Amanda Knox Conviction: Motivazioni della Sentenza
So far this week, we’ve been through the alleged anti-American bias and so-called media circus in the Amanda Knox murder case.
Quick recap: While it seems many (not all) Knox supporters have backed off the anti-Americanism claim, many still don’t believe the experiences of those of us who live in Italy regarding media coverage. I don’t know why I (and other Americans living in Italy who commented on the post of their own free will) would have any motivation to lie about how much average Italians followed this case in our experience, but there you have it.
My final words on that: Yes, this was a big news story when it broke — the murder of a young girl always is — and it got bigger because of the international angle, making it one of the top stories to come of out of Italy in many years (mostly because let’s be honest — the world normally doesn’t care what happens in Italy). But as far as what average Italians were talking about and paying attention to, this just wasn’t on the radar. I’m sorry if that ruins your image of our morning cappuccino chats, but it’s true.
One thing before we move on regarding comments, though: thank you to everyone who stayed on-topic and gave their viewpoints on the last post. Much appreciated. And to those who commented with obviously false email addresses, you’re spammers to me, so that’s where your comments went. Blatant disregard of my rules will also send your comment to the rubbish bin.
Moving on…
The So-Called Conviction Based on Nothing
I was in in the United States when the Knox and Sollecito verdicts were announced. Following the announcement, I watched as some American commentators trashed the entire Italian criminal justice system because an innocent American girl was railroaded and just convicted on no evidence and all of Italy should be ashamed of itself and harumph! *crosses arms in indignation*
It was a well-crafted and well-executed play on emotions, but unfortunately not entirely based in reality. There was and is evidence on which the court based its decision. In fact, the court has since written it out for everyone to read — in the 400+ pages of the “motivazioni della sentenza,” which we’ll get to in a bit.
Before I get into what is in the decision, let me lay down some disclaimers about this post:
1. My goal here is mostly to provide those who haven’t been following the case or who haven’t been privy to what is contained in the sentencing report because they don’t read Italian an idea of what the Italian court believed and on what it based Knox’s conviction. From what I’ve read, particularly in the American press, the impression has been given that Knox was convicted based on her behavior and nothing more. This post is to clarify that the factfinders had more before them than just Knox’s behavior.
2. What I am including below is my personal translation of what I consider to be the major pieces of evidence on which Amanda Knox was convicted; there is obviously *much* more to the report, including various theories as to why Knox and Sollecito acted the way they did at different times. Some of those scenarios undoubtedly weighed more heavily into the decision than others (and it’s certainly personal opinion as to whether their scenarios make sense), but I’m focusing on physical evidence and eyewitness testimony, because, again, I don’t think they have been widely reported in English-speaking media.
In other words, I’m really not writing this post for those of you who live and breathe the case, as I’m sure those of you who disagree with the decision have an argument against every piece of evidence below — which by the way is entirely normal in a criminal trial.
3. I’m not addressing the evidence against Raffaele Sollecito or the case against Rudy Guede. This is not an indication that I think either or both of them was rightfully or wrongfully convicted — I’m just not covering it here. They certainly deserve their own posts, but I’m not the one to write them, at least not now.
4. This post will present what the judges wrote. Period. Whether or not you agree with the findings of the court is another matter entirely, and something many of you touched on in your comments throughout the week. You’re likely to get into that again in comments, but I’m not going to be commenting on it.
5. Whether or not I personally would have made the same findings of fact as the court did, I can’t say. In fact, I can’t know because I haven’t read the trial transcripts or have any indication of what witnesses sounded like, etc. I’m sorry I won’t take for granted what “journalists” have written about what went on in court. I just don’t trust either “side” with that information.
6. Even taking as true every finding of fact by this court, whether or not I personally would have voted to convict Amanda Knox based on the evidence the court accepted is not in discussion — and this is closely related to the previous point.
Without having access to trial records and transcripts, I simply don’t feel like I can make an adequate judgment about what I would have done in their shoes. I could, with transcripts and previous motions and all that fun stuff, take a position on what I’d find on appeal — but I don’t have them, so I won’t.
Once upon a time, I used to be an appellate law clerk who reviewed trial court decisions in order to offer my thoughts to the judge under whom I worked, and trust me, the trial court’s opinion was *never* enough to go by. Related to this point, remember in your reading of my very brief summary of the motivazioni, what the report is: it is the trial court defending its decision. It doesn’t necessarily mean the judges are right, and although the court has balanced the evidence, the way it presents is findings is partial to the way the judges believed things happened — entirely normal.
7. The motivazioni della sentenza isn’t officially translated into English yet, but keep an eye out on my Facebook page and Twitter, and I’ll let you know if/when it’s released. In the meantime, if anyone wants a copy of the report in Italian, you can download it here (this is a tip from a reader; I have not downloaded from there and can’t find where I did get it from. If you want a copy from me, just be in touch). If I have messed up any page numbers, please let me know as well; I just haven’t had the time to triple- and quadruple-check things like I would like.
Now, the motivazioni.
The Alibi
The court didn’t believe Knox and Sollecito’s joint alibi; as most of you probably know, both changed their stories on some points, but the important parts of the alibi include the following: they watched a movie on the computer, had a late dinner (even as late as 11 p.m.), were at Sollecito’s apartment the entire evening of the murder, and slept in until about 10 a.m. the following morning.
The court found the following evidence credible:
- Sollecito’s father called him at 8:42 p.m. the evening of the murder, and at that point a water pipe under the sink was already broken while the dishes were being washed; the court concludes this means they had already eaten dinner and were washing up at that time, debunking the “late dinner” contention (p. 69).
- Sollecito’s computer was last used at 9:10 p.m. meaning that there is no further proof that the couple was in Sollecito’s apartment after that time (p. 68).
- An eyewitness testified he saw the couple outside near a basketball court at around 9:30 p.m. until sometime around 11 or 11:30 p.m., but they were gone by midnight (pp. 69-71).
- Computer data shows that Sollecito’s computer was turned on at 5:32 a.m. and music was played for about a half hour (p. 73).
- Sollecito’s cell phone was turned on at 6:02 a.m. at which time he received an SMS that his father had sent the previous evening at 11:14 p.m. (p. 73).
- An eyewitness identified a girl who matched Knox’s description as waiting outside of his “generi alimentari” store (sells everything from food to cleaning and personal hygiene products) to open at 7:45 a.m. the following morning; he didn’t remember what, if anything, this girl bought, but he did say he saw her headed in the direction of where Knox and Kercher lived (pp. 74-75).
- Sollecito’s father called and spoke to Sollecito at 9:30 a.m.; this phone call was never mentioned by Knox in her statements, which the court concluded to mean she didn’t know about the call because she wasn’t in Sollecito’s apartment at the time (p. 74).
Based on this evidence accepted by the court, they found that neither Knox nor Sollecito were truthful about their whereabouts the evening of the murder and the morning after.
The Forensics
The court turned to forensics, and accepted the following into evidence:
- Three separate samples found in the small bathroom that showed Kercher’s and Knox’s DNA mixed, all that tested positive for human blood (pp. 198, 204); these were located in a sink, around the drain of a bidet, and on a Q-tip container on the sink. Two experts maintained that the stains in the sink and bidet appeared to be diluted blood and made of a single trace based on their shape (rising and falling together) (pp. 301-02).
- Several samples taken from the small bathroom showed Kercher’s blood not mixed with anyone else’s DNA matter (pp. 198, 204); one of them was on the light switch and another on a bathmat, which the court concluded meant someone entered the bathroom with Kercher’s blood on him or her (p. 300).
- A sample that showed a genetic profile mix of Knox and Kercher in the bedroom of one of the Italian roommates (p. 200) — the room that also had a broken window.
- Also in the Italian roommate’s room, a footprint uncovered with luminol toward the entrance of the room that resulted in a genetic profile of Knox and Kercher mixed (pp. 205-06).
- A footprint in the hallway leading out of the Italian roommate’s room that had been uncovered by luminol with the genetic profile of Knox (p. 206).
- In sum: 10 samples in the house that included Knox’s DNA; five that were mixed with Kercher’s (three of which tested positive for human blood), but none in the room where Kercher’s body was found (p. 221).
- A 31 cm knife recovered at Sollecito’s apartment that was shown to have Knox’s genetic material on the handle and Kercher’s genetic material on the blade (p. 201-03), although Kercher had never been to Sollecito’s apartment (p. 313). The court explicitly refuted any contamination could have happened (pp. 282-84; pp. 308-12).
- The court found that this knife was compatible with the fatal wound to Kercher (p. 313).
As I said, the court went through many, many other things in the sentencing report (as you might imagine with over 400 pages of material), but to me, these were the most damning for Knox — and again, my going through this evidence isn’t intended to support the prosecution’s case or the convictions but only to make clear that there was physical evidence and eyewitness testimony in front of the judges.
I simply can’t tell you from reading the report how strong the evidence was, how convincing the eyewitnesses were, etc. I can’t say if the court got the decision right, half-right, three-quarters wrong, or totally blew it. Again, to be perfectly clear, my point in sharing this information is to show people who haven’t seen this before what evidence the court had before it and on which it based its decision.
The defense challenged all the evidence and attempted to poke holes in the prosecution’s case as best it could, but at the end of the trial, the judges and jury didn’t believe their side — and in the report, the judges do explain why they didn’t buy the defense’s arguments along the way.
I’m sorry, I know that’s a really general statement, but there’s just so much in there, it’s impossible to go through it all here; I will say that in my opinion, whether I agree with its analysis or not, the court did an excellent job of covering its bases, so to speak, and didn’t give off any of the vehemence or anger one might have expected judging from claims that the Italian criminal justice system just had it out for this girl. The opinion, IMHO, was rather sober indeed.
And so, to bring this week to a close, the court in the Amanda Knox trial (Part I) formed a decision, and it *was* based on evidence — despite Mignini’s wild imagination and seriously crazy theories, a lot of which were implicitly if not explicitly discounted in the motivazioni. And as I wrote before, if you have problems with what the judges believed, that’s entirely another issue, and it will be dealt with on appeal.
*
Some final thoughts: We all know that miscarriages of justice happen all over the world, so if one happened here — regarding any of those convicted — I imagine we all hope it gets fixed on appeal. I always root for justice, and I keep hoping we just may find out the full truth of what happened that night in Perugia directly from whoever was involved.
The only thing I know for certain regarding this case is that my heart breaks for the Kercher family and friends. I can’t begin to imagine what they have gone through and will continue to go through with each passing birthday, holiday, and every single ordinary day in which they don’t get to see their daughter, sister, or friend laugh, smile, and simply be.
May Meredith rest in peace, and may her family and friends find comfort in their memories.
—————
As many previous commenters have mentioned, if you’re interested in another American perspective on the case that differs greatly from Candace Dempsey’s Murder in Italy, check out Angel Face: The True Story of Student Killer Amanda Knox by Barbara Latza Nadeau, a journalist based in Rome. I haven’t read this book, so I can’t give my personal review, but I think you can already get a feel for the tone based on the word “killer” in the title. UPDATED: I did read and do a short review of this book on the Bleeding Espresso Facebook page.
[PHOTO CREDITS via Creative Commons licenses: Perugia Corte d’Appello by B.Roveran on Flickr; Perugia by B.Roveran on Flickr; Perugia by B.Roveran on Flickr; Perugia by B.Roveran on Flickr]
68 Beans of Wisdom to “Amanda Knox Conviction: Motivazioni della Sentenza”
Recipes
Thanks for posting this Michelle.
I would just like to say that from my perspective (which is of course, just that, MY perspective from my experience), I lived in Italy in 2007 when the murders took place, witnessed that media coverage living in Rome and Trieste, then again from 2008-2009 I was in Italy, living mostly in Torino, witnessing the trial and ultimately the verdicts. With that said, everywhere I was in Italy from 2007- 2009 I experienced diffuse low quality and sensationalist media coverage of the Knox/Sollecito trial everywhere I went. Okay, that happens with many high profile cases, everywhere in the Western world, but it still makes me feel extremely worried about how it affects the possibility of justice and a fair trial.
I experienced many, many people talking about the case quite frequently. Maybe many people approached me for my opinion, many times if not most of the times because I am American- regardless, almost every single Italian that I spoke with or who approached me (and I mean 95%) said immediately “she’s guilty” and then blamed Knox for Sollecito’s behavior. Then, when my response to repetitive question posed, “do you think she is guilty?” was always “how would i know?”- well, I left more than one person a bit annoyed.
With that said, I didn’t see the evidence, I haven’t read the report, I did read your very interesting summary and thank you for that- I have NO idea, just like everyone else except for the people that witnessed the events that night, who committed the crime- but I do feel that the media coverage certainly did cast some seriously doubts in my mind as to whether the accused received a fair trial.
Last, as you know I had my own experiences with the Italian justice system (my Sicilian ex-husband decided to go ahead with his honor revenge…save that story for a private message), and so of course I am not unbiased in my opinion of the Italian justice system. We can chat on that in private messages.
In summary, thanks for your post, I do appreciate the way you’ve conveyed parts of the report, especially for those of us who have only been bombarded with sensationalism up to this point!
Thanks for sharing your experiences, Jennifer 🙂 I believe when you were here you also worked in a law-related field? Yes, people don’t seem to like the answer, “I just don’t know,” do they? And that’s no matter which “side” they’re on, in my experience. I had no idea about the extent of your, let’s say, Italian justice system “experience” here 🙁
Thanks for your coverage of this issue this week, Michelle. It has been interesting to read both what you have presented and all the commenters remarks. In the end, as you say, the tragedy is that Meredith was killed. Beyond that, it’s all just discussion.
Thanks for reading Saretta 🙂
Thanks for the article, Michelle. I wish you would consider a part II, the defense challenging the evidence and why it was not accepted. I think that would make the most interesting read.
Thanks Sally; I think it would make for an interesting read too, but (1) I don’t have the time (or energy after this week!); and (2) I don’t think that side of things has been *as* underrepresented in the American media, which was really my point in publishing these three posts. But yes, the details regarding the testing, evidence collection, etc., are all fascinating…and perhaps by the time the appeals roll around I’ll be more inclined to write about this again 🙂
Michelle,
I have been following your very important, stimulating and controversial posts on this topic, and I have to applaud you. Your coverage was interesting and comprehensive, as well as all the comments which painted a captivating overseas point of view.
I have to agree with you, unfortunately the one sure thing is Meredith’s death. Violent, mysterious, tainted by the sex scandal… it’s always a death, and those poor parents have to mourn her through this carnival. Hopefully justice will bring them some sort of solace, in the end.
Ciao
Eleonora
Thank you for reading, Ele 🙂
Thank you for providing us with your Brilliant review of this case! Reading Today’s post almost brought me back to my work in utility regulation. Make believe that you are in the USA and give yourself a three day weekend – please!
Haha I’m working hard today to make that happen, Gil, believe me… 😉
Thanks Michelle for taking to time to write about the case this week.
I don’t remember reading anything about the computer issues in the American press.
The two things that really bothered me about the Knox case were the alibi inconsistencies and her accusing an innocent man of murder.
Those are the main reasons I couldn’t get behind the “poor, sweet American girl being railroaded by evil Italians” narrative.
We’ll see what happens during their appeals. If they can’t get their stories right about where they were that night, I don’t think the sentences will be overturned. It’s not hard to find out when a computer was last turned on.
I think those are things that bothered many of us, especially the pointing of a finger at an innocent man. Appeals will certainly be interesting to follow for those of us who are watching.
Nicely summarised Michelle 🙂
Just to comment on this point you made:
“I will say that in my opinion, whether I agree with its analysis or not, the court did an excellent job of covering its bases, so to speak, and didn’t give off any of the vehemence or anger one might have expected judging from claims that the Italian criminal justice system just had it out for this girl. The opinion, IMHO, was rather sober indeed.”
Indeed. In fact, when the judges returned to the court room to announce their verdict, all of the female judges were in tears. They took no pleasure in their verdict and there was certainly no desire to ‘get Knox’ by the Italian court. And as you say, whether one agrees with the evidence and reasoning provided by the judges or not, there was nothing emotive about it, rather it was based on the evidence and facts as they saw them.
I hadn’t heard that, Michael. I have to admit I’ve read some emotive court opinions in my life, and I was expecting one here. I was actually quite shocked with its, I don’t know, plainness. Extremely damning pieces of evidence were just dropped in, mentioned, and then moved on from — I actually had to go back and read some of them again because I was thinking, “Wait, did that just say what I think it said and yet it’s almost hidden in there?” Really interesting (well most of it) 😉
Can I thank you for your very clear statement of the issues as you see them. I have found it very helpful to read what seems to be an unbiased view of what has happened. I happen to be one of those people who are convinced that the original trial got its verdict wrong but it is very helpful to have analysed so clearly why the court came to its conclusion without the layers of extreme emotion that seem to characterise much of what has been written.
Thank you, Michael; I tried very hard to present what I took away from the motivazioni as clear-headed as possible, and I do thank you for reading as well 🙂
Thanks for the translation of part of motivazioni. It was nice to read straight facts from the trial. There were a couple of facts I had not heard before in any of the coverage on either side.
It certainly would be nice if someday the truth came out, especially for Meredith’s family. The tragedy as you stated really is the loss of Meredith. It was heartbreaking watching her family at parts of the trial as well as other coverage on the news. I hope someday her family and friends can find some peace in all of this.
Have a nice weekend!
Thanks for reading, and you have a buon weekend too!
Michelle- It is late here in New York and I was just about to go to sleep when I spotted your motivation report blog- I won’t do this now as I would not be at my best and you’ll just get mad at me and send me to my room 🙂 So after sleep I will attack- nicely of course. I did not read much of what you wrote above so this is blind. I will make a complete post after I have read all you said above. But for now I will say this. I have not read the entire motivation report but the parts I have read and the commentaries are almost all negative against the report. My personal opinion is – what does it really matter what the judge who found Knox guilty has to say as it is merely in defense of their verdict of guilty. I mean what would you expect them to say “Well after reading the newspapers about Knox for year we came into that courtroom completely unimpressed with what we were exposed to and just based our verdict on what was presented in the courtroom”. As you are aware and this is nothing against you and please realize when the Knox supporters descend that they will have their points. Some people would simply say “Who gives a rats a^^ about what the judge says in defense of his conviction”. I think it is important to a degree as to what the jury ‘says’ their thinking was- however that does not mean that it is really what they thought. As I said, I did not even read much of what you wrote above so I will come back all rested up and with my wings and sword sharpened and respond in a much more informed way. Don’t get all frazzled out in the meantime when others post. So goodnight mama I will be back when I read all of what you wrote and respond in my own ‘gentle as a puppy dog’ way. Personally I think it is great of you to provide the report to those who have never read it- That provides a great opportunity. You have done a great job on this and I think many people are grateful to you for it. Will post tonight- your time.
OK so I read the first three lines of your comment and when I saw you haven’t read my post yet, I stopped reading…so I’ll wait for your real comment after you’ve read what I’ve written and respond to that, OK? 😉
Thanks, Michelle!
This reminds me of deliberation during one of my times on the jury the caveat “False in one, false in all”. That is, if the jury finds that any one statement by a witness or defendant to be false, the jury may then assume that the entire testimony is false and can reject their statements entirely. This relieves the jury of having to make difficult decision as to which parts of the testimony were false and which statements were true for any one particular individual.
It is just my opinions, of course, but I wouldn’t be surprised if that happened here as well… after all, Knox did have to admit that she had smoked illegal drugs the night of the crime, so the jury might have given that some consideration.
At the end of the day, I think Knox will be remembered more as the poster child for how drugs destroy lives. I too, hope that there is some kind of happy ending here, but I don’t see it.
Grazie,
~Il Zio
I do agree with you regarding credibility; if I were on a jury and I saw cracks in an alibi especially, I’d definitely start to wonder what was believable at all from that defendant. We don’t know for sure how this played to the factfinders in this case, but I’m with you in that it wouldn’t surprise me to find out it played a major part of their decision (not saying I’d have believed all the evidence that points to a faulty alibi, though) 😉
Good summary.
Following on from your articles this week leaves one particular thing that I find difficult is to grasp. That all 3 people actually carried out the murder. As you state above, there much evidence (strong or not) to show she was there, and she has changed her story (pressured or not). So even if she was there, at the time of the murder, and involved in some part of the murder, it is still a leap of faith to convict her of Murder One, as it were. Ignore me if this has been dealt with already, but accessory before the fact, after the fact, accessory to the murder etc etc would have been what the evidence actually seems to show. The Murder conviction was based on evidence she was there at the time – seems strong – but if 3 people are at the scene of a crime, and it can’t be established who did it (and their stories don’t define who did it) can they all be convicted of the same crime anyway – maybe this is a legal point I am missing.
I think Keith answers your question a bit — the court linked Knox to the murder weapon via DNA, so in this case it’s not an issue regarding not being able to pinpoint who they believe did it; in general, though, regarding other cases, I don’t know the answer to your question 🙂
keith,
but if 3 people are at the scene of a crime, and it can’t be established who did it (and their stories don’t define who did it) can they all be convicted of the same crime anyway
I actually had this exact same question … from what I understand from the judge’s sentencing report (not the motivationi), all three suspects (Knox, Sollecito & Guede) are considered to have committed the crime as a group. That is, if one is guilty, then all three are guilty, and if one is found not guilty, the other two would be released and this case moves to the unsolved crimes bin…
If I understand that correctly, that would go a long way in explaining Guede’s decision to take the fast track conviction: if the K & S trial resulted in a not guilty verdict, he would also be released as well, and if K & S were found guilty, he would have a better deal in place. For all their bluster, arrogance, drama and pomposity, defense attorneys are practical and can usually read the writing on the wall; they know the judicial system; they can tell where the evidence is likely to take them, and they know when it is time to deal!
I’m still trying to find out if my understanding is correct, but it might answer both of our questions!
~Il Zio
Hi Keith,
The judges concluded after reading the medical reports that two knives caused the wounds on Meredith’s neck. They attributed the 4cm wound to Sollecito because he was known to carry a small knife with a 4cm blade and the deep puncture wound was attributed to Amanda Knox because it was compatible with the double DNA knife. Judge Massei believes that the presence and the position of Knox’s DNA on the handle of the knife indicate that she inflicted the largest wound.
Judge Borsini and Judge Belardi, who presided over Rudy Guede’s appeal, also believe that Knox and Sollecito stabbed Meredith. They independently came to the same conclusion as Judge Massei and Judge Cristiani after looking at the evidence.
The judges’ sentencing report will be published in English in mid-July.
Just out of curiosity Michelle, and in response to Keith’s post, do you know if Italian law allows for something like the Felony Murder Rule in US law?
Don’t know, Mary. It doesn’t seem so since it hasn’t been mentioned (I don’t think!), but that’s a 100% guess 😉
The motivations has the term DNA almost 400 times in the 400+ pages of the report.
In contrast Candace Dempsy’s book doesn’t talk about DNA until over 250 pages into her 352 page book.
Well, in Candace’s defense since she’s not here to defend herself: (1) Her book starts at the beginning of the story and builds, so there wouldn’t be a whole lot of DNA mentioned until at least the murder happens in the book; and (2) The motivazioni wasn’t out yet when Candace’s book went to print, so she couldn’t have discussed the court’s findings.
In any event, I agree with you that DNA did play a major role in this case, and it would be interesting (for me) to read something that really analyzes the DNA evidence in an unbiased way. Thanks for coming by!
Michelle, thank-you for taking this topic on. I really admire your courtesy, good humor, and professionalism in commenting on your readers’ “Two Beans”. I wonder if you had any clue as to what you were getting your blog into when decided to weigh in on Candace Dempsey’s book, and debunking the Anti-American bias theory?! In any case, outstanding job.
Thank you for your kind words, Rebekah 🙂 I sorta had a clue, which is why I decided to write on extremely specific aspects of the case — but at the same time, nope, was not ready. I like harmony (I’m a Libra!) so I’ll be more than happy to go back to writing about olive trees and goats for a while 😉
Uncle655321, you say, ” if the jury finds that any one statement by a witness or defendant to be false, the jury may then assume that the entire testimony is false and can reject their statements entirely.” Using that theory wouldn’t you assume that the confession that Knox gave was false? After all, she did confess to being in the apartment with someone that didn’t commit the murder. Also using that thinking, if the prosecutor gave any false statements or information, then couldn’t everything he told and presented to the jury be false?
Anyone know why Sollecito and Knox where tried together? Was that the prosecutions idea, the defenses, or Italian law? I mean if you look at the evidence for each one separately, the evidence is even worse. Also was there ever any mention of Knox and Sollecito’s DNA being mixed at the scene? I hear about Kerchers and Knoxs, but what about Knox’s and Sollecito’s. Also what about Kerchers and Sollecito’s. Was there any DNA under her finger nails?
Also, just for you Harry, Guede was known to carry a knife and he had a knife cut on one of his fingers.
You’re testing me with this Guede stuff, aren’t you? You’re lucky I’m in a better mood today 😉
Thank you for posting a summary of the motivazioni. The entire Italian text is to find on http://www.docstoc.com/profile/rosemontague. You have mentioned the difficulties without having access to trial records and transcripts, one of some disadvantages of Italian justice system. Only the motivazioni have been published. Therefore Italians “trust” these informations. I think there is a big desire in Italian to trust at least one public body.
Additional I would recommend to complement the motivation with the two Italian texts of the appeals both of Ms. Knox as well of Sig. Sollecito, available since a few days on the same website cited above. Of course in favour of the defendants, but nevertheless a useful further source about evidence, witnesses etc.
But in your summary I miss at least something about the plot, the script, the “carrying a big kitchen knife through the town”, the “sex game gone wrong”, “random violence” under the influence of hashish (?!), the knife stabbing girl.
In a certain way the prosecution’s character assassination is more plausible to assign such a crime to otherwise smart and well educated students, what they are confirmed by the verdict.
Since the very beginning every story including Ms. Knox or Sig. Sollecito was absurd. In the light of probability or legal principles such as “in dubio pro reo” the motivazioni smell “guilty at all costs”.
I am neither American nor Italian or British, but I am European and I am wondering that this is possible within the EU.
Thanks for the link; I have added it to the post. Someone else in the comments this week included links to the appeal docs as well. I just don’t have the time to go through them right now, but thank you for that as well.
Regarding my not mentioning the theories, as I said in the post, I focused on aspects of the opinion that I feel have been underrepresented in English speaking media, but that is, of course, entirely subjective.
Thank you for reading and commenting!
A very good article, but it doesn’t change anything at my http://freeamanda.livejournal.com
I’ll let you in with this blatant plug, Harry; I’m feeling generous 🙂
Michelle,
Another great job. Extra kudos for the end sentence and for remembering the victim and her family and friends. Meredith Kercher will not be erased, PR firm or no PR firm.
Thanks.
Reading the motivazioni, I couldn’t get Meredith’s smiling face out of my head. To be honest, I was also thinking a lot about the other young lives involved too, but Meredith’s death…just imagining her loved ones reading the “vittima” and talking about her DNA this and that. Really left me nauseated, to tell you the truth. I’m glad there weren’t photos 🙁
Ms Fabio, have you visited injusticeinperugia.org? If you not bias then you owe it to yourself to review the information on this site before you form an opinion.
I would like for the judges to explain why there isn’t evidence that puts Amanda or Raffaele in Meredith’s bedroom where she was killed.
I would like to know why they think a narrow blade can’t be used to slash and make a larger wound. Is slashing not allowed when murdering someone or did Guede not know how to slash?
I would like to know who’s semen is on the pillow that was found between Meredith’s legs?
I would like to know why Harry Rag thinks we don’t care about Meredith and why we favor Amanda and Raffaele when we are not acquainted with them in any way and we are not paid? Also why did the judges not conclude there were three knives because there was three people accused? Was Guede an innocent bystander although the evidence he left was the only evidence of anyone in her room, touching her and raping her? How does it happen that only one of three people leaves evidence but it was the other two that committed the crime? Somehow that doesn’t seem logical although I am Italian.
Meredith’s and Amanda’s blood was found in the bidet. I’ll have to admit this is strange for two girls that already went through menopause. That is very incriminating ;)) and very stupid.
At this moment there are dishes in my sink at I haven’t ate supper however it’s likely I wont wash them unless I need them. I may eat out today. Not sure as of now. What would be a good time for me to wash my dishes so I don’t get accused of murder?
A technician from the phone company testified that the phone company has no way of knowing when a phone is turned off or on. The crime lab only looked at phone records for Oct 31, and Nov 1-2, so they have no way of knowing if a text message from Raffaele’s father arrived late in the past.
The crime lab destroyed the hard drives so no one can challenge that evidence, so if I was the judge I would not allow it as evidence.
Raffaele got a call from his father at 9:24 am on Nov 2 which lasted ~4 minutes and Amanda didn’t mention it. Did they ask her? Was she still sleeping when Raffaele got the call? Was she in the toilet? If she wasn’t there then where is the proof of where she was?
A male clerk said he saw Amanda in the store during the morning of Nov 2 and a female clerk said Amanda was not in the store that morning. Is it naturally assumed women lie and men don’t? Also the male clerk initially told the police he did not see Amanda at the store so which time did he lie?
I would like to know why it would be considered strange to find Amanda’s DNA in various locations in the apartment where she lived? It is obvious her DNA would be on surfaces in the bathroom she used every day and when Guede got blood on the surfaces it mixed with Amanda’s DNA.
Please go to injusticeinperugia.org and look at what retired FBI investigator Steve Moore had to say about the DNA and the crime scene. He is more than qualified to discuss the topic.
Why did the postal police officers totally black out the log entries that said when the second phone found was delivered to the postal police post and gave the time the officers left for the apartment?
The police said they called the officers that were on their way to the girl’s apartment to tell them about the second phone found but they did not know what time they made the call. Why did they not look at their phone records or the phone memory to determine the time they made the call?
In judge’s report he referred to a phone call made at 11:50 am and concluded the police knew of the second phone found at 12:07 pm as it was ringing because Amanda was calling Meredith the first time. The judge concluded the daughter that found the phone at 12:07 pm, phoned her mother at 11:50 am to tell her about the phone and the mother was still at the postal police post, when the mother was actually shopping when the daughter called her at 12:11 pm as the phone was ringing the second time, because Amanda was calling Meredith for the third time ( Amanda’s 2 nd call to Meredith was to her vodafone).
Why was the know parking garage CCTV cam timer error not factored in the judge’s report to determine what time the postal police arrived at the apartment? They say they arrived at the apartment at 12:35 but we have proof the cam timer was approximately 10 minutes slow and the car actually went on down the street past the apartment drive way and the officers got out on foot to find the apartment and we have photos of them approaching the apartment drive way on foot after Raffaele called the police emergency number. Why all the lies and deception?
etc. etc. etc.
Actually I don’t intend on “forming an opinion” at all; as I’ve stated all week, my intention in writing these posts is to give a clearer picture of the atmosphere in Italy as an American living here (the first two posts) and to stop the claims of “no evidence!” as it’s not true. As I said in the post, if you want to argue flimsy evidence, that’s certainly your right and anyone else’s. I find the case fascinating, but I don’t plan on spending any more time on it at this pont.
In sum: 10 samples in the house that included Knox’s DNA; five that were mixed with Kercher’s (three of which tested positive for human blood), but none in the room where Kercher’s body was found (p. 221).
———–
NONE in the room where Kercher’s body was found. That says it all. In a murder of this nature, it would be impossible to NOT leave traces of DNA where the murder occurred. It is also impossible to selectively clean up DNA.
I am quick to say sometimes that Amanda & Rafaelle were convicted on no evidence. The truth is they were convicted on no CREDIBLE evidence.
I also had a red flag go up about the lack of DNA evidence in the room Kercher’s body was found — I don’t know how possible or impossible it is to not leave DNA, but I also don’t know what that means in the grand scheme of the case either (as I stated, did the court get it all right, half-right, etc.)?
Michelle,
I hope in the future you will do a similar list for the Appeals of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. I’m sure there are also many people who do not know the reasons the defense team will use in the Appeals.
“I couldn’t get Meredith’s smiling face out of my head. To be honest, I was also thinking a lot about the other young lives involved too”
I thank you for not falling into the trap that many present to supporters that if they believe people were wrongfully convicted they somehow do not think the Meredith’s death is horrible. Amanda Knox may not be dead, but if she is innocent ( I think she is ) than a life spent in jail is also horrible.
Well, remember Knox isn’t facing LIFE in prison — personally I’d take being alive with a chance of getting out of prison even in 25 years over dead, but that’s just me. I don’t plan on going through their appeals as presenting this case from start to finish was never my intention. I had very specific objectives in even writing anything about this case, and at this point, I’ve accomplished those. It has nothing to do with whether I think they have strong or weak appeals. In fact, I really don’t know, but I also don’t have any plans to read them right now. As I’ve stated elsewhere, perhaps when the time gets closer to the appeals I’ll be more inclined.
Great information. I appreciate being able to read views about this case that are straight forward. I Lived in Tuscany for three years in the 1980s and have always believed the best about Italy and its people. Simply put – I loved it! Now, as a private investigator in America, I am greatly torn and perplexed by this case. It tuggs hard at me, and getting a better understanding is a most difficult task from my perch. Thanks a million. Please update this situation as often as you can.
Thanks for reading and commenting, James; I’m sorry to say I don’t have plans of delving any deeper into this right now, but chances are I’ll mention little things that come up here and there on my Twitter/FB and *maybe* write about the appeals as they come up.
Has anyone that has read the report found Sollecito’s DNA mentioned anywhere other than the bra clasp? Because if thats the only DNA, then there are 5 other unidentified people that are guilty of murder also. Did they ever compare any of the unidentified samples to that man in prison? A quick dna test would tell you if any of the unidentified samples had dna markers that matched.
Thank you for your persective. Like I said before, I have been very interested in what you had to say from your American Living In Italy who also is an Attorney persective.
I have always felt horrible for Merideth’s family. I mean that is the worst phone call any parent can get. Especially when your child is in another country.
I have my personal opinions on the trial which I only talk about with my mom and my husband because like religon and politics it’s a hot button that I consider off limits. 🙂
Thank you again. Looking forward to more about the goats and recipes.
Much more goats and recipes to come (although goats mostly at Goat Berries 😉
Thank you for translating and summarizing the motivation report. I’ve been waiting for a translation. I appreciate your legal expertise in the matter as well as your objectivity. You are very brave to take on this topic while trying to remain neutral. I admire that, though I’m sure its been an exhausting week. Have a great 4th of July weekend!
Thanks for reading 🙂
Thank you so much for presenting the information in a clear manner. I really didn’t have a clear grasp on the evidence that had been considered. I really only knew what had been presented on the coverage on US news-which of course, is not always the complete story.
Indeed, and of course the flip side to the motivations is that there is a challenge to every piece of evidence. And so we’ll find out even more on appeal.
From the Motivations Report:
1) An eyewitness identified a girl who matched Knox’s description as waiting outside of his “generi alimentari” store (sells everything from food to cleaning and personal hygiene products) to open at 7:45 a.m. the following morning; he didn’t remember what, if anything, this girl bought, but he did say he saw her headed in the direction of where Knox and Kercher lived (pp. 74-75).
.
.
2) An eyewitness testified he saw the couple outside near a basketball court at around 9:30 p.m. until sometime around 11 or 11:30 p.m., but they were gone by midnight (pp. 69-71).
________________________
*That would be Marco Quintavalle, the store owner. On two different occasions during November of 2007 (including Nov. 16, 2007, when questioned by Inspector Orestes Volturno who testified in court), Quintavalle told police investigators that Amanda Knox had not been in his store early on the 2nd of November, 2007. Quintavalle’s employees also stated to the investigators that Amanda Knox had not been at the store that morning. One year later, Quintavalle experienced a miraculous memory recall whereby he envisioned that Amanda Knox was in his store early on the morning of Nov. 2, 2007. Quintavalle also had a nice TV interview after his announcement to the media. Additionally, Marina Chiriboga (Quintavalle’s employee) testified in court that Amanda Knox was not in the store that morning?
Wonder what Judge Massei’s agenda was when he believed Quintavalle’s testimony after his failing memory was restored?
*The other witness, Antonio Curatolo (who like Quintavalle came forward a year after the murder) is a homeless man who claims to have seen Knox/Sollecito observing the house where the murder took place for a period of time which actually would have made it impossible for them to have committed the crime. This time range expressed by Curatolo varies considerably–there is a reason why he has been homeless for quite some time.
With these two less than creditable witnesses, no motive, and no evidence of presence in the bloody bedroom, one has to wonder how the court convicted Knox and Sollecito.
Also, the first bean by Jennifer Hilton needs to be reread by everyone.
I personally think everyone should read all comments, but then I’m biased on that 😉 I do advise you, though, to go read Jennifer’s comment on the media circus post, I think it is?
Lilome,
You wrote:
“NONE in the room where Kercher’s body was found. That says it all. In a murder of this nature, it would be impossible to NOT leave traces of DNA where the murder occurred. It is also impossible to selectively clean up DNA.”
There were 47 separate wounds on Meredith’s body. How is it possible there wasn’t any DNA of her attackers on the outside of her body?
Rudy Guede’s DNA was found on a vaginal swab. There were no other instances of his DNA anywhere else on Meredith’s body.
Someone strangled Meredith with such force that they broke her hyoid bone and yet they didn’t leave any of their DNA on Meredith’s neck.
Knox and/or Sollecito didn’t selectively clean up because there was an abundant amount of Sollecito’s DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp.
According to Professor Vinci, Amanda Knox’s DNA was also on Meredith’s bra.
If Amanda Knox’s role in Meredith’s murder was limited to stabbing Meredith whilst Guede and Sollecito restrained her, why would there have been any of Knox’s DNA in Meredith’s room?
Quick comment on this statement. – A 31 cm knife recovered at Sollecito’s apartment that was shown to have Knox’s genetic material on the handle and Kercher’s genetic material on the blade (p. 201-03), although Kercher had never been to Sollecito’s apartment (p. 313). The court explicitly refuted any contamination could have happened (pp. 282-84; pp. 308-12) –
Now I’m sure we will all get a better idea on the 2nd trial about the knife. However, there are a bunch of interesting articles on LCN on the internet.
Im gonna try and get away with a link. Here is an article that will show you how sensitive Low copy DNA testing is. http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/0,1518,615608,00.html
Another example of how sensitive LCN. You could come over to my home. Sit on my sofa. Go home and grab a fork out of your utensil drawer, and transfer both our DNA to other items in the drawer. They would also be able to tell you sat on my sofa, if they checked it. The purpose of LCN is to locate DNA profiles of people that are not suppose to be somewhere. If you know that 2 people have come in contact, then you know LCN transference will occur.
From what I’ve read the use of LCN isn’t exactly clearcut either, i.e., whether it’s useful, reliable, etc. one way or the other.
I have read a great deal about this case and then walked away because I have a life that I rather like, and found both the pro- and anti-Amanda zealots were troubling to be around. There is stacks of evidence, but none of it by itself is clear enough for the absolute certainties expressed by so many about exactly what happened that night.
I really mean it, BOTH sides make such absolute statements. “It would be impossible for this” and “it’s obvious based on the evidence that that..”. It makes my head and my heart hurt.
My only strong impression at the end of it all is that together, the three imprisoned murderers know far more about what happened than they are saying, and that if any one of them was completely innocent of ANY involvement, they would have given a full account by now. The only possible reason for the obfuscation and vagueness from all three is that they think the truth would hurt them more than where they are now.
I believe that Amanda Knox’s family have unwittingly put her in a situation where she cannot tell the truth even if she wants to, even if she wasn’t the murderer but participated in a lesser way, by their stance of complete innocence and denial, ignoring and discounting all the uncomfortable evidence and spending their life savings on PR in the USA. They have committed themselves to the “innocent honors student” too much for Amanada to say “well, actually mom…I didn’t actually stab Meredith but this is what happened…”. What does Amanda have left but the love and support of her family?
It’s so sad, all around. They’re all so young.
The absolutes in both directions turn me off too; I completely get where you’re coming from, Jane. Thank you for reading and commenting.
My opinions follow: You will not find a complete or completely true story anywhere and it’s difficult to put faith in news articles because they repeated lies from unreliable sources and in some cases fabricated their own sensational spin. For example, there were never receipts for bleach, a purchase of bleach or evidence the crime scene was cleaned with bleach. Raffaele had two bottles of bleach at his home that his maid ask him to purchase long ago. The prosecution never presented evidence in court that the crime scene was cleaned with bleach (or cleaned at all), Instead they chose to say they suspected the crime scene was cleaned with bleach. If bleach was used to clean the crime scene the entire area would have a blue glow when Luminol was applied. Also cleaning makes swirl marks and there were none. Mignini and his henchmen went out of their way to convict.
I don’t think everyone in Italy is a warped weirdo but I think Mignini is and he is a cruel self-centered overly ambitious creep / Jerk. There are rotten apples in every basket and there are plenty of them everywhere that should be disposed of.
It was reported the washing machine was found running and when ask prosecutor Mignini said it wasn’t found running but it felt warm. That was a lie. Meredith’s clothes was in the washing machine that she washed around noon the day before. A washing machine does not stay warm for 24 hours after it is used. Test proved the washing machine was not used to wash away evidence.
Consider it was reported Amanda and Raffaele were standing on the porch with a mop and bucket when the police arrived. The mop and bucket was on the porch but they were not. This was spin to make them appear guilty. The mop and bucket was tested and the results were negative.
It was reported Amanda’s DNA was found on the blade near the handle. Later this was changed to on the handle. I saw an article yesterday wrote in 2010 that said on the blade near the handle. We can’t have the truth about anything. We will never get the truth out of Perugia. The lies are too deep and I’m not talking about A&R.
Early in Nov 2007, a few days after the crime, it was reported there were long hairs found clenched in Meredith’s left hand and the police were looking for a black man. What happened to the hair? Was there hair found in her hand or not? I think there was and they were looking for a black man. I think the hair was thrown away. The prosecution said the rape and break-in was fake and Amanda & Raffaele killed Meredith. They said A&R were trying to frame poor Rudy (Looks like poor Rudy didn’t do anything). Considering Guede’s DNA was on her, in her, on her Tampon, along with his shoe prints, finger prints, sperm, and his hair clenched in her left hand it would be difficult to sell this fairytale to anyone with half a brain. So they say they didn’t test the sperm (I think they did) and got rid of Guede’s hair. Even with all the credible evidence indicating Guede was 100% Guilty they managed to convict A&R. Do you see anything wrong with this picture?
The initial time of death was determined to be no later than approximately 9 pm. The coroner said Meredith was killed no later than 2-3 hours after she last ate. As it turned out on Nov 17 th Sophie told the investigators that Meredith last ate at approximately 6 pm so they fabricated some fairytales to come up with a time of death of 11:31 with absolutely nothing reasonable to base that conclusion on. Give me a break 🙁
“judges and jury didn’t believe their side”
I wonder if the Jury would have come to a different opinion if they were awake for the trial. I also wonder why they were allowed to sleep.
Barbie Nadeau, Angel Face
“Even the prosecutor falls asleep on occasion, and one elderly juror becomes well known for napping after lunch…the juror next to her is the elderly man who tends to doze off in the afternoons. The final juror is the first alternate, an ash-blonde woman whose face I will never forget. Through-out the trial, she glares at Amanda and her family with contempt.” P123
—-
Madison Paxton, CNN
When I was there, I saw — every single day I was in court, I saw jury members sleeping through Amanda’s defense. It seems like they had already convicted her. And that means they felt like they…
COOPER: You actually saw a juror sleeping?
PAXTON: Yes. Literally every single day I was in court. The prosecutor sleeps, the jurors sleep. I’ve seen people on the stand, the president even, answering his cell phone while the trial is going on. But every time the prosecutor spoke, the jury was wide awake.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/ … cd.02.html
—–
Candace Dempsey, An Italian Woman at the table
Sometimes the court was near empty of reporters when the defense was putting on its witnesses, especially in the summer months. Jurors slept and were not removed in favor of alternates; prosecutor Giuliano Mignini dozed off. Manuela Comodi, the other prosecutor, played solitaire on her computer and left the room frequently to smoke filtered cigarettes.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archives/188882.asp
—–
VELEZ-MITCHELL: Well, I heard the jury was napping during much of her testimony anyway. No, I`m not even joking.
BURLEIGH: I was there, they were sleeping.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1006/01/ijvm.01.html
She is a wide-eyed innocent, a normal, high-spirited, all-American college student.
Fact: Prosecutor Mignini, who was convicted for abuse of power in January 2010 and whos’s charges against 20 innocent people were dropped in April 2010, due to lack of evidence (falsly accused), said, “It grieved me to have to ask for a life sentence for a woman of only 22 and a man of 25, but yes, I have suffered over this. It is not easy to ask for life sentences for two young people in their twenties. I too am a human being. I, too, have a heart, but my job is to defend justice. I believe they did it.”
The jury’s dilemma: was Amanda Knox a she-devil or all-American innocent? – Times Online
Note, My opinion: At this time one of Mignini’s witnesses is in prison and another is likely laying in an aley drunk 🙁
Hmmm. Well I must say I find it rather strange that there are no lengthly attacks on the Motivation report in this blog. So without wondering about it I will keep this rather light.
Yes I read every word you wrote above Michelle. I was already aware of those things but I know a great many people are not…so you have provided an important service here. Still I think it would be unfair to just let the paper ride without sayingthat I and many others think the Movivation Report in this case is a complete crock. A well published opinion of the report was done by a Chicago private investigator Paul Cilino (misspelled?) who was hired to perform his own investigation into the case case. His opinion of the report was it was “Lies…nonsense….and speculation…”. My own opinion is that almost everything the report has to offer can have another explanation- such as- could they have not washed the dishes before they ate, and not after- so that point is sheer speculation. For the Alibi part- the computer ‘evidence’…well I find it interesting that the 3 computers that were siezed by the police were destroyed by the guy who was checking them out for the police- all 3 hard drives were destroyed- now that is intesting. Also the computer ‘evidence’ was in dispute by another investigator.
The biggy here is of course the famous ‘double DNA knife’. Geez that sounds incriminating doesn’t it? Simple put there was no blood found on the knife- the DNA found was not from blood. Now Amanda’s DNA on the handle is no big revelation- she was staying at Raff’s house and used them to cook with. However, Meredith’s DNA found on the blade is what needs to be considered. It is a fact that the amount of DNA of Meredith was so tiny it was not revealed through normal DNA testing. DNA this tiny is called LCN DNA (Low Copy Number DNA). It is strongly contended by forensic experts worldwide that LCN DNA is highly subject to contamination and calls for special testing in special certified labs. The Italian lab that did this testing on the knife in question did not have the type of lab required to do LCN DNA testing. Nor was the lab certified to do this kind of testing. There are only seveal labs on the planet qualified to do LCN testing and none of them were in Italy at the time. Bottom line on this is that Meredith’s DNA on the blade was quite possibly deposited there through what is known as DNA secondary transfer that occured in the lab when the knife was being tested with other items which had Meredith’s DNA on it. That is not just my opinion. A panel of a dozen DNA forensic experts published a paper of the DNA knife and concluded that the it was quite possible that Meredith’s DNA was found on the knife through contaimination or secodary transfer. Interestingly the Italian court refused the defence’s request for an independent evaluation of the DNA ‘evidence’. So….
That’s all i am going to say about this- I could go on about the holes in the motivation report for weeks, but what would be the point..Sometimes, no explaination will suffice.
Very good blog Michelle- Thanks for letting people get their beans in there a bit. The Knox appeal coming this November should be really interesting.
I don’t think anyone who has remotely followed the blog this week could think that there *isn’t* a segment of people who think the motivazioni document “is a complete crock.” I also think it’s fair to say that in many murder convictions, most pieces of evidence could have another explanation…if that weren’t the case, the case would have been pleaded out and never seen the inside of a courtroom. I’ve given people space here to offer the appellate arguments of Knox and Sollecito; I don’t plan on going through them myself because, as I’ve said, I’ve had plenty of this case — but also because there are others who have studied it far more in depth. My issue with it is that I hadn’t read in the American press any specifics about why the court convicted Knox and Sollecito — definitely nothing about their alibi — and I’ve done my best to fix that in my little corner of the blogosphere. Thanks for reading and commenting.
O.K. Thanks! Some of the issues that you discuss so that Americans are a bit more alleviated are quite simple. When Raffaele and Amanda were arrested none, THAT IS NONE of the forensic evidence was available. To arrest someone and then make the evidence fit that persons guilt is not that hard. Especially in your own home. Imagine finding your DNA in your home?? Especially the bathroom! Does it not alarm Italians that (1) there was no crime committed in the bathroom, (2) bodily fluids, teeth brushing and hair are to be found in the bathroom. (3) What? Cops are not totally aware of that? I am continually disappointed in the store managers testimony, in that the working check out girl testified that she remembers no such person. Who are you more likely to interact with at your local store. The manager in back or the check-out people. The very fact that the manager will not nor can positively identify Amanda is argument that Italy WANTS Amanda in jail by any means even uncertain ones. And that the court backs such. Whats being discussed here is not new. Was the oil spill managerial derived? Was the world monetary, wall street melt down managerial derived? Our wars, our elections, our thoughts. That someone is trying to always capitalize on someone else’s misfortune? This was an orchestrated, contrived, manipulated story that took the lives away from four young, un-empowered children. Does anyone believe there will not be consequences to these falsehoods. People have enforced consequences on Amanda an Raffaele because of believed falsehoods. Should not the same apply to entrusted men and women of power. Police, prosecutors, judges, testifiers. I, in fact everyone appreciates any and all discussion about this case. It is really important that writers like yourself go back to the beginning and start with where the story began, by who, and with what evidence. Remember, that is when Patrick Lumumbia was arrested. Writers such as yourself need to diffuse the Non-fiction and the fictional, reality and fantasy! Remember the wizard of OZ!
Writers such as myself owe nothing to you or anyone else; I translated what was in the report, punto e basta.
Hi Chris C,
“Using that theory wouldn’t you assume that the confession that Knox gave was false? After all, she did confess to being in the apartment with someone that didn’t commit the murder. Also using that thinking, if the prosecutor gave any false statements or information, then couldn’t everything he told and presented to the jury be false?
Those were the instructions given to our jury, more specifically, when I served on a jury in the USA. Granted, it was for a civil case that lasted 4 days, not 11 month murder case in Italy, but I think the premise and process is very similar.
In trial I sat in on, both sides presented experts that gave their opinion and testimony regarding a piece of evidence, and one of the experts was found – under cross examination – to have made a error during some calculations he made. And as a result, he had to admit that results he presented to the jury were wrong. This essentially meant that the expert had made a mistake, in other words, he presented false testimony. It may have been a simple, honest mistake, or maybe it was sloppy work, or maybe he deliberately skewed the results for the side that called him to the stand – doesn’t matter.
The point of “false in one false in all” is that we – as a jury – were then allowed to reject his witness testimony completely. We did not have the burden to pick through those parts of his testimony that were correct or which were inaccurate – we simply rejected him AND the evidence he presented entirely, and as result, the remaining evidence overwhelmingly pointed to the other side.
In the Meredith Kercher murder trial, there is no way that anybody can tell exactly which witnesses testimony was believed by the jury … but when presented with conflicting testimony, they obviously had to reject one side or the other. As one quick example, Edda Mellas testified that Amanda and Meredith were friendly and liked each other; roommate Filomena testified that was not the case. We will likely never know which woman the jury believed.
You raise a good point with regards to how a jury would react if a prosecutor (or defense attorney or judge) had made a mis-statement in open court… those things did occasionally happen in our trial, usually the judge intervened immediately and simply had the question or statement stricken from the record. In the Kercher case, if there is significant volume of false statements by a prosecutor made, that could be part of the appeal, which won’t be filed until October, if I recall correctly.
As to how the jury would have weighed the confession / lack of confession, my own guess is that the multiple police statements and back and forth that Knox gave might have seemed confusing – the changing of her stores and such probably had a small negative part in the jury’s decision. or they might have discounted it entirely. I doubt that it left a good impression on the jury, but stranger things have happened!
Sorry for such a long-winded response, Chris! The jury trial I served on was very complicated and very boring, but also quite fascinating, which is my particular interest in the Kercher case, i.e. from the juror point of view.
This Trial was such an utter, utter disgrace to justice. I won’t claim this represents Italian justice as a whole but following the trial in Perugia it was completely obvious that it was not a fair trial. Justice was not achieved. It was quite frankly corrupt. I know you will disagree Michelle.
No you don’t 🙂
You will probably protect Italy from these harsh words but this is my assessment of the situation and no other. It may not have started that way but it very quickly turned that corner. The list you made from the motivation reads as a list of prosecutorial misconduct.
As an example, a segment of the appeal. Looking at one of the two ‘superwitnesses’ that were brought in almost a year after the murder by the local paper.
“The Motivations, furthermore, seem to have ignored this fundamental fact: that in his declarations Marco Quintavalle also affirmed having seen Amanda in his shop a couple of weeks before 2 November (transcript from the hearing of 21.03.2009, p.76), this time in the company of Raffaele. In this regard it has to be noted that this fact cannot in any way be true, since Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito had known each other – and this fact is certain and conclusive – just a week before the murder. Nonetheless, the memory of the witness is so sharp as to enable him to describe even the clothes worn on that occasion by the two young people.
Quintavalle claimed not to have recognized Amanda on the morning of 2 November (only a few days after that first meeting), because it was as if seeing her for the first time, “for me I didn’t know this girl” (transcript of 21 March 2009, p.72).
The motivation has downplayed the fact that Quintavalle decided to speak with investigators only a year after the crime was committed. According to the defence, however, this fact is symptomatic – in addition to those things already mentioned – of the unreliability of his testimony. Quintavalle only decided to make contact with prosecutors after intense pressure from the journalist Antioco Fois, a regular customer of his shop. These statements then allowed the witness to participate in broadcasts on national TV networks.”
People who have been reading the posts all week should understand by now I’m not arguing one side or other other; I’m tired of giving my reasons for writing what I have written, but they’re all in there somewhere.
I have no stake in the case for either country, any of the defendants, or in any other way. I have tried to fill gaping holes I *do* believe were created by the American media, whether intentionally or not — and IMHO it’s a damn shame they created them, because they simply didn’t need to in order to claim that there were problems with this trial from the prosecutor on down. Thanks for commenting.
Well done on presenting a summary of the reasoning behind the judgement in this case, Michelle. It certainly is not straightforward. I know a number of Americans have been attacking how the Italian judicial system has handled this case.
It’s good to read information from an American (and someone who is an attorney) in Italy who has taken the time to read the 400+ (in Italian) pages of the motivation behind the sentence.
I also notice that you do not wish to express your own opinion on the case, because, as you quite rightly point out, you do not have access to all the facts. Others too, do not have access to all the information which supports the case, such as the reliability of the eye witness, etc, but this does not stop them from expressing an opinion on the efficiency of Italian justice and the honesty of those involved. However, without a basis in fact, opinions are just that, opinions.
It will be interesting to hear how the appeals go. As for Knox, I did read a report in the Italian press about Patrick Lumumba – the guy who owned the bar where Knox worked for a time, and who was initially accused of the murder of Kercher. In so many words, Lumumba said that Knox was no angel.
One suspects that the whole sad event was a sex game which went horribly wrong, but what I’m not sure about is whether Kercher was a willing participant, and whether Knox entertained some kind of silly grudge against Kercher. The character/personalities of those involved is not clear. While this may not be relevant, it may help us understand whether those involved had the potential to commit such as crime. Whether it was pre-meditated or a spur of the moment thing, perhaps motivated by drink or drugs is not clear either.
Anyway, at least you are dealing with facts here, and not opinions. You support for Kercher is admirable – it almost seems as her sad death is of secondary importance in this controversial case.
Hope you do write more.
Best,
Alex
My God…it’s getting passionate. Ok I want to address only 2 issues. The first is in regards to the DNA in the report…The reason Knox DNA was not in the room was because she was wearing a space-suit…or she was not there at the time- nothing else makes sense.
Second everyone goes on about Amanda accusing an innocent man Patrick. People listen, it is not really hard to understand. A 20 year old girl is in a room full of Italian cops yelling at her and scaring her half to death…so she told them what they wanted to hear just to have it end. No one knows exactly what happened in the room…It was not recorded as it was suppose to have been according to Italian law so you can’t know how much pressure was applied on Amanda to say the things she did. She did retract her statement shortly after accusing Patrick after she got some sleep. So don’t take her so-called confession to the bank…There are reasons.
Also some of you are coming down on Michelle but as she has said the purpose of this blog was only to inform on the motivation report and she is trying to stay objective and not take sides- it does not mean she does not have a side- just that it’s beside the point. And I must say she has let a lot of people go way off track here and has generally kept her cool. I know what it’s like to try and make a point or to defend the principle in this case but this is not the forum for it. People have tried to use it to spout off their convictions myself included so at least give Michelle credit for allowing so much off topic statements. She didn’t open this blog for everyone to hash out the same old stuff…but she has allowed both sides to do so within reason so give her credit for that. Mama is you hair turning grey yet 🙂 ?
I must say I am amazed that she handled it so well…I say that only because I know how out of hand open forums on the Knox case can get and this has not happened here so it is to your credit Michelle that it went so smoothly- Yes smoothly for a Knox topic. I would love to see you do something on the Knox appeal this Novemeber- or maybe you have had a belly full right now- it’s just a thought. I know you opened a few people’s eyes and you provided information not common knowledge so thank you for that. And particularly for allowing a little debate with no blood letting. So may your goats be plentiful and your pen be swift 🙂
I agree that none of us have all the facts. Its also a fact, that even Knox and Sollecito’s defense team didn’t have all the facts. The person who had most of the facts refused to share. (mignini) There is proof in court that he hid details of the investigation from the defense team. Its hard to present a defense when the only evidence you are allowed to argue is evidence your not allowed to look at. Its hard to a discredit testimony of a convicted felon, when your not allowed to cross examine him. Its hard to discredit a confession that was thrown out by the judge. However, it was allowed in the civil case which so happened to be the same jury.
[EDITED because of personal attack]
Harry Rag on 02 Jul 2010 at 11:00 pm # Lilome, You wrote: “NONE in the room where Kercher’s body was found. That says it all. In a murder of this nature, it would be impossible to NOT leave traces of DNA where the murder occurred. It is also impossible to selectively clean up DNA.”
ANSWERS [EDITED because of personal attack]
There were 47 separate wounds on Meredith’s body. How is it possible there wasn’t any DNA of her attackers on the outside of her body?
ANSWER: glove [ gluv ] shaped covering for hand: a shaped covering for the hand that includes five separated sections for the thumb and fingers, and extends to the wrist or the elbow
protection for hand: a padded protective covering for the hand worn in some sports
put glove on something: to cover the hand with a glove, or cover an object with something that is like a glove
Rudy Guede’s DNA was found on a vaginal swab. There were no other instances of his DNA anywhere else on Meredith’s body.
ANSWER: glove [ gluv ] shaped covering for hand: a shaped covering for the hand that includes five separated sections for the thumb and fingers, and extends to the wrist or the elbow
protection for hand: a padded protective covering for the hand worn in some sports
put glove on something: to cover the hand with a glove, or cover an object with something that is like a glove
Someone strangled Meredith with such force that they broke her hyoid bone and yet they didn’t leave any of their DNA on Meredith’s neck.
ANSWER: glove [ gluv ] shaped covering for hand: a shaped covering for the hand that includes five separated sections for the thumb and fingers, and extends to the wrist or the elbow
protection for hand: a padded protective covering for the hand worn in some sports
put glove on something: to cover the hand with a glove, or cover an object with something that is like a glove
Knox and/or Sollecito didn’t selectively clean up because there was an abundant amount of Sollecito’s DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp.
ANSWER: False. The amount of Raffaele’s DNA which was found on the metal portion of the bra clasp was extremely small but enough to get a conclusive test. It is not possible to participate in a rape & murder and /or remove a womans bra from her body and only touching the metal portion of her bra clasp.
According to Professor Vinci, Amanda Knox’s DNA was also on Meredith’s bra.
ANSWER: Yes Raffaele’s lawyers tried to throw Amanda under the bus but if Amanda’s DNA was on the bra clasp the prosecution would have shouted it to the world.
If Amanda Knox’s role in Meredith’s murder was limited to stabbing Meredith whilst Guede and Sollecito restrained her, why would there have been any of Knox’s DNA in Meredith’s room?
ANSWER: Your question is worded so poorly I’m not sure what you are attempting to imply. It is not disputed that no evidence found at the crime scene put Amanda there.
I was not going to comment again but I have to give kudos to the JANE’s post. In part:
“My only strong impression at the end of it all is that together, the three imprisoned murderers know far more about what happened than they are saying, and that if any one of them was completely innocent of ANY involvement, they would have given a full account by now. The only possible reason for the obfuscation and vagueness from all three is that they think the truth would hurt them more than where they are now.
I believe that Amanda Knox’s family have unwittingly put her in a situation where she cannot tell the truth even if she wants to…”
A previous poster stated that only Mignini had most of the facts. No, Only Amanda and the other two know the whole truth. Amanda may be obfuscating purposely, or maybe she honestly can’t work it out/remember/un-block what really happened.
Funny thing about the witnesses for the prosecution in this case. Most of them seemed to appear about a year after the crime. Telling stories far different from what they were saying a few days after the crime.
“No, Only Amanda and the other two know the whole truth”
Jane and Rebekah,
Amanda and Raffaele told the same story constistently for the first 4 days before the overnight coerced false confession that was illegal, not taped and no lawyer present. Chief Giobbi admitted to hearing her scream during this time. Amanda Knox was interrogated by 12 officers against one 20yr old. She had already been interrogated for 40 hours that week while still attending classes. They do know what happened that night. They spent it at Raffaele’s as always claimed until that illegal interrogation.
The ONLY evidence the police have if the ridiculous knife and bra clasp forensic information. A couple of witnesses brought in by the local paper almost a year later.
I disagree that there is a wishy washy in between. There is NO evidence, No credible evidence that Amanda and Raffaele were involved at all. The theory of these two meeting up with someone that Amanda barely knew and Raffaele had never met to attack a girl because the smoked pot is as Raffaele said – pure fantasy. This fantasy the prosecution has nothing to prove is true.
I suggest you read the papers from retired FBI agent Steve Moore. His deep experience in crime scene analysis has brought him to the view that it is impossible that Amanda and Raffaele were involved.
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI7.html
Rebekah if Knox and Sollecito where not there for the murder then they wouldn’t know all the facts. The facts of this case are simple. Knox and Sollecito gave an alibi, the policed destroyed their alibi, and then asked if there was any other way they can prove it. Oh no alibi, then your guilty. Why wont they let the hard drives be tested by someone experienced in fixing these problems. For all we know they are not even broke. After all my 13 year old son could have pulled the info they needed off the hard drive without breaking them. However, they broke 3 hard drives. Wouldn’t you stop after breaking the first one and get someone more qualified.
Every pot head in the world is scratching their head at this case. The last thing you are gonna do is walk down the street and kill someone after you have eaten and smoked some pot. Stoned with a full stomach, sex is only optional and they are not going down to street to find it.
When this case first broke, my thoughts where I hope they fry her butt. Of course, I then learned there was no death penality there. However, the more I heard about this case the more i got confused. Im now at the point where I think she is innocent. I also believe that even if she isn’t innocent, they have screwed this case up so much that the conviction of knox/sollecito is a travesty of justice. No motive, no murder weapon(no blood), no dna (on body or in room), no witnesses and the police destroyed their alibi. ( 1 hardrive is an accident, 2 hardrives is gross neglect, 3 hardives equals ?) The sad thing is knox/sollecito will eventually be released and in the process they will have to remove Guede’s conviction also. Thus bringing no justice for Meredith.
Hi Chris,
What do you think Amanda Knox meant when she wrote the following:
“Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith’s death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think.”?
Thanks in advance.
I would like to pose a question to everyone here: Is it possible to smoke so much pot or drink so much alcohol that you kill someone the night before and wake up the next day with no memory of it? If anyone thinks so please stand up and say it. I don’t think it’s possible, particularly for two people.
Let’s take a look at what Barbie Latza Nadeau thinks happened.
From Angel Face:
“Between 9:15 and 11:15, Amanda, Raf, and Rudy got themselves seriously messed up; Amanda asked Meredith if she could lend her money to pay Rudy, and Meredith reluctantly did so. “ P162
“She prodded Rudy to go see Meredith; he went into her bedroom and started trying to kiss her and fondle her until she called out. Amanda and Raffaele went back to see what was going on, and instead of helping Meredith fend off Rudy, joined in the taunting.”P162
“By this point, Amanda, Raf, and Rudy were beyond the control of conscience. Raf took a switchblade out of his pocket and started teasing Meredith with it. Rudy had a knife in his backpack, and that came out as well. They had no intention of killing Meredith, but they were taunting her with knives on each side of her neck and she, in essence, impaled herself on the larger knife as she twisted in the grip of someone holding back her arms.”P163
“The next morning, Amanda and Raffaele wake up around 6:00 A.M. with crippling hangovers and no memories of the night before. They peek into Meredith’s room to find her battered and lifeless body, but they still can’t remember anything.” P164
These examples are important because they illustrate just how far someone who badly wants Amanda to be guilty has to stretch what is know to come up with a possible scenario. Mignini and Massei faced the same dilema.
The speculation, the irresponsibility is breathtaking. It doesn’t even occurr to Barbie that her ambitious quest for the big time might harm two innocent young people. The various Mignini/Massei fantasies were every bit as farfetched as Barbie’s.
Hi Harry,
What do you think it meant when the police discovered Guede’s dna inside Meridith. Did it mean that Knox and Sollecito killed Meredith and Guede tried to stop them and ran out the door. OR Did it mean that Guede raped and murdered her, left his finger prints, sperm and dna at the scene, took her credit cards and cash out of her purse, then went dancing and party until his cash was low, then fled the country.
Hi Chris,
Rudy Guede didn’t leave his sperm at the crime scene.
Make sure you read the judges’ sentencing report once it’s published in English, so that you can become fully acquainted with the facts of the case.
Harry, Funny how the only thing you dispute is the sperm.
Well the sperm has to belong to someone, because if it would have belong to Sollecito,it would be in the judge’s sentencing report. Though lets be honest here. Meredith’s dna was found on the blade, therefore even though the dna didn’t come from blood cells, that must be the knife that stabbed her. Using that same reasoning. Rudy’s dna was found inside Meredith and there are untested sperm samples in the room. Since Rudy is convicted of sexual assault the sperm has to be his.
Hi Chris,
You really need to read the judges’ sentencing report.
Meredith’s DNA on the blade could have come from blood.
There is a stain on the pillow which may or may not be sperm. If it is sperm, it may belong to Giacomo Silenzi, who was Meredith’s boyfriend at the time.
Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede were all convicted of sexual assault.
Chris,Harry:
The question of whether Rudy Guede’s semen was present at the crime scene could be better answered if the trial record were available to the public.
Based on eye-witness accounts of journalists who attended the trial and examination of selected court documents provided to favored journalists by a corrupt prosecution team, the question of whether Rudy Guede’s sperm was present at the crime scene remains unanswered. Barbie Latza Nadeau had reported at one point that it was but it was later determined that the sample of Guede’s DNA found inside the victim was not derived from human sperm.
For reasons that remain unclear, authorities chose not to examine an apparent semen stain found underneath the victim. “Judge” Massei reasoned that since no one would be able to determine when the sperm was deposited that it would not have evidentiary value. In all of their efforts to tailor what they found to what they wanted to believe, this sample presented the greatest challenge.
Here are the words of Steve Moore, a former FBI agent who recently retired after a 25 year career:
“The physical evidence against Amanda and Raffaele is wrong, contrived, misinterpreted, and (to put it kindly) misstated. The other “evidence” is made up of (embarrassingly naïve) hunches and bias. The “DNA” evidence is particularly inaccurate. The alleged motive and modus operandi of Knox/Sollecito is so tortured (and constantly-changing) that it defies belief.”
“But Patrizia[Stefanoni] was not deterred by logic and fact. In court, she said that she knew that the luminol stain was blood “…because of its color.” Every trained forensic investigator (except, apparently Stefanoni) knows that luminol glows blue. Only blue. Not a different shade of blue for different substances…just blue. What Stefanoni said, she knew to be false, or she was so incompetent that she should not have been allowed to destroy a crime scene.”
“One of the responsibilities of the FBI is to investigate police misconduct, and it is one of the more difficult investigations an FBI Agent can be assigned. I myself have conducted some of these investigations. I have seen the misconduct of police and prosecutors. But I have never personally been involved in a case where the misconduct is as egregious and obvious as the Mignini actions in Perugia. This was not a search for truth. This was a crusade to convict.”
What kills me is that authorities are suing Amanda for saying that they slapped her on the back of the head. Mignini at one point also talked of suing Seattle area journalist Steve Shay for reporting that somebody said he was “mentally unstable” — an understatement. Mignini and his cohorts face unprecedented criticism yet they want to go after a girl in jail and her parents. The whole thing stinks.
If the cells would have came from blood, then common sense says? That luminol would have worked on the knife. It would have detected blood or bleach. Matter of fact skin cells would have been long gone before the Chlorine in the bleach was able to completely remove the traces of iron that the blood left behind.
Bleach is pretty much the only thing that can remove blood from a blade. You can come back decades later and detect blood if a surface hasn’t been cleaned in bleach. Even the police where trying to put bleach in Knox/Sollecito’s hands. I have read no report where they tested the blade with luminol and it came back positive. If you have read where bleach was detected on blade then I’m wrong. Matter of fact every report i’ve read on this case says that no blood was on the weapon. Therefore luminol test came back negative showing no bleach or blood was ever on blade. Since no blood was on blade then the sample could not have come from blood. Seriously they teach you this crap in high school biology.
PhanuelB on 03 Jul 2010 at 8:22 pm # said “I would like to pose a question to everyone here: Is it possible to smoke so much pot or drink so much alcohol that you kill someone the night before and wake up the next day with no memory of it? If anyone thinks so please stand up and say it. I don’t think it’s possible, particularly for two people”.
No, it would not be because of the pot and alcohol. People that rape and murder are prone to rape and murder. The drugs have nothing to do with it. Some people have no compassion for other people and are likely to do anything to anyone. Some parents kill their children. Some children kill their parents. Throughout history government sent men into battle to die for their for self gain. Ireland exported corn during the potato famine. During the 20th century almost 1/2 billion people died during war. Over half were civilians. The rape of Nanjing is a perfect example of the type of people that have power. Bush senior went to Hirohito’s funeral in 1992. Some people have no compassion. Eisenhower and Patton took part in a saber attack on the bonus army and ~100 men women and children were killed. Google United Fruit Company. “Let them eat cake” This is the world we live in. Drugs have nothing to do with it and greed has everything to do with it. Guede murdered Meredith for her money and a perverted sex act. He did this because he was capable and greedy. He took her life for very Little money. People have murdered for much less. Mignini has no compassion. etc etc etc.
Chirs C,
Every pot head in the world is scratching their head at this case. The last thing you are gonna do is walk down the street and kill someone after you have eaten and smoked some pot.
Are you sure it was plain, simple pot they were smoking? I’ve read multiple other accounts that what they smoked was hashish; or cannibis laced with something; skunk; or even something much stronger … do you have that information?
Knowing specifically what they smoked, when they smoked it, how much they smoked and what exact effect it had on their bodies and minds is all are important data points … and unfortunately for all three defendants, drug users are known to be less than truthful when disclosing such information. Knox had testified that she & Raffaele smoked “a spliff”, but didn’t elaborate beyond that.
PhanuelB
I would like to pose a question to everyone here: Is it possible to smoke so much pot or drink so much alcohol that you kill someone the night before and wake up the next day with no memory of it?
You are presenting a logical false choice. See my points listed above. I would not discount any action attributed to anybody under the influence of drugs. Here in the USA, you lose certain rights and privileges when you are under the influence of drugs or alcohol.You lose the right to drive a motor vehicle. You lose the right to sign a legal, binding contract. And you lose certain rights to testify in court under oath as well.
Uncle655321,
See this is the problem that most people dont realize. when you use words like skunk, pot, hashish, marijuana, ganja, hemp, and 1000 other nicknames/productnames, you are in fact talking about the cannibis plant. All those products have the same thing in common, THC. THC is the drug that gets everyone high in those drugs. The only difference between those drugs is that strength varies in some of them. The only reason to mention drugs in this murder is to strike fear in the hearts of jurors. Because nothing in that murder can be attributed to the use of THC.
Examples of Mignini’s screwed up drug theory.
Someone under the use of THC should drive wholes in the prosecutors theory of how this crime happened. There is a witness that has them at the other apartment at like 9? If they was under the influence thc, why would they walk down the street to have sex? Because they want to have a 3-way? Seriously what in Amanda Knox’s sexual history makes you think that she would try and have sex with her roommate with her boyfriend. She listed her sexual partners to a fake doctor the prosecution sent. 6 men. The whole drub/sex theory is completely bogus. The fact that the prosecution thought Knox/Sollecito committed this murder to have a sex game a week after they started dating just blows my mind. Seriously if Meredith or Knox where into those types of things, there would have been signs. I have dated girls that smoked pot. I use the word dating to mean they have stayed the night before at my house. You can’t get them to leave the house after smoking a joint even if you want to. Your screwed. They will have sex, but leaving is not an option. If you care for them enough that you already want them to stay the night, you are not going to try and add a 3rd partner.
The knife- I pull this comment off a drug abuse website. (marijuana intoxication can cause distorted perceptions, impaired coordination, difficulty in thinking and problem solving, and problems with learning and memory. Research has shown that marijuana’s adverse impact on learning and memory can last for days or weeks after the acute effects of the drug wear off.)
What makes you think anyone that was going to Meredith’s to have a sex/game that was already stoned, would decide to take a kitchen knife with them. Thats premeditation and even in court thats not what happened. 1st the knife was never in Amanda’s purse. That was proven. That means she got stoned. Then she grabbed a knife, and walked with it in her hand down the street. Got home killed meredith without leaving her dna in the room. She then performed a sexual act with Sollecito, Guede, and Meredith’s dead corpse. She then cleaned the knife off in the sink of the bathroom since thats the only place water and meredith’s blood was found. She cleaned it good enough without using bleach to remove all the blood from the knife. Then her and sollecito staged a break in that fits Guede supposed MO after Guede leaves. They then deposit 2 cell phones in the garden, take meredith’s keys, steal her money and credit cards. Discard Sollecito’s knife somewhere. They then return back to Sollecito’s put the knife back in the drawer and go to sleep. WAKE UP in the morning and return home. After all that you think a person would have woke up in the morning after been on a all night drug/sex/murder bing?
Chris C,
You missed my point completely.
Are you absolutely, 100% sure that what Knox & Sollecito smoked was pure medicinal grade marijuana? You KNOW for a fact that it was not laced with something stronger such as PCP , cocaine, or other significantly harder drug? You personally would be willing to testify in open court under threat of perjury that you KNOW exactly how much they smoked, who supplied it to them and so on?
I definitely have no way of being certain about any of that, you probably don’t; but, and most importantly, the jury didn’t, and they made the determination that the drugs that were used went beyond the casual, “harmless” variety. Now, if you choose to believe that the drugs they abused would not have led them into violent actions, that’s certainly your opinion.
~Uncle
spliff”, was defined in one of the news articles as tobacco mixed with marijuana. Raffaele had some hashes which is concentrated THC which is the chemical in marijuana that gets people high. THC blocks electrical impulses in the brain which causes less brain activity. THC is a sedative and has a calming / relaxing effect. An excessive amount of THC would induce sleep. In reality THC would cause a homicidal psychopath like Guede to become less aggressive and less likely to kill. THC causes people to be forgetful and loose their concept of time. It could seem to a person on THC that it takes 15 minutes for something to happen that only took one minute. Many studies (some unrealistic) have been conducted about the effects of THC. It is physically non addictive however some mentally defective people think they have a dependence on it but their dependency is equivalent to them thinking they have a dependency on placebos (sugar pill). placebos are used to test new drugs. In a control group, for example 100 people, 50 are treated with placebos and 50 with the new drug. Some of the 50 treated with placebos recover from the disease, some of the 50 treated the new drug recover. They crank the data through an equation which somehow determines the effectiveness of the new drug.
If you conducted an experiment where you gave a group of people a placebos and told them it’s a happy pill, many of the people would start thinking they are happy and acting silly. What you are seeing is the effect of suggestion. Prosecutor Mignini is practiced at the at of deception. He gives people lines of bull and some of them believe it. It’s not because the people that believe him are mentally deficient but because some people are more susceptible to suggestion than others.
The art of suggestion (deception in some cases) is studied in great detail by people employed in fields such as advertising, religion and politics.
Governments are well aware that young children are very susceptible to suggestion. They make sure the subjects taught in schools leads them to believe their government loves them and is looking out for them. For example, prior to the start of the aggression by the Japanese emperor the children were taught he is the only living god, all other races are inferior and that god wanted them destroyed. Historically it was common fro two armies to meet on the battle field with god on both sides. Some soldiers had a problem with slaughtering men women and children so they were taught the people were heretics and the mass executions went much smoother. Over the years suggestion/deception proved to be a very effective tool for governments. Enough, it’s sickening to think about it.
Michelle:
I just noticed something that deserves comment. You say that the Knox supporters have “backed away from the anti-Americanism claim.” That’s not accurate.
You were saying that we had made the claim and we were saying “no we never said that.” Trust me, there are nasty things to say about the Perugian justice system, but almost all of us are quick to point out that judicial mistakes occur throughout the world.
I stand by what I wrote.
BTW, Michelle, I detect a bit of deception on your part. Prove me wrong. Translate the parts of the Motivation report that is silly, irrational, illogical, unfounded, etc. and post it here. If you choose to do this (ha ha) I hope you have plenty of times on your hands because the job will be massive.
Perugia authorities / Mignini’s logic example. When a phone connects with a cell tower it connected with in the past it indicated the phone is where I want it to be unless I want the phone to be somewhere else. If a phone does not connect with the same cell tower it connected with for the last six calls from that location the phone is at that location because it suits my purpose for the phone to be there.
More twisted logic. It is possible to know about an event that occurred at 12:07 pm on Nov 2 2007, based on a phone call that was made at 11:50 am Nov 2 2007 ;))))))
More twisted logic. The initial coroners report said Meredith was killed no more than 2-3 hours after she last ate. Meredith last ate at 6 pm so the time of death is understood to be 11 pm. ;)))))))
More twisted logic. Meredith was laying on her bed fiddling with her phone when she accidentally called her bank and accidentally entered the wrong area code, so this proves she was alive at 10 pm. This call connected with cell tower 30064. Earlier in the day four calls made from Meredith’s apartment with the same phone connected with cell tower 25621 and one call connected with 25620, none connected with 30064, so this proves the phone was in Meredith’s apartment at 10 pm when she accidentally called her bank and entered the wrong area code. Also the signal strength for cell tower 30064 was measured outside the apartment, in the yard, up to the window of Meredith’s room to prove the apartment location is compatible with cell tower 30064 ;))))))
Interesting that both PhanuelB and you suddenly found something to criticize of mine 60+ comments into this post. I’ve already explained several times why I posted this — and why I’m not posting anything else. P.S. I don’t have to prove anything to you or anyone else.
Uncle,
If Knox or Sollecito would have been on anything other than THC it would have been reported. If they was on pcp, Mignini would have told the press it was PCP. After all false information that Mignini leaked to the press, you dont think he would have listed a specific hard drug if he had proof. Is there anywhere in the court documents it lists a specific drug, if so please report it. The fact that they are saying possibly laced, means they found no evidence other than THC. People that take drugs are taking because of 2 reasons. They are addicted and/or they are chasing the High. Most drugs that cause violent behavior are hallucinogens. Using the pcp theory, ONE person could go on a psychotic rampage if they had an adverse reaction or they was a chronic user. However, whats the likelyhood of 2 people both having a adverse reaction at the same time, going on a rampage. Now add in the fact that Hallucinogens cause staggering, unsteady gait, slurred speech, bloodshot eyes, hallucinations, euphoria and loss of balance. Do you really believe that 2 people suffering from these affects and also suffereing from adverse effects of a psychotic break are coherent enough to walk together and commit that crime. Now you have to take in the fact that the majority of psychotic breaks caused by PCP are performed by people that have histories of aggressive violence. Neither Knox or Sollecito have that type of history in their background.
So now you are saying that 2 people that have no history of violence, both suffered a psychotic break, (after knox talked to some girl at the door around 9pm and sollecito talked to his dad on the phone) WALKED to meredith’s house with 2 knives, entered the premises, killed and raped meredith, stabbed rudy in the hand and let him go, cleaned up the scene, staged a break in, walked back to Sollecito’s house, went to bed, knox then woke up early in the morning and returned to take a shower. They did all this suffereing the bad effects of PCP/hallucinations.
FACT – THC is a sedative
FACT – PCP tests can detect pcp in a users body for up to 90 days.
Chris C,
Do you really believe that 2 people suffering from these affects and also suffereing from adverse effects of a psychotic break are coherent enough to walk together and commit that crime?
Me personally, I’m not saying that at all. It is what the jury believed.
Is there anywhere in the court documents it lists a specific drug, if so please report it.
Right, where in the court transcripts in which the specific drug cocktail is confirmed and validated? That is exactly my point: What Knox & Sollecito did was raise the cloud of doubt in the jury’s mind and put the jury in the unenviable position of having to evaluate, assess and determine if they well and truly did smoke simple, pure cannabis. Or maybe it was just hashish? Or maybe it was hashish mixed with tobacco? Or maybe it was hashish mixed with cannabis? That is problematic for the defense attorneys, and will continue to be during the appeal.
You are certainly correct in that some people become placid and calm and sleepy when on certain drugs. Other people get violent and destructive on certain drugs.
I believe the intention of Michelle’s post – is that the jury rejected the defense’s position that K & S smoked a simply, harmless, sleep-inducing cannabis joint. Disagree with the jury’s logic and decision all you want.
This is why drug tests are required for certain job applications and other obligations: there is a clear and unambiguous assessment and record of what drugs – if any – are present in your body. Who knows what would have showed up had K & S taken a drug test that night?
So now you are saying that 2 people that have no history of violence…?
Again, it is not me that is saying that. But I will say that violent crimes have definitely been committed by people without having a previous violent tendencies, and is not without precedent. It is not very likely, but then again, I wouldn’t discount anything that people under the influence of alcohol or drugs are capable of doing. You can choose to believe that it is not possible. The jury believed it was.
~Uncle
Since when is it the defenses job to prove it? Under a system in which you are suppose to be innocent until proven guilty. Its the Prosecutions job to prove what they present to the jury. Thats what has me so baffled. They didn’t prove anything. Thats what i’m trying to show here. Knox and Sollecito claim they smoked pot. Prosecution claims they smoked more than pot. The only evidence presented is that they have smoked pot. Shouldn’t the burdon of proof be on the prosecution to prove they smoked more than pot. If they can’t prove it, then why are they allowed to present it as evidence or base a theory on it. Then present that theory as evidence. All the prosecution did was present a bunch of theories and then throw the evidence at the jury. None of the evidence matched any of their theories. This case is the anti-OJ Case. Rather than the defense throwing about a bunch of wild theories and smoke screens at physical evidence. Instead, the prosecution threw up wild theories and smoke screens at physical evidence or lack of physical evidence. Rather than the defense using the media to character assissinate the prosecution, instead the prosecution character assassinated the defendents.
I dont blame the media. Never have! It wasn’t anti-american bias. It was a media that was given false or misleading information from the prosecution and other people that thought Knox was guilty. There are tons of information that turned out to be false and it has been showed that it was the people involved in the prosecution that handed out this information. I originally thought knox was guilty when I heard all this stuff in the media. Only problem is. I’m still waiting on the facts that prove guilt. There are no facts that prove guilt. Just wild theories that ALL have been proven to not work with the evidence. All the media coverage i heard on this case was either knox was psychotic killer and pulled sollecito into this whole thing. Thats all i heard about right up to jury deliberations. Then the American media was left wanting. They waited 2 years for the evidence and was left with nothing.
Even I have to admit Mignini was brilliant. However, we all know, even the Knox haters, that eventually they will set Sollecito and Knox free. There is just to many unanswered questions in the case. Mignini will be able to save face because he can always say i got a conviction.
Anyone else thinking this has run its course in this comments section? Because I sure am….
Michelle:
Just my two cents but this has NOT run its course. I’m in the middle of translating some of the pages you referenced above from that cheap crime novel known as the Motivation Document.
BTW.. I’ve had the chance to look at some of the rest of your web site/blog and it’s very nice.
I assume you did know that if you touched this subject that what you got here was inevitable. I personally think that the public debate is important and legitimate. It’s democracy in action and there is a profound injustice to be reversed.
Actually it’s not inevitable. I can just turn off comments 😛 Those of you who live and breathe the case have lots of other forums to argue on — you don’t need to do it here on my blog.
I’m sorry to those of you who still have valuable insights to be made, but I’m no longer interested in refereeing the comments here, so I’m closing them. If you’d like to email me, feel free, but if you’d like to continue arguing your side of the case — whichever that may be — I suggest you go find one of the many forums dedicated to this case online.
Thank you all for reading, but I’m starting this week fresh and clean of stress, and that includes not having to wade through countless comments that have nothing to do with what I posted.