Knox Appeal: The Prosecution Strikes Back

Amanda Knox entered the courtroom today for the second day in a row. This time she was wearing olive green satin blouse and black slacks, and gave a smile to her father, stepfather, and best friend as she was led to her seat. Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni (above) took the stand again today to dispute the DNA results given by the two court appointed experts, Professors Carla Vecchiotti and Stefano Conti.

Yesterday Dr. Stefanoni was armed with 119 PowerPoint slides to explain her analysis. During her presentation some had a hard time staying awake in the dimly-lit, hot courtroom; even Knox seemed to nod-off a bit. As Dr. Stefanoni took the stand, Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann joked about it saying, “I’m glad to see you have no slides,” he said with a wry smile. Still, Dr. Stefanoni did, however, use more slides. Under questioning by prosecutor Manuela Comodi, Dr. Stefanoni defended the methods and equipment used in the investigation.


Dr. Stefanoni told the court that the machine used for the DNA examination was clean, and she rejected suggestions that the clasp had been contaminated. Dr. Stefanoni said the knife was tested in a lab six days after investigators had analyzed a trace of Kercher’s DNA, and she insisted that contamination did not occur.

Dr. Stefanoni also insisted that during period of 46 days after the killing that it took to collect the bra clasp, “nothing from outside the victim’s room was brought inside.” She insisted that out of 133 specimens analyzed in the house of the murder—including 89 in Kercher’s room—Sollecito’s genetic profile was only found in a cigarette butt in an ashtray, mixed with Knox’s. “If Sollecito’s DNA had somehow traveled from the butt to the clasp, then there would be Knox’s DNA as well on the clasp,” she said. This is something that I have posited and discussed long ago (SEE HERE for further explanation).

Also called to the stand by the prosecution was Giuseppe Novelli, an expert on human genetics at Rome’s Tor Vergata University. Novelli said he reviewed the prosecution’s procedures and he “absolutely excludes” contamination on the knife and bra clasp. Then he made a very valid point of common sense. “If the origin and vehicle of contamination is not proved, this is just a hypothetical theory,” Novelli said, adding that experts did not state precisely how the two items may have been contaminated with DNA.

The prosecution also called Francesca Torricelli, the director of a Genetical Diagnostic Center at the University of Florence. She argued that the DNA evidence was credible, and she had looked at the data and came to the same conclusions as Dr. Stefanoni. Professor Torricelli assured the court that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade of the double DNA knife.


Vecchiotti (above w/ Conti) testified in an earlier hearing that the knife tested negative for blood and the amount of DNA said to be Kercher’s was so low that it could not be examined again with any conclusions. But Torricelli refuted this claim, saying that she had witnessed the work of Vecchiotti and Conti, and that the machinery they used during their investigation could check extremely low quantities of DNA. Meanwhile, Novelli told the court that for him, and others, it was not a question of “quantity of DNA, but rather quality” to carry out a successful examination.

Outside the courtroom, prosecutor Comodi said she considered that Stefanoni and Novelli had clearly proven the good work they had done.

Knox Appeal: Resumes Today After Summer Recess

With the verdict in the appeals trails of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito expected at the end of this month, tensions are high on both sides. After a summer recess, the trial continued today with the prosecution questioning the court appointed forensics experts regarding their results of two key pieces of DNA evidence that helped convict Knox and her former boyfriend of murdering Meredith Kercher back in 2007. Knox arrived at the courtroom today looking anxious and drawn.

In their 145-page report to the court, the experts—Carla Vecchiotti and Stefano Conti—questioned much of the evidence that was collected in that original investigation, saying procedures to obtain it fell below international standards and may have led to contamination.

Questioned today over the extraction of DNA profiles from the bra clasp, Carla Vecchiotti said the data was so mixed that a very high number of genetic profiles could be extracted, depending how one combined the data “I could find yours, too,” Vecchiotti told the presiding judge. “I’m there, too,” she said, adding that some data was compatible with her own DNA. This was a bizarre comment by Vecchiotti, which if we take what she said at face value could call into question her own methods and possible contamination on her part. However, she was most likely facetiously stating that there were a number of profiles on the clasp. She added that Kercher’s profile was the only certain one.

The prosecution and Kercher family lawyer, Francesco Maresca, are now in a touchy situation as they are forced to attack the reputations of the court appointed experts, which might be viewed as an attack upon Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann—who appointed them.


The key witness today was Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, the police forensic scientist who carried out the original investigation, defended the collection procedures used and the results obtained. Dr. Stefanoni told the court that DNA analyses were carried out from behind a glass wall to avoid the risk of contamination. She also said some of the standard protocols cited by the experts were published after she finished her report in May 2008, also pointing out that there are no internationally accepted international protocols for DNA collection. Using some of the 119 PowerPoint slides she said she had prepared, she challenged the experts' finding over DNA quantity, analysis and evidence collection techniques. Dr. Stefanoni’s testimony will continue Tuesday, where she is expected to defend her team's handling of the bra clasp among other things.

After the session, Maresca commented to CNN reporters regarding Dr. Stefanoni’s testimony today. “Stefanoni has thoroughly and calmly clarified the principal elements of the work she carried out—in a clear manner, given the complex subject…during the examination at the time…I think she managed to get the court’s full attention and to have damaged the independent forensic work.”

Just ahead of the hearing, in a letter (Read complete letter HERE) released by Francesco Maresca, Kercher’s sister, Stephanie, wrote: “In these last few weeks we have been left seriously anxious and greatly troubled by the news regarding the original DNA findings. It is extremely difficult to understand how the results, which were obtained with great care and presented in the original trial as valid, could now be regarded as irrelevant.”


Stephanie Kercher concluded by writing, “My sister, a daughter brutally and selfishly taken from us nearing 4 years ago…and yet a not a single day goes by that we can grasp any peace or closure…We ask that the Court of Appeal assess every single (piece) of evidence, both scientific and circumstantial, as well as any witnesses who have taken the stand independently of any other information or media,” she wrote.

Continuing her verbal campaign to free her daughter, Knox’s mother, Edda Mellas commented on the contents of the Kercher letter: “I saw in her letter where she stated that it [the evidence] was collected appropriately,” Mellas, told ABC News. “Well, perhaps they should go and review the crime scene videos, because clearly it was not.”

The appeals hearings are expected to continue through the week. After rebuttals later in September, an appeals verdict is expected by the end of the month.

Knox Appeal: Defense Witness Does 180 & Experts Speak

On Monday, as expected, the two court-appointed experts—Carla Vecchiotti and Stefano Conti—explained their report, which was submitted to the court last month. Sources say that Vecchiotti & Conti might be under investigation for possible collaboration with one or several defense DNA experts. Strange comments of leaked expert reports have been coming from Knox supporters as early as March.

I personally have received several anonymous comments from people claiming to have possession of the independent expert’s report, long before it was submitted to the court, in an attempt to taunt me with the results. And, the fact that what they were saying about the results seems to be exactly what was in the report shows a strong possibility that the report was most likely transported through the hands of the experts on down to internet posters. I wonder what that chain of transportation looks like?

The prosecution will surely make a case that these evidentiary items were not objectively examined. If Judge Hellman rules in favor, the prosecution then has the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Cassation for a ruling. We will have to watch closely to see what transpires from this.


As we’ve seen throughout this process, there have been no shortages of shocking moments. The recent bombshell came yesterday, when former defense witness, ex-mafia turn-coat, and prison inmate, Luciano Aviello (see his previous testimony HERE), testified under oath before a magistrate in Perugia that he was offered 30,000 Euros by Sollecito’s lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno (pic above), for his June 18th testimony. Furthermore, he claims that the money was delivered to him by Raffaele’s sister, Vanessa Sollecito.

You can read Aviello’s full statement at TJMK, which has been translated into English.

In his statement, Aviello claims that “everything he had declared was false: that it was false and had been agreed with Raffaele Sollecito’s lawyers in order to create confusion in the case…Aviello heavily accused Sollecito’s lawyers and sister. He said that it had been she [the sister] who had delivered the 30 000 Euros to an acquaintance of his in Naples, who was to act as a go-between. The money was to be found in an apartment in Turin which the Perugia police will check.”

But perhaps the most shocking allegation made by Aviello in his statement was when he said, “Raffaele told me that it was Amanda and that he was also there.” I actually know that it’s true that Amanda did it,” he says Raffaele had told him, “but I didn’t do it: it wasn’t me that did the murder,” Raffaele continued. You would think that this new statement from Aviello is at least news worthy. Yet, the American media has failed to print one story on his new statement.

So what credence can we actually give to Aviello’s newest statements? Well, we know that he is clearly a fearless perjurer whose credibility has never been held in any high regard. So now Aviello has sent authorities on another hunt, this time to that apartment in Turin where the 30,000 Euros is allegedly being held for him. We will have to wait and see what comes of this new investigation, but it is true that the Sollecito family did meet with Aviello in prison, according to TJMK sources.

Meanwhile, on Tuesday the prosecution sent patrols to Rome and seized the DVD used by the two experts Vecchiotti and Conti to help present their findings to the court a day earlier. The DVD has been logged with the office of the clerk of the Appeal Court of Perugia and will be used by the prosecution to demonstrate that the scientific police used the correct procedures during the investigation. Prosecutor Manuela Comodi will use the DVD to question Vecchiotti and Conti at the next hearing, which is scheduled to take place this Saturday, 30 July 2011.

Knox Appeal: Experts on Key DNA Evidence File Their Report

On 29 June 2011, The two court-appointed forensic experts—Carla Vecchiotti and Stefano Conti (pictured above), both from the Legal Medicine Institute of Rome’s La Sapienza University—in the Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito appeals trial filed their report to a tribunal in Perugia (Report translated HERE). Both experts were appointed to analyze two pieces of physical evidence being contested by the defense: the knife (Item 36) and the bra clasp (Item 165B).

The experts were not able to retest the DNA on the bra clasp and the knife because there was not enough DNA to retest. So, they were then assigned to judge “the degree of reliability of the tests carried out by the forensic police on the evidence based on court documents, specifically with reference to any possible contamination.”

During the first trial, experts for the prosecution determined that a small sample of Kercher’s DNA was found on the blade of the knife and Knox’s DNA was found on the handle. Also during the first trial, experts for the prosecution—and even Professor Francesco Vinci, initially retained by Sollecito’s legal team—said that the bra clasp showed traces of Sollecito’s DNA.

In the 145-page report filed in late June, the court-appointed experts concluded that while Knox’s DNA was on the handle of the knife, the tests on the blade were “not reliable” because the correct international protocol for tests on small samples, called low copy number (LCN) DNA analysis, had not been followed. The results were therefore inconclusive, according to the experts. The experts also said that both the knife and the bra clasp had been collected and handled without following international procedures. They did not, however, explain what international protocols were not followed by Dr. Stefanoni and her staff.


In regard to Kercher’s DNA being found on the blade of the knife, the report concludes by saying, “It cannot be ruled out that the result obtained from sample B (blade of knife) derives from contamination in some phase of the collection and/or handling and/or analyses performed.” The experts, however, did not expound on, or even give any specifics on, this assertion. There was not a theory posed as to how contamination could have occurred; there was no theory posed on the likely possibility that contamination occurred (i.e. to what degree possible contamination occurred).

So, if it cannot be ruled out that contamination may have occurred; it is also safe to assume that it cannot be ruled out that contamination didn’t occur. Therefore, we appear to be right back where we started from. When first approached by police and informed that Meredith’s blood was found on the blade of the knife, Raffaele Sollecito confirmed this, claiming that he had pricked her with the knife accidentally while cooking a fish dinner for her in his apartment. It was later confirmed that Meredith had never been to Sollecito’s apartment. If we cannot trust certain scientific processes, can we at least trust common sense? Good detective work still remains the staple of any effective investigation, doesn’t it?

Yet, clearly the hardest evidence of the two to try and hold as unreliable is the bra clasp. According to Dr. Stefanoni’s report, the clasp contained 1.4 nanogram (or 1400 picograms— approximately 200 cells) from Sollecito, plenty to conduct a reliable test (the minimum for reliability using the PCR Process is typically 1 nanogram).

By claiming “possible” contamination on this item, all are confirming that it is indeed Sollecito’s DNA on the clasp, and that it got there by improper collection methods. All they are saying is that his DNA, which was positively found on the bra clasp, could have been deposited there, by forensic experts on the scene, from somewhere else within the cottage. Yes, the bra clasp was not collected until 18 December 2007.

But forensic video of all inspections show that the clap never left Meredith’s room. So, if Sollecito’s DNA was taken from an area of the cottage (crime scene) and deposited on the bra clasp at some point, which is what this contamination analysis means, then where did it come from?


In judge Massei’s report (pg. 268) he explains that a “cigarette stub” was the only other place that Sollecito’s DNA was found in the cottage. Moreover, judge Massei explains the impossibility of such a transfer (on page 274 & 275). In his report, Massei explains how the search method was conducted in Meredith’s room, which consisted of “subdividing the areas: in Meredith’s room no other object apart from the hooks [of the bra clasp] was shown to carry Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA; Raffaele Sollecito did not leave his DNA on any object that was in Meredith's room; and more importantly, none of the operators, after having touched some object which might have had Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA on it, then touched the hooks of the small piece of bra so as to make even hypothetically possible a transfer of DNA (from the object containing Sollecito's DNA to the gloves, from the gloves to the hooks).”

Remember, it is very likely that Vecchiotti and Conti do not know this. They were not appointed to be experts on the entire case and read all of the evidence; they were hired for a specific reason: to evaluate two pieces of physical evidence. Judges and members of the jury will surely take this into account. They will get the full scope of the evidence and weigh it all against one another.

In regard to the report, Kercher family lawyer, Francesco Maresca, said, “the word of the independent experts would not be the last word, and said he would raise his objections during the last week in July, when the report will be formally discussed during a week of hearings.” Maresca also asserted that the scientific police and the consultants, whose results the independent experts are reviewing, have “far more experience” than the independent experts. “I was surprised that these experts were so certain, and gave such strong, drastic opinions, given that they don’t have the same number of years of experience under their belt,” Mr. Maresca said.

The next hearing in the case is scheduled for 25 July 2011, where these independent experts will formally discuss their results and the prosecution will certainly provide a counter argument.

Knox Appeal: Tears & Twists

As expected, The two court-appointed experts—Carla Vecchiotti and Stefano Conti—from La Sapienza University officially stated that they could not retest the contested DNA evidence and are now assessing the reliability of the tests that were originally conducted (as has been previously predicted—nothing new). Today, during the seventh hearing (which laster about two hours), the two experts asked the court for a six week extension to examine DNA evidence on the knife and bra clasp and their request was granted. Vecchiotti and Conti will finish their report 30 June 2011 and describe their findings to the court at a 25 July 2011 hearing.

Dressed in a beige satin top and black trousers, a teary-eyed and emotional Amanda Knox briefly addressed the appeals court in Perugia today. “I don’t want to spend my whole life in prison as an innocent,” she asserted during her 90-second statement.

Another important decision made today was the decision to allow five new defense witnesses, all of whom are inmates in Italian prisons who claim to have information clearing Knox and Sollecito. Which, if any, are we to believe? The new witnesses, as have been well documented for months now, include convicted child murderer, Mario Alessi—along with newly documented, three witnesses called to back up Alessi's claim—as well as jailed mobster, Luciano Aviello .

And, as if there wasn't enough drama in this case already; a new surprising and bizarre twist has now emerged! Today, the court discussed a three-page handwritten document dated 6 May 2011, that was sent to the court and to Knox's defense team by (oh yes, it’s true!) another inmate, Tommaso Pace.

In this latest version, Pace sent a written statement to the court claiming that a drug dealer had paid €100,000 to have Meredith Kercher murdered over an unpaid debt. In his letter Pace named the man he said had ordered the murder, paying two brothers to carry it out, and said that the Marietti knife (alleged murder weapon) was not the weapon used to kill Miss Kercher. Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellman ruled that he would delay any decision on whether or not to admit Pace as a witness but said that the first prisoners would be heard on 18 June 2011 (the next hearing) with special arrangements being made for them to testify.

After the witnesses and experts testify, the court will adjourn for a summer break and pick up again in September, at which time the prosecution and defense lawyers will give their closing arguments. A verdict by the appeals court is expected after the summer, but don’t hold your breath.

Knox Appeal: Date Set for DNA Results

The appeals of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito reconvened today, ending just hours ago. The long awaited ruling on key DNA evidence used to convict Knox and her former boyfriend Sollecito of murder was the subject of the day. Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmen made the official order today to have the DNA evidence reexamined.


The independent experts previously appointed by the appeals court—Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti from Rome’s Sapienza University (both shown in pic above)—were formally sworn in at today’s hearing. They will begin their review on 9 February at a university lab, conclude their examinations by 9 May, and report their findings to the court on 21 May 2011. The two independent experts can either make new analyses on the DNA traces that were found, or, if that isn't possible, review the analyses that had been carried out by previous forensic experts and assess whether they are reliable. Experts appointed by both the prosecution and the defense will be present during the review.

The two pieces of evidence that will be reevaluated are the knife and the bra clasp. Mr. Conti was the more vocal of the two court appointed experts, asking if he could disassemble the knife during their tests. The defense had no problem with the request, but the prosecution opposed the action. Judge Hellman ruled that they should start by working on the knife and if they feel it is absolutely necessary at some later point to disassemble it they should come back into court and make another request and it will be ruled on at that time.

The prosecution maintains the DNA review will once and for all prove that errors were not made; whereas defense lawyers maintain that the DNA evidence in the case is either “inconclusive” or was “contaminated” during the lengthy investigation. The next hearing is scheduled for March 12th.