Knox Supporters Confident & Media Skepticism Swells

A couple of days ago one of my neighbor said to me, “Hey Will, did you hear: Amanda Knox is getting out of jail in May [2011]? I heard it on the news.”

Criminologist, Casey Jordan, also said that “Amanda and Raffaele may walk free in May.”

The 26 March 2011, hearing was definitely a win for the defense, but was it as big of a win as the American media, Knox’s family, and even my neighbor make it seem?

Let’s start by noting that Curatolo had not even come on the radar until the trial started; he was not a part of the six preliminary hearings that led to a decision to try Knox and Sollecito. There was plenty of evidence to send them to trial before Curatolo emerged.


“He [Curatolo] basically blew the whole prosecution's case right then and there,” Knox’s sister, Deanna Knox, told “Early Show” co-anchor Chris Wragge. So now we are getting our legal commentary from Amanda’s little sister? This time in the case is reminiscent of a time in the original trial when Knox’s family and the American media showed the same type of optimism in the case, just before Knox’s conviction.

The fact is that Knox and Sollecito’s appeal appears to be solely based on the knife, the bra clasp, and Antonio Curatolo’s testimony. Nonetheless, neither defense team seems to be contesting any other evidence in the case.

• What about the bloody barefoot print on the bathmat that is compatible with Sollecito and is in Meredith’s blood?
• What about the 5 spots in the house that were mixed with Knox and Kercher’s DNA (3 of the spots were blood spots mixed with the genetic profiles of them both)?
• What about the plethora of lies told by Knox and Sollecito, including that they told the postal police (who arrived at 12:30pm) that they had already called 211 (when they didn’t call 211 until 12:54pm)? And let's not forget that make-believe party that Sollecito claimed he and Knox attended on the night of the murder with that make-believe friend.
• What about the staged break-in?
• What about Mr. Quintavalle, who said that Knox was in his store at 7:45a.m., the morning after the murder—when she claimed that she didn’t wake up until 10:00a.m., that morning?
• What about Knox’s written confession?
• What about the bloody shoe print found on the pillow under Kercher’s body, which experts claimed was compatible with Knox?
• What about the other 2 footprints, revealed only by luminol (1 attributed to Knox and one to Sollecito)?


Frankly, it’s ludicrous to think that Knox would win the appeal solely based on these pieces of evidence; it is like saying that she was convicted based on only these evidentiary items, which Knox supporters would like to have you believe. So if it is ruled during the appeal that the knife is discredited or held unreliable as the murder weapon and Curatola’s testimony is not reliable then there is still sufficient evidence to convict the pair. If the bra clasp, however, is held as unreliable—and this does not mean by the independent experts, necessarily, but by the judges and jury members—then the case looks much better for Knox and Sollecito, particularly Sollecito. Yet, there is still a lot of evidence against them.

It is also important to note that during the original trial one of the judge’s witnesses, forensic expert, Mariano Cingolani, testified that the knife did not match one of the two knife wounds on the right hand side of Kercher’s neck. However, he also cautioned that “no firm conclusion could be drawn without knowing the position of Kercher’s neck during the attack or the elasticity of her tissues.” I point this out because this was a judge's witness (or independent witness) from the original trial--just like the two who will be testifying--and they were still convicted.

Best case scenario, in my opinion, Knox’s sentence will be reduced a couple of years if the knife evidence is held as unreliable—which would still be considered a big win, because I strongly believe that she was involved. This is unlikely, however, as Guede’s sentence was reduced from 30yrs to 16yrs upon appeal. Guede’s sentence was reduced primarily because of Knox and Sollecito’s trial--the Italian Supreme Court ruled that there was more than one person involved in the crime, and they implicated Knox and Sollecito in their ruling; thus, diminishing Guede's role and sentence as a result. Hypothetically speaking, if Knox and Sollecito "walk" then Guede gets only 16yrs for killing Meredith Kercher. I could be wrong, but I don’t think that I am: Knox and Sollecito’s sentences both stand at the end of this appeal. In any event, May 21 (date the experts will give testimony) will be another circus-type event in Italy’s trial of the century.


In other case news, the Sollecito family criminal trial and civil trial for leaking evidence—primarily the crime scene footage showing Kercher’s naked body and close-up shots of her wounds—and for trying to persuade politicians to get key officers off of the case will both start on 29 April 2011. More on this coming soon (also covered extensively in my book).

Knox Appeal: Witness Gives Conflicting Testimony

Homeless man, Antonio Curatolo, 54, took the stand today and may have mixed up the date that he saw Knox and Sollecito with Halloween. “The two youngsters were talking intensely to each other,” he told the court. “I can remember that in the piazza that night young people in masks were coming and going and buses were leaving for the nightclubs.”

Knox and Sollecito’s defense team pounced on the fact that Kercher was killed on November 1st, one day after Perugia was filled with Halloween partygoers wearing masks and taking buses out to clubs on the fringes of the hill town. Previous witnesses have said that on 1 November all the clubs were closed.

“This was a witness the prosecution really counted on, while for us Curatolo’s statement that he saw them the night of the murder is not reliable,” said Giulia Bongiorno, a lawyer representing Sollecito. “If he saw them another night, well, they did live in the area,” she said. “We have been saying Curatolo is unreliable for three and a half years,” said Luciano Ghirga, a lawyer representing Knox.
Curatolo’s testimony, however, also gave hope to prosecutors. He claimed that the morning after he had seen Knox and Sollecito he was still in Piazza Grimana and witnessed investigators in white forensic outfits entering the house where Kercher’s body was found in a pool of blood. “Police and carabinieri were coming and going, and I also saw the 'extraterrestrials’, that would be the men in white overalls,” Curatolo said.

“I am really certain, just as certain as I am sitting here, that I saw those two youngsters the night before the men in white outfits.”

Curatolo also told the prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, that it was not raining the night he saw the pair. “He has simply repeated what he told the trial,” said Francesco Maresca, a lawyer representing the Kercher family. “What is key is that he is sure he saw them the night before the police came and that it was not raining. It rained on the 31st but not on the 1st,” he said.

Prosecutor Manuela Comodi said the confusion between Oct. 31 and Nov. 1 is a moot point as it has already been ascertained that Knox was somewhere else—in a pub where she worked—on Oct. 31 and so could not have been seen in the square.

In more bad news for the prosecution, CBS News correspondent, Allen Pizzey, says leaked documents indicate that two independent forensic experts will say traces of Knox’s DNA on a 12-inch kitchen knife, and Sollecito’s on a bra clasp found at the murder scene, were too small and too contaminated to be admissible as evidence. Traces of Sollecito’s DNA on the bra clasp totaled 150 cells, clearly enough to warrant a reliable test and hard to prove contamination from the machine used to test it or from the scene itself. It will be interesting to hear the experts explain their findings on this piece of evidence. As of now the experts are still scheduled to report their findings to the court on 21 May 2011.

Knox Appeal: Homeless in Perugia

With the appeals on the verge of heating-up—in anticipation for the expected May 21st report from independent experts on crucial physical evidence in the case—today the court heard from witnesses disputing the testimony of homeless man, Antonio Curatolo. Mr. Curatolo testified that he saw Knox and Sollecito on the night of the murder several times in Piazaa Grimana, which overlooks the cottage (crime scene). Mr. Curatolo also testified that he was certain because he remembered seeing buses and other students in the piazza waiting to board buses to go to discos in town.

On this day, the fifth appeal hearing, six witnesses took the stand—including some operators of shuttle bus services that run from the piazza in question to discos on Perugia’s outskirts, as well as people doing work for two discos. In short, the witnesses said shuttle bus services were not running that night.

Roles of the seven defense witnesses (one hasn’t testified yet):

Rita Pucciarini, organizes events in Perugia
Giorgio Brugnini - owner, Disco Etoile 59
Mauo Mandarini - owner, Disco Gradisca
Arturo Liasullo, manager, SIAE
Massimiliano Bevilacqua - Bus company
Gaetano Ini- Bus company
Rosa Ini- Bus company

Rita Pucciarini, who at the time of the murder worked for the Red Zone disco, told the court “There were no buses [running that night]… I’m certain because discos focus on Halloween, which is a big draw. It’s like New Year’s Eve.”

Luciano Ghirga, a lawyer for Knox, said the testimony “removes the two from the scene of the crime.” Prosecutor Manuela Comodi said the testimony was “useless” as there are other discos in Perugia and other bus shuttle services whose operators had not been heard. Comodi also said, “If ever there is testimony that is completely useless…this is it.” Kercher family lawyer, Francesco Maresca, noted that he “remains convinced of the reliability of this witness [Curatolo].”

There has been no word yet whether the prosecution will be entering Rudy Guede’s Motivation Report into the record. Antonio Curatolo is expected to take the witness stand again during the next hearing, which is scheduled for 26 March 2011.

Knox Appeal: More Defense Dilly-Dallying

The wheels of justice are again moving slowly, as the appeals of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito resume with little progress. Today the defense expressed optimism outside the courtroom that a drug charge conviction of a “key prosecution witness” Antonio Curatolo, 53, might help Knox in her appeal. One of Knox’s lawyers, Luciano Ghirga, told The Associated Press in Rome that Curatolo, a homeless man in the university town of Perugia, wasn't a credible witness.

In the first trial Curatolo testified that he spent most of his time around Corso Garibaldi (the street where Sollecito lived) and Piazza Grimana (the piazza in front of the School for Foreigners where the basketball court is located). On the night of the murder he told the court that he witnessed Knox and Sollecito in the park several times that night (between 9:30p.m., and midnight), which contradicted their statements—that they spent the entire night at Sollecito’s flat. Although homeless, Curatolo’s precise and well-spoken testimony was seen as credible by most that are familiar with it.

Still, Luciano Ghirga said, “We have always said that he was not a credible witness, it was the court that held he was credible.” The drug charge conviction “will be an additional thing to help prove the witness is not credible,” Ghirga said in a phone interview. Perugia court offices were closed Saturday, and officials could not be reached to confirm Italian news reports that Curatolo had been convicted earlier in the week for dealing drugs. It wasn’t immediately known what his sentence was or if he had been jailed.

The defense is again reaching for straws here and journalists continue to mislead the public when they claim that Curatolo is a “key prosecution witness.” In fact, Curatolo’s testimony was just another hole in Knox and Sollecito’s Swiss-cheese alibi. Curatolo’s drug charges stem from events that allegedly occurred nearly eight-years ago, bringing to mind the questions: why has it taken so long to charge and convict this man and why wasn’t there enough evidence back then to charge and convict him? It will be interesting to see what evidence there is against him for these charges of selling heroine; photographs of him talking to a drug addict in Piazza Grimana will prove nothing.

In any event, why does this piece of information make him any less credible? Moreover, the same people who are banking on this conviction to discredit him are the same ones who are banking on testimonies of the convicted baby killer and the convicted mobster—who have both been called as witnesses for the defense. Curatolo’s testimony stood up well and he was unflustered in the face of the lackluster and uncertain defense cross-examination. In strong contrast, defense witnesses Alessi and Aviello (baby killer and mobster)— who are both in prison and hoping for breaks—are almost certainly potential perjurers and may blink rather than take the stand and face perjury charges and longer sentences.

The big news that was anticipated for this hearing—information on the progress of the independent evaluation of the DNA evidence—was not reported on. Most likely it will be announced at the next hearing, which is scheduled for 22 January 2011.

Knox & Sollecito Get Early Christmas Present

The final hearing of 2010 took place today in Perugia, Italy for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito’s appeal. Amanda Knox entered the courtroom fearing the worst; walking-in with her head down, she was seen greeting a friend. Knox’s lawyer, Carlo Dalla Vedova, took his normal stance before court, telling journalists that the case against her was “full of gray areas” and that it was “a huge miscarriage of justice.”

Last week Knox and Sollecito’s lawyers asked the appellate court in Perugia to overturn their murder convictions, requesting new witnesses and a complete review of the forensic evidence used against them in the original criminal trial. The defense maintains that DNA traces presented at the first trial were inconclusive and also contends they might have been contaminated when they were analyzed. Prosecutor Giancarlo Costagliola had opposed the review request as “useless,” asserting that “this court has all the elements to be able to come to a decision.” Kercher’s family lawyer, Francesco Maresca, insisted that there is no need to review the forensics. “We have heard this all before,” Maresca told the court. “If we don’t trust the state’s analysis of forensic evidence, we’ll have to reconsider every trial.”


After just over an hour in his chambers, Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmen, assistant judge-Massimo Zanetti, and the six-person jury told the court that, in the interest of justice, they do need an independent review of at least some of the key forensic evidence—a bra clasp with Sollecito’s DNA and a kitchen knife with Knox’s DNA on the handle, and what the prosecution contends is Kercher’s on the blade. “If possible, the tests must be redone,” Judge Hellmen told the court. “If they can’t be re-tested, then the procedures must be closely examined.” The judge appointed two experts from Rome’s Sapienza University (Professors Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti) to review the evidence. The experts will be formally given the task at the trial’s next session on 15 Jan. 2011.

The judge also asked to hear several witnesses from the criminal trial including homeless man Antonio Curatolo, who testified that he saw Knox and Sollecito gazing over the house where Kercher was killed late the night of the murder. During the criminal trial, Curatolo testified that he also saw other students on a bus that night coming from a disco in town. Lawyers for Sollecito maintain that there was no disco that night, and that Curatolo was confused. Helmen wants to hear from the manager of the disco and the bus driver. This is important because Curatolo's testimony otherwise appeared concise, reliable, and very clearly articulated.


Helmen denied a request to examine a pillowcase found under Kercher’s body that had the footprint in blood that the prosecution attributed to Knox. That pillowcase also had a spot of semen that had never been tested. The defense wants the spot tested to see whose it is, but the prosecution maintains that it likely belonged to Kercher’s boyfriend Giacomo Silenzi. The judge decided that it was not relevant in this murder. The judge also denied the reexamination of the time of Kercher’s death. He reserved the right to call two witnesses the defense insists will set their clients free. The first is Mario Alessi, a convicted child killer who says Guede told him that Knox and Sollecito had nothing to do with the murder. The second is Luciano Aviello, a Camorra mobster who says his brother is the real assassin. The judge may or may not call these two witnesses.

Although today’s decision seemed like a glimmer of hope for the Knox and Sollecito camps, there is bad news to report for them as well. Two days ago Italy’s highest criminal court upheld the conviction and 16-year-prison sentence of the third person convicted in the murder, Rudy Guede of the Ivory Coast. The high court’s ruling, which cannot be appealed, is significant because it states that Guede took part in the slaying but did not act alone, prosecutors and lawyers said.