rulings
When the defense teams sought to have basic information released to them as well as permission to conduct additional testing, they got the Judge Roy Bean treatment every time—a “fair” hearing followed by the inevitable ruling for the prosecution.
For example, the defense requested the release of the electronic data files from the police lab. In theory, Italy requires full disclosure so this ought not to have been a problem. But in practice the initial trial judge allowed the files to be suppressed. The one judge worthy of the title—Judge Hellman—ordered their release and the police grudgingly produced some data (though by no means everything). Now, long after the initial flawed conviction, we are beginning to take full measure of the fraud and incompetence the police were trying to hide.
In a similar vein, the defense asked to send Amanda’s police-damaged hard drive to the manufacturer to see if photographs and video important to the defense could be retrieved. “No,” was the response.
The defense asked to have the critical semen stain tested. No. No.
The defense asked for audiometric testing to see if an elderly, highly confused witness could possibly have heard what she claimed to have heard through the sound-proof glass of her apartment. No, no, and yet again no.
And so on.
There was not a thing frivolous about any of these requests. All were highly germane and essential to the defense. All could have been quickly and easily completed at the defense’s expense. Yet, all were denied by biased, guilt-presuming judges on the flimsiest grounds imaginable.
Failure of the courts to fairly assess evidence
There are so many instances of flawed, bad faith reasoning in the Massei and Nencini reports that it is hard to know where to begin. Both judges presume guilt and both expose themselves as being completely undisciplined by logic, science, justice, or the requirements of basic fairness.
Nencini, for example, is so arrogant, and in such an unseemly haste to convict, that he simply cannot be bothered to get basic scientific details right. Now, thanks to his brilliance, the world knows that the multiple Y haplotypes found on the bra clasp came from the victim’s female friends!!
Then there is Nencini’s bizarrely dishonest treatment of the Luminol/TMB “evidence.” The fact that the TMB test was negative meant that the foot prints—whoever they belonged to—Amanda or someone else—were not made in blood. So what does guilt-presuming Nencini do to sustain the prosecution position? Simple. He ignores the TMB test altogether. He doesn’t know what to say—indeed there is nothing he can say—so he pretends the test never took place.
Or take the way Massei treats Rinaldi’s flawed presentations. In addition to numerous other sins, Rinaldi clearly mis-measured a Luminol print in the hallway, inexplicably revising its size upward to be “compatible” (o cara parola!) with Raffaele’s print. This mysterious finding was contradicted by defense experts who used advanced, technically sophisticated photometric techniques to establish that the print was too small to have been made by Raffaele.
Guilt-presuming Massei sided with the prosecution, of course, but for what reason we haven’t a clue. He simply assumes, without explanation or argument, that the implausible, unsupported conclusion of the police witness is correct, while the technically accurate and fully described measurements of defense experts are in error. He acts for all the world like the defense experts never testified.
Massei also has the maddening habit of noting major contradictions and flaws in the prosecution case without drawing the proper conclusions from them. After much fancy dancing around the point, the judge makes it clear that Raffaele made a critical phone call before the police arrived—not after as the prosecution maintained. But there is no sign that the judge counts this in favor of the defense.
Massei displays similarly odd mental habits in his handling of the cell phone evidence. The police examination of the cell phone records was at the level of a mediocre 8th Grade science fair project. The defense hired highly credentialed experts who, after consulting with cell phone manufacturers and carriers, produced a study thoroughly debunking prosecution claims. A fair judge, who presumed innocence, would have pitched the cell phone evidence straight out the nearest window. But Massei was hell bent on convicting and so all manner of foolishness ensued.
At one point he suggests that Amanda was lying about being at Raffaele’s apartment when she received a text because the cell phone tower involved did not reach the apartment. Just a few pages later we learn, to our great astonishment and confusion, that the self-same tower was, as a matter of incontrovertible fact, the tower that picked up a number of calls originating or received there.
Massei presumes guilt and therefore he finds guilt. He willfully distorts the evidence to find indications that Amanda left the apartment during the early evening and then lied about it later. A judge who presumed innocence, on the other hand, would have conceded that there was not a shred of genuine evidence for any of this, and that, indeed, there was abundant evidence that Amanda and Raffaele were together in his apartment when the murder took place.
You can probably point to many other (and perhaps better) examples of manufactured evidence and the presumption of guilt. But this is enough. This is more than enough.
~Lenroot Mays
Amanda Knox: Auguries of Innocence 
An absolutely brilliant article. It fully establishes the innocence of Amanda and Raffaele and the gross, dare I say criminal conduct of the police and prosecution, aided and abetted by corrupt judges.
From the violations to forensic standards to the intentional suppression of key Information withheld by the Prosecution, this case & the outrageous verdict was set up long before it saw the inside of a courtroom. There is no excuse for the coverup & contamination of evidence that took place. The obvious truth is that Rudy Guede committed this horrific murder alone. Amanda & Raffaele were used to revive a Prosecutor’s reputation who clearly never had any business practicing law. As time passes, the Italian justice system continues to hand the ECHR a golden opportunity to make a spectical of the massive violations in this case and I’m sure others.
This is excellent, by the way. 🙂
Great article Lenroot!!
Great Britain’s newspaper Daily Mail reported on November 6, 2007, that police were examining “male bodily fluids” to see if more than one male was involved. IMO they actually did test the semen at the scene and found it was Rudy, not Patrick, not Raffaele. But they hid the fact because it was exculpatory to Raffa and Amanda. That is egregious misconduct.
Judge Mike Heavey (Ret.)
Thank you Judge Heavey and Noel and Larry. I think it highly probable the semen stain was tested and then suppressed. There has been so much destruction and suppression of evidence in this case and yet people seem to shrug and act likes it’s normal. I have been tempted at times to be a bit critical of the defense lawyers for being so hesitant to assert was obviously true: there was a whole lot of misconduct. But, as we have seen, it is dangerous to criticize the authorities in Italy.
Awesome expose!
“There was not a thing frivolous about any of these requests. All were highly germane and essential to the defense. All could have been quickly and easily completed at the defense’s expense. Yet, all were denied by biased, guilt-presuming judges on the flimsiest grounds imaginable.”
One wonders why bother with a trial and not just lock people up with out it. May as well, if you put on a trial and a person is denied their right to defend themselves.
This makes me think of medieval Europe; it’s appalling this could be happening in a Western culture in this century.
“IMO they actually did test the semen at the scene and found it was Rudy”
That doesn’t explain while the Kercher’s lawyer would demand it not be tested. My guess it was tested and found not to belong to Rudy or Raffaele – so the Kerchers assumed it was something to do with Meredith’s private life they did want trawled through the newspapers.
That would be neither here not there; you can’t send innocent people to jail to protect someone’s reputation posthumously.
Very good overview of the gross incompetence by the Italian
Lenroot, I am once again in awe of how clearly and elegantly you explain how a simple case of rape and murder by a sole would-be burglar has been turned into such a bizarre and convoluted mess by some of the most corrupt and cynical judicial authorities on the planet. What has been done to these two innocent people is so horrendous and so unbelievable that I doubt it would even make a B movie script. I spend a lot of time wishing Mignini and Co. in prison for a very long time, but I seriously doubt if my wishes will become horses anytime soon, if at all. Please continue to publish these articles. We need all the help we can get…and then some!
Lenroot
You have brilliantly assembled a multitude of indisputable facts together in a masterful fashion to clearly and concisely articulate the essence of the prosecution’s case here; prejudice and deceit. Well done! Your work here is important and deserves to be recognized.
Thanks Tom. If you like my blog, spread the news. I am better at writing theses things than I am at promoting it. But I am getting a fair number of visitors.
~LM
Another brilliant article. I guess Stefanoni has become famous in her infamy.
This case obviously stinks ti high heaven yet many Italians still believe that Amanda and Raffaele guilty. The Kerchers still believe they are guilty, and that what puzzles me. I can never feel their pain but I would hope, god forbid, if i was in their place and there is such controversy about guilt/innocence of Amanda and Raffaele,, i would dissect the evidence to be sure I am not sending innocent people to jail and dishonor the memory of my daughter.
The Italian police have used the media very well to confuse and obfuscate the whole case. They knew what they were doing. They had to do it because they had no/trump up evidence.
Thanks for the comment. There are many reasons many Italians believe Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. Some of the reasons are political and ideological, no doubt. There is also a little anti-Americanism too. But a major reason, surely, is that it is dangerous to right the truth in Italy because the police and courts use the legal system to intimidate critics. Amanda says she was cuffed lightly and they charge her. Her parents say they believe her and they indict them too. Raffaele and Andrew Gumbel are in trouble for Honor Bound. Oggi and its reporters face trial. Rocco Girlanda sides with Amanda and suddenly he is being “investigated” for something else. Krista Errickson is commissioned by Il Messagero to interview John Douglas about the case and when she faithfully reproduces Douglas’s views that the case against Amanda and Raffaele is nonsense, Il Messagero bails out and refuses to publish out of fear of retaliation.
The other thing I want to write about eventually is the way the Kercher family has been able to completely suborn major U.K. news outlets, including the BBC which has become little more than the mouthpiece for pro-guilt nonsense. There is a major, organized Knox hating going on in the U.K. that we need to analyze more fully.
~Lenroot
I would love to read your analysis of the “guilterization” of the UK and any role the Kercher family has played in that.
I will be interested to see what I can come up with too Rick. But my working hypothesis is that the highly biased coverage in some of the UK news outlets is owing to something other than the nationality of the victim. I think there is a serious pro-guilt PR campaign going on that is much more sophisticated than anything attempted by the defense.
~LM
You should definitely write on the British press, especially the BBC.
I will. The Independent and The Guardian have been quite good, which has led to an organized effort to suborn them too. Sad to say, it has had some effect.
~LM
I love your writing style. You know how to take complicated material and make it easy to understand as well as interesting. That’s not an easy feat to accomplish…I hope a book is in your future on this case.
Seconded wholeheartedly. It’s a rare skill.
Two corrections, if I may. (1) “It is worth noting as well that the stains in question yielded no genetic material as blood would have done.” This is true of some but not all of the traces. Hellmann distinguishes between samples with and without DNA. It’s probably safe to say that the zero-DNA samples were definitely not blood by virtue of having no DNA, regardless of TMB. The fact that about ten such samples were collected in Sollecito’s apartment indicates how common false positives are with Luminol. Those samples which did have DNA were unlikely to have blood because of the negative TMB results. By the way, Luminol glowed quite brightly in the corridor, so the triggering substance was copious, and had it been blood, it would have undoubtedly triggered TMB. The presence of Amanda’s and Meredith’s DNA on the floor of their apartment was to be expected because both girls walked barefoot at home. In fact, Amanda even left her DNA on the floor of Raffaele’s apartment, so she was a good “DNA shedder”.
(2) “But in practice the initial trial judge allowed the files to be suppressed.” There was a moment during the first trial when the defense demanded that either the charges be dropped or full test results produced. This led to the “first data dump” on July 30, 2009. In September, defense experts trashed Stefanoni’s results based on that limited disclosure, yet Massei refused an independent examination. Hellmann ordered more data to be released in 2011, but the raw data files remain undisclosed.
My impression of Massei’s oeuvre is that he did a relatively decent job documenting the evidence but did not let facts stand in the way of his theory. (He also denied an independent review of the obviously defective DNA tests, an unforgivable error.) For an unbiased student of the case, Massei’s ruling is evidence of innocence. Nencini is incredibly sloppy in comparison – he cannot get his facts right. As Edward Luttwak wrote, “Italy’s magistrates and judges: openly politicised, often blatantly publicity-seeking… with a notable aversion to hard work, this most caste-like of Italian castes keeps failing the Italian Republic…”
Thanks for the suggested corrections Alex. I will take them under advisement. The Luttwak quote interests me. Where is it from? I may just steal it.
~LM
This quote comes from Luttwak’s response to Prof. Perry Anderson’s LRB article on Italy’s failures. Anderson’s piece is accessible for free and is worth reading as well.
More relevant to Italian criminal justice was Luttwak’s review of John Dickie’s book on the Mafia. The review is behind a paywall (if you’ve just signed up, you can read it for free) but Dickie’s and Luttwak’s exchange of letters is not. I strongly recommend reading all of that. Luttwak explains to Dickie that to write a history of the Mafia from motivation reports by Italian judges is a “garbage in, garbage out” exercise.
Thanks Alex. I will will read it all if I can.
Again an excellent post. One thing I can not comprehend is how the haters can claim the evidence for the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele was overwhelming and the prosecution had a strong case in view of the massive level of corruption and misconduct which ocurred in this case. When I ask the haters why the prosecution had to resort to suppressing evidence and lying if they had a strong case, the haters have consistently refused to answer this question.
Thanks and a good strategy making the haters play defense. We have to keep the spotlight relentlessly upon the misconduct of officials and the unfairness of the trials.
Lenroot, beyond your normal adeptness for flattening this thing out, this essay scythes to the root of the whole clownish farce…
The prosecution case is SO transparent, so obscenely facile… so roll-your-eyes absurd… that it almost works *for* them – because it begs questions like: “They can’t be making this up… can they?”, “They can’t have missed that…can they?”, “They can’t be so fixated on such a provably innocent woman – and man – that they’re willing to bend, break or just ignore physics, reason, medical science (and so on)…can they?”
These questions – and their answers – are how Guilters are born. A slavish nod to authority and a refusal to pluck the brick that brings the whole thing down.
You see what I mean? It’s the essence of osmotic reasoning.
Thanks Fordann. I would be interested in developing a better understanding of the psychology of Guilters. They present an interesting taxonomy of symptoms.
~LM
Write more. These essays need to be seen.
I don’t about how this case affected them, but it caused me to changed my view to become an opponent of the death penalty. This is an excellent article and should be enclosed in letters begging denial of extradition.
Thanks. Music to my ideas. We are past the point of arguing the evidence excessively. It is the unfairness of the trials that have to be hammered home now.
~LM
All who read this article and understand its clear and compelling logic, will begin to understand the nightmare Amanda and Raffaele are caught in. Please spread the word of their innocence. Check out injusticeinperugia.org and consider donating to them. Their legal expenses are staggering as this ongoing persecution continues.
A feast to read! Yet, it breaks my heart: This is a crazy, yet true story. And the tragedy keeps going on.
‘And away down the track went Katy caboose. On down the grade she flew faster and faster straight for a curve and certain disaster’ (Bill Peet, The caboose who got loose).
Awesome expose!
“There was not a thing frivolous about any of these requests. All were highly germane and essential to the defense. All could have been quickly and easily completed at the defense’s expense. Yet, all were denied by biased, guilt-presuming judges on the flimsiest grounds imaginable.”
One wonders why bother with a trial and not just lock people up with out it. May as well, if you put on a trial and a person is denied their right to defend themselves.
This makes me think of medieval Europe; it’s appalling this could be happening in a Western culture in this century.
Thanks Jennifer. We have to keep stressing to people that this is not an aberrant situation. Italy has fairly lenient laws but its courts are a unique mess. There is a near complete lack of transparency and fairness and they seem to have no concept at all of what it means to presume innocence.
~LM
I posted a comment regarding Guede’s break in at a lawyer’s office stealing documents and the possibility he is being protected for being an informant for someone. Do you have any comments on that?
In regards to the comments about the British media: I have lived in the UK since 1996 and know that it’s terribly biased, from tabloid to broadsheet outlets. Each newspaper has its own political agenda – for example, everyone here knows that the Telegraph is staunchly Conservative.
As for the Daily Mail, this paper exists to spread moral panic and doesn’t care about the truth. It loves stories about moral depravity and will twist stories to make them sound much worse than they really are, hence why they jumped on the Amanda Knox case. They frequently write articles that could prejudice a jury. The DM was instrumental in spreading the “vaccinations cause autism” myth and has done a lot to foster anti-immigration and far-right sentiment in the UK.
The BBC is known in Scotland as the “Biased Broadcasting Corporation” because it will only report on Scottish affairs from the point of view of the British government. They also refused to report a massive demonstration against government austerity in London, presumably because the government commanded them not to. We frequently have to rely on Russia Today for objective reports about events here.
Hopefully that gives you an idea of how easily it is to smear someone in the British press. In 2012 there was an official, government-funded inquiry held by a judge, who made a list of recommendations for the government to make the media less biased, but the government ultimately ignored it. I suspect the Prime Minister only ordered the inquiry so that he could be *seen* to be doing something about our media.
Personally, I don’t think the smearing of Knox and Sollecito had anything to do with the fact that Meredith Kercher was English. I think it was simply too good a story for our biased media to pass up on. They exist to make money, and they don’t care how. British journalists exploit people’s suffering for their own ends.
Thanks Gonzenheim. Of course, I develop my views partly from consulting with British friends. I think you are probably right in the main. I do, however, think there is more than a touch of anti-Americanism at times–at least to judge from what is said in comments sections. Also, as I said in one of my first posts, I think the fact that the Kerchers are Londoners with connections to the media and entertainment industry, made a difference. If Meredith had, like Margaret Thatcher, been a grocer’s daughter from the boondocks, I believe things would have ben different. But John Kercher, Sr. is a well known journalist (piers Morgan formerly of CNN knew him well) and I imagine that for some reporters and editors they were not just covering a story but covering the death of “John’s youngest daughter”). It was personal. The BBC coverage has been horrendously biased, especially in the last year. I find it impossible not to speculate on the influence that John Kercher, Jr., who has worked at the BBC for a decade, may have had on its coverage. We have correlation, but, absent a serious investigation, we do not have causation.
The other thing is, because of my own work I am in a position to recognize that there is a significant sub-rosa anti-Amanda PR campaign going on. These people are smart and know what they are doing. I am sure some pros are involved.
~Lenroot
I hadn’t realised that about the Kerchers. Piers Morgan recently tweeted “I don’t believe Amanda Knox”. What you said would explain it. Lyle Kercher said he thinks Knox is guilty because Meredith had so many wounds that Guede couldn’t have done it alone. That is, of course, nonsense because some murderers are simply sadists who carry on attacking after the victim is unable to fight back. It doesn’t mean anyone else was involved. And, if Guede had done it with others why was he the only one to have fled the country afterwards? The Guilters would do well to research Occam’s razor.
I see what you mean about the PR campaign. The Guilters are forever going on about Knox’s family hosting such a campaign, but I think that’s projection. Apparently, we’re being paid to write articles like these and post pro-Knox tweets. Quite some conspiracy theory when you consider that thousands think she’s innocent (there’s over 7,000 followers on her FB page, and almost 2,000 signed a petition not to have her extradited). No such mass campaign exists for Guede.
And, yes, the BBC has been really terrible this year. I watched that Vogt documentary out of curiosity, and to see her portray Guede as an innocent angel was sickening. Then again, that’s the only way the Guilters can make sense of this: either portray him as wholly innocent, or pretend that he was friends with AK & RS, though no witnesses place them together (nor phone/email records).
This is an important issue. Amanda’s family has always been straightforward and honest about using a crisis management consultant, and I see nothing wrong with that. You hire a lawyer when you have a legal problem. You seek PR help when you have a public relations problem. And have a PR problem Amanda unquestionably did thanks to leaks coming out of Italy and a crazy tabloid press. You have to remember that when Curt Knox approached David Marriott not only was Amanda getting killed in the press but the family was under siege. Reporters were camped in their yard, attempting ambush interviews, pawing through trash, and offering cash bribes to anyone who would dish dirt. The Knox and Mellas families are just ordinary, middle class folks. They had no idea what to do, so they sought the advice of someone who did.
Curt Knox and Edda Mellas, in particular, got better in their on camera presentations, but they are not naturals. And the PR effort, such as it was, was never perfect. Marriott was used to the local Seattle scene but it appears to me that we was not fully prepared for the rank mendacity and nastiness of some of the international press. And I fail utterly to understand why Amanda herself would create a web page and blog and then allow hate filled idiots to post in the comments section.
By contrast, the “guilters” are very sophisticated and relentless. In fact, I dare say that they have had enormous success in promoting the absurd idea that Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. To me, this pro-guilt PR campaign is part of the real story. These people know what they are doing, believe me. They realized that reporters are lazy and use Wikipedia, so they undertook a highly successful effort to kidnap the Wikipedia page and it remains grotesquely unfair to this day. They realized before the supporters did that it might be useful to set up a pro-guilt fake Wikipedia page, using public domain software. They were the first to realize and use Twitter extensively. The guy who calls himself Harry Rag and The Machine brags about having a comprehensive list of press contacts and urges the haters to contact reporters directly and link to the wikipedia page, the faux, wiki, etc. Innocence supporters have been playing catch up all along.
It is impossible for me to believe that the Kercher family has had no connection whatsoever to the pro-guilt public relations offensive. They have an emotion fixation on the need for Amanda and Raffaele to be guilty, and they have a financial incentive. Far from maintaining a “dignified silence,” John Kercher, Sr. has been as noisy as a jay bird at critical junctures. Occasionally, Stephanie and Lyle have chipped in. John Sr. has been a working London reporter for years. Are we really supposed to believe that he did not ever talk to his friends and colleagues about the case off the record? John jr. has worked at the BBC in a non editorial position for a decade. Are we really supposed to believe that he never found a way to communicate his views and his suggestions to BBC colleagues?
I could not prove this connection in court, of course, but every thing I know about human nature suggests that the Kerchers had to have influenced coverage. It is worth noting that a former BBC official who arranged a BBC interview with Raffaele has said multiple times in public that he believes that Harry Rag/The Machine is none other than John Kercher, Jr., the family member who has kept the lowest profile in public.
~Lenroot
It makes sense that Mignini would have a vendetta against Americans as Preston’s complains instigated the investigation Mignini was under at the time this happened. He might have REALLY hated Americans and there was before him, Amanda.
Yes, Mignini no doubt hated Preston because he and Mario Spezi took the unpardonable step of laughing at him and ridiculing him. But don’t forget the wonderful posts Tim Egan wrote on the New York Times Opinionator blog. There were reports they drove Mignini mad. But he has notoriously thin skin, as do most instinctive bullies. He also threatened to sue the West Seattle Herald and even an obscure writer named Joe Cottonwood.
~Lenroot
You mentioned that according to Lyle Kercher, “Meredith had so many wounds that Guede couldn’t have done it alone.” She had three knife wounds to the neck, one of them fatal. She also had several dozen bruises and minor scrapes – not wounds but rather signs of a struggle. In other words, the “so many wounds” weren’t there.
But curiously, the guilters and judge Massei say there were too few “defensive wounds” so there must have been other attackers. This is circular reasoning: to tell apart “defensive” and “non-defensive” wounds, one has to hypothesize a crime scenario. Did this or that bruise result from the victim’s desperate attempt to free herself from the attacker’s embrace (“defensive”) or was it merely his strong arm squeezing her (“non-defensive”)? One cannot tell without making assumptions about the crime itself.
Massei was told by six medical examiners that a single attacker was possible but he ignored them in favor of his amateurish theory. “Meredith had taken karate classes so she would have struck back blah blah blah.” Childish.
You are absolutely right Alex. The guilters talk out of both sides of their mouths. At times they claim that there must have been multiple attackers because there are so many wounds (this is the Maresca/Kercher) shtick) and then Massei’s foolish rationale, which is different, which claims that the absence of defensive wounds indicates multiple attackers. This is yet another instance of the Italian courts spinning wild theories out of nothing. In addition to paying no attention to testimony, Massei seems to have no sense of how the world works. Guede was not superman but he was a good sized guy who was athletic and who almost certainly knew how to fight. Meredith was much smaller, female, and had grown up in somewhat sheltered circumstances. The idea that she could have used a little karate to fight off someone like Guede is just silly. If she really knew karate well, and if she had been very lucky, she might have incapacitated him. However, a far, far more likely scenario would be that fighting back only served to enraged him.
~Lenroot
Some think that the attempt to pin the murder on Amanda and Raffale was to protect Guede; a prior informant for someone.
Guede’s last broke in was at a lawyers office; files and files of archives from these lawyers’ office were taken including memory sticks with access to more files and documents from those lawyers’ office. Why would Guede steal these if not for someone?
It’s possible that Guede was doing someone’s dirty work for people in the courts system during that break in. They did not apprehend him when that happened and then they protected him when he killed Meredith later.
I believe the reason the DNA and other forensics on Guede came out only because in Italy, they have different investigative teams that work independently so they couldn’t cover it all up all.
A thorough investigation of the connection between Guede and people who work in that judicial system is in order and of all these authorities.
I agree Jennifer. As I think I said in my very first post, one of the most unusual aspects of this case is that the effort to frame Amanda Knox was harnessed to an equally powerful effort to deflect attention from Rudy Guede. Someone, for some reason, was protecting him. I hope to write about this at some future date, but good information is hard to come by. It is like trying to write about a ghost.
~Lenroot
If you’re interested, Steve Moore has written a book about Guede called ‘The Forgotten Killer’. I’m yet to read it, but I will because there has been a very deliberate media blackout about him. I’m guessing he had some insider knowledge about gangs, and was ratting them out to police, which is why he was never charged for his past burglaries. And the theory that he was working for prosecutors is also plausible (he may have had several roles) because they tried very hard to protect him. Mignini put in a favourable word for him at AK/RS’s trial, lamenting that he had no representation there – as if he cared that it was the same vice versa!
Apparently, one officer was eyeing AK suspiciously even when she’d only just arrived at the scene. I’m sure they knew it was Guede as soon as they’d heard about the rock thrown through the window (it was his MO), hence the “staged break-in” rumour they spread.
I have read the book. As I recall, Steve wrote and important chapter. Authors of other chapters include John Douglas and Mark Olshaker, Doug Preston, and Judge Mike Heavey who has commented a couple of times on this blog. Amanda herself has a piece in the book.
I would also add that Ron Hendry’s expert reconstructions of how Guede climbed in through the broken window and accomplished the murder are very clear and convincing. His work is available in an Amazon single and at Injustice in Perugia.
~Lenroot
Injustice in Perguia is a great website – it’s the one that convinced me of their innocence when I was new to this case. The Guilter websites all minimise the role of Guede (I’ve not seen them mention his post-murder flight from Italy) and leave out everything damning about the Italian justice system, as that’s the only way they can sway otherwise rational people into thinking AK & RS are guilty.
As far as I can tell, Guilters are not rational people. Or, at least, they don’t process information the way rational people do. Nigel Scott wrote an article on ‘Spiked’ about how AK & RS didn’t receive a fair trial, only with the Guilters to reply underneath with a list of “evidence” of guilt. Mr Scott had to make an addendum to his post, highlighting that guilt vs innocence was irrelevant to the article, and that no one had managed to refute his point that the pair did not receive a fair trial.
Injustice in Perugia did a great job in pointing all of this out.
Injustice in Perugia is very good. I don’t know where those guys get the energy. I especially admire the fact that they have moved beyond the injustice of the Knox case to the broader problem of injustice wherever it occurs. The guilters like to talk about the Knox PR effort and suggest that Knox supporters are paid. Ha ha. Where does this stupidity come from? As far as I can tell, Knox supporters are largely like me–volunteers with different skills from different walks of life. Before, Injustice in Perugia people like Charlie Wilkes, Ray Turner, and Mark Waterbury were very important, but they all appear to have moved on.
As I have said before, it very much appears to me that there is a highly skilled PR effort going on, but it is a pro-guilt campaign orchestrated out of London.
I am an admirer of Nigel Scott and he is right. The fairness of the trial is the issue now. In reality, other than the first appeal, the trials have never been about evidence.
~LM
An important question is how do you explain the massive level of corruption and misconduct which occurred in this case? Why did the prosecution have to resort to violating the rights of Amanda and Raffaele during the interrogations, suppressing evidence, manufacturing evidence and telling numerous lies? The answer is simple. The prosecution had no case or evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. The evidence which should have existed if Amanda and Raffaele killed Meredith was not there.
The prosecution had to destroy the computers of Amanda and Raffaele because had been Raffaele had been using his computer during the evening. There were pictures on Amanda’s computer of her and Meredith enjoying each other’s company which would undermine the prosecution’s case. The prosecution withheld CCTV footage because Amanda and Raffaele were not caught on CCTV. Recordings of the telephone conversations between Amanda and Raffaele were withheld because Amanda and Raffaele said nothing incriminating in their conversations. The EDFs could not be released because Stefanoni’s work was not done properly. The tapes of the interrogation could not be released because Amanda and Raffaele were mistreated.
The prosecution had to tell numerous lies and manufacture evidence because they had no genuine evidence they could use against Amanda and Raffaele.
Hi Northwalian. My working hypothesis is something like this. At the start, this was probably an instance of local corruption and incompetence. But it was soon fanned by the media into something much larger. During that first year the Supreme Court got involved, offering an absurd justification for allowing preventive detention. The upshot of all this was that when the case began to unravel, the courts could not see a good way to extricate themselves gracefully. An acquittal would have underscored the fact that important jurists had behaved stupidly. It would also most likely mean that the authorities in Perugia would have themselves to be investigated, for things like lying. And Amanda would have been entitled to a great deal of money.
The other thing we do not talk nearly enough about is the civil war going on within Italy over the future of the courts. Reformers think that the system is appalling and have used the Knox case as an example of justice gone haywire. The old, out of touch entrenched bureaucrats who run the courts are fiercely resistant to change and they are willing to see two innocent people suffer to protect their position.
~Lenroot
Very sadly so.
Do you, Lenroot, or does any of your readers have an insight as to why the issue has not gotten the support of an organization like Amnesty International? It goes well beyond Amanda and Raffele, since there is now strong evidence that the many violations of human rights the two of them have experienced are endemic and have been long-lasting. In fact, I have read in several places that the major reasons why Italy is not getting any foreign investments is that for all practical purposes, it essentially does not have a justice system worthy of this name. There is also the issue of journalists being sued and intimidated into silence, and that alone should get on the radar of Amnesty International, since freedom of the press should be a non-negotiable feature of a democracy. I remember reading (perhaps it was on this blog) that some international journalist organization had intervened; and that’s good. I just wished this kind of intervention from neutral, internationally recognized and respected organizations went further. One thing to keep in mind is that in the end, the Italians will do what is least embarrassing to them. If the case starts getting bad publicity from well respected organizations, I would think that that would help.
Hi Laurie. The Committee to Protect Journalists did get involved, and, in fact, sent a formal letter of protest to the President of Italy protesting mistreatment of some of the press. Amnesty International was aware of the case but not involved. Some of the guilders have suggested that AI’s non-involvement amounted to an endorsement of the conviction. But the organization itself has pointedly said that its non-involvement was absolutely not to be seen as an endorsement of guilt. Basically, the organization uses its limited funds to help people who do not have the financial wherewithal to defend themselves adequately and it has a more general concern with problems with the Italian courts.
~LM
The haters complain bitterly about the influence of the PR company hired by Amanda’s when in reality it is the prosecution who had very effective PR campaign. A PR campaign the Knox family can only dream about. The media has provided very effective PR for the prosecution. The prosecution used the media to spread lies. There is no outrage in the media over the misconduct which occurred in this case. How many media outlets have reported the following :-
The lies told by the prosecution
The evidence suppressed by the prosecution
The violation of the rights of Amanda and Raffaele during the interrogations
The fact Stefanoni’s lab did not have the facilities to carry out LCN DNA.
There was no blood on the knife
The media viciously attacked Amanda and Amanda was relentlessly demonised. How many in the media have asked awkward questions such as why the interrogations were not taped and why the prosecution had to resort to lying and suppressing evidence. The prosecution had mouthpieces such as Andrea Vogt in the media. For some reason who complain about the PR company hired by Amanda never mention this.
We are thinking alike. I believe the pro-guilt PR effort has been extraordinarily effective. The facts scream “innocent.” People are confused, in doubt, or hostile toward Amanda and Raffaele for a number of reasons, but one certainly is a coordinated PR campaign that involves authorities in Perugia, friendly hacks in the press, and a London-based effort that involves the Kercher family.
I did not have the highest opinion of the press going into this, but my opinion has diminished steadily the more I observe the way this case has been handled. We have a completely dichotomous situation here: either Amanda Knox and Raffaele are completely guilty or else they are completely innocent–in which case there have been grave criminal acts committed by the likes of Mignini and gravely stupid decisions made by Italy’s courts. So, which is it? You cannot duck the question–you have to choose.
Good journalists would see it as their job to help you answer the question. But there are not many good journalists around. Too many think they are doing their jobs if they just get quotes from both sides. Or they fall back on intellectually lazy formulations like “Amanda knows more than she was saying.” Every point you make is true, but too many journalists don’t want to go there for fear of appearing biased. Far better to appear judicious, wise, and above the fray, while making money off the misery of others.
But in this case the truth is biased. Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. People will come to see this in time–I am confident of that. I just hope there is not too much needless suffering between now and then.
~LM
I’ve also noticed the way journalists are trying to appear diplomatic at the expense of revealing crucial facts. I saw one on CNN last year say “in all probability, she is innocent – but they didn’t get her name from the phone book either”. They deliberately never mention anything about Rudy Guede. The more people know about this mysterious Guede, the more likely they will be to believe that AK & RS are innocent. That’s why the pair were framed in the first place. Guede was too valuable to the police, so they had to protect him by implicating a beautiful female suspect to distract journalists (RS was only implicated so that AK couldn’t use him as an alibi).
I agree Ginnhelm. CNN can be extremely annoying. They have done good work on occasion, but they quite inexplicably employ the vacuous Ms. Nadeau from time to time. She is a person upon whom everything is lost. I get the impression that is fashionable among the not-very-bright ex pats to think Amanda might be guilty. It is more a pose than a serious opinion.
~LM
Agreed about that awful Barbie Nadeau. I’ve read excerpts of her book and it’s filled with outright lies, distortions and twisted half-truths. And what is with that Alan Dershowitz on CNN? No impartial person with knowledge of Rudy Guede’s flight to Germany can honestly believe in AK & RS’s guilt, seeing as the pair had no connection to him. Either Dershowitz has been very sloppy with his research or he’s got an ulterior motive. I’m a fan of Hanlon’s razor, so I’d prefer to believe the former, but with this case there’s so much malice going on that it’s hard to know what to think.
(I’m the same person as Ginnheim btw, just posting from a different account)
Okay. The two names had the “heim” in common so I wondered about that. Nadeau exemplifies everything that is wrong with the American press. She was out of her depth to begin with, and since she had no strong critical perspective of her own, she became an easy mark for the prosecution. And when the defense stopped talking to her, she responded the way too many journalists respond–by turning vicious. Sadly, things worked out for this nit wit; she succeed in monetarizing the suffering of others. A book and movie deal and a higher profile in the media–what’s not to like?
Dershowitz is a strange character, the oddest mix of the admirable and the appalling. His early comments on the case were sensible and just but then someone or something got to him. He either read the wrong books or communicated with the wrong people and began making the stupidest mistakes imaginable. He obviously doesn’t know the case well at all and should not be communicating uninformed impressions. I suspect credible people have been communicating with him about the error of his ways. He is way to arrogant to ever admit to having been duped, but I suspect he will soften his stance, hopefully quite a bit.
~LM
Great work Lenroot. Makes my day. I am always anticipating the next instalment in this series of essays like a good book being written chapter by chapter.
Thanks!
If you haven’t stumbled across it there are some great Amanda Knox essays at hardthinking.com by Thor Klamet. A physicist and very logical.
Thanks James. I wonder if that is the blog someone emailed me the other day. I will have a look.
~LM
I just hope I wasn’t too foolish to post your very well thought out article on three ‘Amanda Knox is guilty’ fb pages. I can remove it if you think it is best, I just realized they could post hateful comments here
Thanks for posting my article on FB Jennifer. I am not good at publicity myself but if I go to the trouble of writing essays I would just as soon have as many readers as possible. Don’t worry about the haters posting here. I moderate the comments and I don’t intend to let my blog become home to a bunch of pro-guilt propaganda. If one wants to read pro-guilt sophistry there are plenty of other places to do it. I do approve the vast majority of comments, just not everything. I will say that I received a rather lengthy piece of nonsense recently; it had the intellectual quality one finds in holocaust deniers.
~LM
I saw a comment on Twitter from a Guilter this morning about how the scientific police allegedly superimposed Rudy Guede’s footprint onto the bathmat to frame him. Your phrase “intellectual quality one finds in Holocaust deniers” fits this sort of thing perfectly. The Guilter in question goes by the username ‘Machiavelli’, which I think is insulting to the philosopher. I’m sure Niccolo would at least have counselled people to lie plausibly!
It is impossible to know what the Winterbottom film will be like. The publicly shots were grotesque and I am not optimistic. Even if his prime interest lies elsewhere, the way he portrays the “truth” about the defendants is important. I imagine the Kerchers will like it to the degree that it confirms their biases. Winterbottom is a completely unknown and obscure figure here in the U.S., and I doubt the film will have much impact here, one way or the other.
As for Machiavelli (he also posts as “Yummi”) he is a nut. I remembering him going off on Masonic conspiracy theories more than once. I had not heard his claim that the Scientific Police used the bath mat print to Frame Rudy Guede. But if he is willing to admit that the print is almost certainly Guede’s, then I am with him.
~LM
It doesn’t surprise me that he went on about Masonic conspiracy theories. I’ve seen others go on about astrology, and quite a few probably believe in chemtrails and such like.
I was going to write a blog post about the psychology of the Guilters, making an inquiry into what drives them. It’s clearly not justice since none care that Guede is about to be released (in fact, I’ve seen quite a few defend him and accuse us of racism). Moonbattery, malice, sheer stupidity and reverse-racism were all on the list. But then I started having second thoughts when I realised that it wouldn’t really be feasible without mentioning names.
I know exactly who started the “AK was caught by the police with a mop” lie and he really is a prolific Guilter. Years ago, he was taken seriously by credible journalists like Nina Burleigh and she interviewed him. Reportedly, he became furious when she asked him for the source of the mop claim. I fear what repercussions I might face if I mentioned him and others in name, seeing as Guilters have gone after people IRL. Some of them are stalkerish and downright creepy. One phoned 911 to make a false claim that someone was threatening to commit suicide. Another caused a security officer at a university to lose his job. The attacks against Nina Burleigh became so vicious that she wrote an article about it.
Even as an anonymous blogger, I wouldn’t want to write anything attacking individual Guilters. So far, I’ve only sought to refute one Guilter’s claim that AK is recieving “special treatment” from the US government: http://gonzenheim.wordpress.com/2014/07/29/a-response-to-why-isnt-amanda-knox-on-the-sex-offenders-registry/
I absolutely agree that the guiltier psychology is fascinating. The only reason people anywhere think Amanda might be guilty is that skilled public relations professionals in Italy and in the UK have successfully blown smoke in the eyes of the public and distracted them from the profound lack of evidence and the manifest unfairness of the trial. It would be useful to know how to think about these heroes of injustice.
One thing I have noticed is that an awful lot of the guilters and haters come from the left hand side of the political spectrum. (The pro innocence side, on the other hand, is much more a broad cross section of society). In fact, many have suggested that the guilters in Europe are driven by a thinly veiled anti-Americanism. This is too big a subject to go into fully now, but, among the few intelligent guilters at least, their ideological commitments clearly override their critical abilities.
I would urge you to think about a blog post. Yes, the creep quotient among the guilters is exceedingly high but for the most part they are harmless little people, who troll the internet because it makes them feel powerful. You can moderate comments on your blog and, since you are apparently using a pseudonym you can keep your privacy intact. And even if they do find out your name it is generally not much to worry about. You cannot defame an anonymous ghost. In any event, I think the more we inquire into the abnormal psychology and twisted ideology of the guilters and haters the better.
Is the incident with the mop described in The Fatal Gift of Beauty? I don’t recall Burleigh it off hand.
~LM
Just a simple question : if the footprints revealed by luminol were not from blood, a point that you stress emphatically, what were they from ?
Thanks.
To begin with, we do not know whose prints they were. They might have been Amanda’s or they might not have been. We don’t know. There is, however, absolutely no question that they were not made in blood. They yielded no genetic material as blood would have done and the second test used to check the Luminol result was negative–thus no blood. Stefanoni knew this, of course, which is why she never took the sample to the lab (or so she says) to use a true confirmatory test. There was no point in doing so since all of the protocols told he the prints were not blood. So she did the best she could do lie and fudge and prevaricate.
Most likely, the prints were made in some cleaning agent. It happens all the time. That’s why you have to double check.
So basically there is nothing here. Some indeterminate person made the prints in some indeterminate substance at some indeterminate point in time. This is not evidence.
~Lenroot
To add to what Lenroot has said, Luminol is only a presumptuve test for blood. It reacts to the iron content in a variety of substances including some cleaning agents, juices and even some soil matter. A confirmative test for human blood must follow Luminol use in order to be sure. A second presumptive test, TMB, was negative, but to my knowledge a truly confirmative test was not performed.
It is worth noting that the mechanism of Luminol luminescence is still imperfectly understood and false positives are caused by a wide range of substances, including rust, soil, and plant matter as described in this review: http://chem-faculty.lsu.edu/mccarley/new/mccarley/Chemistry%202001/Articles_SP2008/Barni_Talanta_Luminol_Forensics.pdf. Curiously, the police lab technician Patrizia Stefanoni said much the same when testifying before the court in May 2009: “because there are, indeed, so many possibilities of having false positives… of earth, of rust, of something that mimics, but in a more faint way… [I]n effect it [Luminol] uses as one of the ingredients of the reaction the iron contained in hemoglobin. This is why it is easy to have false positives, because rust also has iron, also chlorophyll does not have iron, but it has a molecule that is very similar to hemoglobin that contains iron, and anyway there is another atom that, let’s say, replaces the iron in effecting this type of reaction… magnesium.”
The fact remains that Luminol produced multiple, undisputed false positives both in the Kercher-Knox and the Sollecito apartments: the no-DNA hits. Luminol glowed quite brightly in each of these spots, suggesting either a copious amount of blood or a false positive, but they yielded zero DNA – a finding hardly consistent with the presence of a large amount of blood. The only possible conclusion, therefore, is that those no-DNA hits were false positives.
As US experts on body fluid identification, Dr. Virkler and Dr. Lednev explained, “We think it is more likely that there was no blood, and that the luminol was reacting with something else…”
The experts offered plant matter as one possible cause. I would merely point out that the soil of Umbria (of which Perugia is the capital) is rich in iron and manganese. The pigment umber, a natural mixture of iron and manganese oxides and hydroxides, was originally extracted in Umbria and named after it.
Good comments Alex and Rick. What both Massei and Nencini had to say about the Luminol is purest nonsense. I have not decided whether they are ignorant or dishonest. Maybe both. You simply do not go into court and claim that a Luminol hit indicates blood without doing a confirmatory test. You simply do not do it. It is Forensics 101. I strongly suspect that Stefanoni did do a confirmatory test, but hid the result when it was negative. Given her obvious dishonesty with regard to her lab work, this suspicion is reasonable.
~Lenroot