Knox Appeal: The Defense Counters (14th Hearing)

The Knox camp got a boost today, as things seemed to go entirely their way Wednesday. The fourteenth appeals hearing started with requests by Prosecutor Manuela Comodi for new testing on the knife and bra clasp and to introduce newly discovered records about the DNA-testing machine used in the case. Furthermore, Comodi had requested to recall Luciano Aviello to the stand, a witness who had originally testified that his brother killed Kercher, who has since publically retracted this statement when questioned by Comodi in prison in July (Read more on this HERE).

Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann, however, rejected all three requests—all victories for Knox’s defense, who opposed the motions. Judge Hellman said the discussion regarding DNA evidence had been thorough enough for the court to form an opinion, and he said that new testing would be “superfluous.”

Other expert defense witnesses came forward as well today to counter expert prosecution testimony a day earlier. Much as he did in the original trial, Carlo Torre, one of Italy’s best-known forensics experts, presented a detailed technical argument about the DNA on the knife. Torre testified that the “smaller wound [on Kercher’s neck] is absolutely incompatible with the knife in question.” Torre is also a proponent of “one robust killer” as opposed to three attackers.

Dr. Torre’s assistant, Sarah Gino (who is a private coroner) also testified today. Reiterating some of what she said on the stand in the original trial, Gino added that Sollecito’s genetic material could have gotten onto the bloodied bra if it was on Knox’s clothes when they were washed with Kercher’s before the killing, a new theory now posed by Gino.


In her testimony earlier this week, Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni said that she stored biological evidence in the victim’s freezer on November 2 and 3 (2007), before bringing the samples to Rome. “This is a strange way of [collecting] evidence,” defense forensic expert Adriano Tagliabracci testified today, criticizing the methods used by Stefanoni. Taught methods of collection of biological evidence calls for them to be air-dried, because they are damp, thus should be packaged in a non-plastic contained to prevent mold or bacteria from creating a whole different kind of science experiment inside the containers.

It was certainly a good tactic by the defense to raise these concerns, although in retrospect, this procedure by Stefanoni didn’t affect her results, and the defense has a better chance of swaying the jury with the independent experts’ findings—because the plastic bag contamination (argument) would have a better chance ruining the possibility of receiving a DNA match rather than providing a match via contamination.

Kercher family lawyer, Francesco Maresca, told the media that the rulings were not a defeat, and that he understood why the judge rejected the requests.

Reminiscent of his enthusiasm and optimism during this time in the first trial, Amanda’s father, Curt Knox said (as reported by The Telegraph), “Amanda is happy and hopeful that she won't be spending too much more time in prison...”

Meanwhile, Nick Pisa, of The Telegraph and The Daily Mail, is reporting that a clearly frustrated Prosecutor Manuela Comodi said: "There is an ill wind blowing in this case. The judge and his assistant are clearly against us. I can see both Knox and Sollecito being freed which will be a shame as they are both involved."

However, it is ABC who has apparently interviewed Comodi and their take is very different than what Nick Pisa wrote. The Seattle Times is reporting that in ABC’s interview with her, Comodi said:

“We did our job. I am convinced by what I have said. I am fully convinced of their guilt and I would find it very serious if they were set free. Today’s decision could lead one to think that there is more of a possibility that they be set freed.”

Nick Pisa seems to have used his ill-will to twist the quote of Comodi in an effort to "sell papers" per say; and it seems to be working because today Sheppard Smith of FOX News used the quote verbatim and proceeded to slam Italian Justice and the case against Knox. Even I was fooled by it for a few hours.

A voice of reason in the most unlikely places also emerged today. After the session, Knox's lawyer Luciano Ghirga, warned that the court’s rejection of new DNA testing was not equal to a positive outcome of the whole appeals trial.

Judge Hellmann suspended the proceedings until 23 September 2011, at which time he announced that closing arguments will begin, with the prosecution going first, followed by civil plaintiffs, and then the defense.

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: 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.

Kercher Family Lawyer, Francesco Maresca: A Force to be Reckoned With

What has thus far been lost, or more like “ignored,” by the American media is the fact that Francesco Maresca—lawyer for the Kercher family—believes that Knox, Sollecito, and Guede were all involved in the murder of his client’s daughter. This is important because Maresca represents the interests of the victim and her family. Maresca has attended all hearings and has been an active member in this case; he has also been an outspoken source apart from the police and the prosecutors involved. So this also means that the Kercher family believes in the guilt of all three as well, which they have publically acknowledged apart from their attorney.

Francesco Maresca has always been a public voice throughout this entire process. After nearly every hearing on the case, Maresca has been the most significant voice, because he remains the most independent lawyer involved in the case. Among the many hats that Maresca had to wear, he was always concerned about the dignity of Meredith and her family. Maresca implored the judge in the original trial to have the media excluded from hearing evidence that involved graphic photos and or testimony to “preserve Meredith’s memory and dignity,” and because this would be “very traumatic” for the Kercher family. NOTE: Maresca also informed the court that he had no objection to journalists hearing the proceedings, but just without video. Judge Massei made the decision that neither would occur.

And then there were the days where Maresca showed the media his animated side. After one hearing, Maresca even used sarcasm to get his point across. Speaking in regard to whether or not more than one person was involved in the killing Maresca said, “If it was only one person then that person had more than two hands.” He later answered that question much more directly: “…the attack [on Kercher] was strong, and repeated, and carried out by more than one person.”


Maresca has always been outspoken in providing his, and the Kercher family’s, view on who was involved. In his closing argument in the original trial of Knox and Sollecito, Maresca told the court that the case against Knox and Sollecito was “crystal clear,” and sufficient enough for the judges and the jury to find them guilty.

Meredith Kercher’s family remained silent during the trial, except when called to testify, and they looked relieved when the verdict was read. The Kercher family also spoke at a press conference after the trial, but they spoke mostly about the memory of Meredith. They did, however, give a glimpse into their beliefs about who killed their daughter/sister. The family praised the efforts of police, prosecutors, and jurors, and Meredith’s brother, Lyle, said, “Ultimately we are pleased with the verdict.”

And then there was the article written by Meredith’s father, John Kercher, in the UK’s Daily mail at the start of the appeals trial in which he made a strong plea for the cruel, callous, and inaccurate PR games, of Knox’s family, to stop. In it, he makes it very clear his (and his family’s) feelings of Knox’s involvement in his daughter’s murder. “To many, she seems an unlikely killer. Yet to my family she is, unequivocally, culpable. As far as we are concerned, she has been convicted of taking our precious Meredith’s life in the most hideous and bloody way.”

Overall, they remained dignified throughout the entire process, letting Maresca do the talking for them. After the guilty verdict was handed down to Knox and Sollecito at the original trial, Maresca spoke on behalf of the family regarding the decision. “The Kercher family got the justice they were expecting,” Maresca told the press. “We got what we were hoping for.” He later added, “It is a good sentence that fills the Kercher family with satisfaction. Justice was given to the family for this tragedy. These are heavy convictions for very young kids. It is a tragedy on all sides.”


Then it was Mr. Maresca who led the charge against the Sollecito family for providing local Bari TV station, Telenorba, with a crime-scene video of Meredith, which showed her lying half-naked on her back on the floor, with the wounds to her throat clearly visible. And, without any shame, Telenorba committed the ultimate taboo televised the video.

“This is an example of gross journalistic misconduct, which evidently violates all the rules of how to report a story,” Maresca said. Spurred by complaints from Maresca, a full investigation into the Sollecito family ensued. Charges were soon announced, for this and other offenses allegedly committed by the Sollecito family, and that trial is ongoing.

In a recent interview with Umbria Left regarding the previous hearing and Rudy Guede’s testimony, Maresca said, “In my opinion Guede once again confirmed the presence of all three accused at the site of the murder that night. It seems to me the truth of a co-accused already found guilty. To me it appeared absolutely clear,” Maresca concluded.

Even more recently, the two court appointed experts submitted a 145-page report filed to a tribunal in Perugia explaining their results, after examining the only two pieces of DNA evidence that the court would allow to be contested by either defense team. The conclusion that they came up with was that the DNA evidence “might have been contaminated” (I will cover this report extensively in subsequent posts).

To this report, Maresca countered that “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.

Knox Appeal: Guede & Two Other Inmates Provide Shocking Testimony

Today’s courtroom proceedings lived up to the hype, and once again provided a shocking new twist. Three more inmates took the stand today—one of them was Ivory Coast drifter, Rudy Guede, who has been convicted along with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

Guede was called as a witness to deny the story of convict, Mario Alessi, who told the last hearing that Guede had told him that Knox and Sollecito were not involved. Guede entered the courtroom in handcuffs and sat 15ft. away from Knox and Sollecito.


Guede denied that he had said Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito were not involved in the killing, and he read aloud the letter that he had written back in 2010. In the letter, Guede also denied the claims of Alessi, writing that (convicted child killer) Alessi’s claims were “the ravings of a sick and twisted mind, his ravings are the dreamed-up, untrue declarations of a monster.” Guede ended the letter by writing that the murder was “…a horrible homicide of a splendid young girl, Meredith Kercher, by Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.”

Defense lawyers said they did not know of the existence of the letter from the spring of 2010 before it was read in court today. This is quite shocking because it was something that I and TJMK had reported last week (TJMK has also posted this letter about a year ago as well). How could such high-profile defense teams not have known of this evidence?

Under cross-examination, Guede said he had written what he always believed. “The truth is what I wrote in that letter,” Guede said, but it “is not up to me to say who the killer was.”


Throughout Guede’s testimony today he was eyeballed by Knox and Sollecito. At one point Knox tried to interrupt his testimony and make a statement; but Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellman said she would have to wait until Guede was done and had left the courtroom. Judge Hellman denied Knox the right to confront Guede directly. He said that she would have to wait until Guede was done and had left the courtroom.

After Guede had been escorted out of the courtroom, Knox stood up and made a spontaneous statement in Italian. “I am shocked and anguished by these declarations....he knows we weren’t there,” she told the court. “He knows we had nothing to do with it,” Knox said. “The only time that Rudy Guede, Raffaele Sollecito and I were in one room together was in a court room...He knows what the truth is. I don’t know what happened that night,” she added.

Sollecito stood next and addressed the court. “I've never seen him, don't know him...don’t know how he indicates me with Amanda Knox,” asserted Sollecito. He said that he and Knox have been fighting “these shadows” for four years. “[Guede] has destroyed our lives," Sollecito said and asked, “What position am I meant to defend if this boy doesn't answer (questions)?”


Each hearing thus far has had moments of the bizarre and surreal. Today, this would be provided by the testimony of two other Inmates—Alexander Illicet and Cosimo Zaccari—called as witnesses for the prosecution. Both inmates claimed that, while in prison, they overheard other inmates speaking of a plot among to testify in exchange for money and benefits; those other inmates, they claim, were the ones who came forward to testify at the last hearing. The person they heard was arranging things, they said, was Sollecito’s attorney, Giulia Bongiorno, who heads up Italy's parliamentary justice committee.

Inmate Alexander Illicet from Serbia Montenegro said Luciano Aviello had agreed to pin the murder on his brother “in exchange for 158,000 Euros—money Aviello desperately needed to pay for a sex change he had been wanting.”

Inmate Cosimo Zaccari—who is in jail for fraud, libel, criminal conspiracy and receiving stolen goods—said Aviello had confided that he was “contacted to create confusion in the trial.” Zaccari testified that Aviello told him he had been offered €70,000 ($62,400) by Giulia Bongiorno.

When asked about these accusations by reporters after the session, Bongiorno adamantly denied them, vowing to take legal action against her accusers. Kercher family lawyer, Francesco Maresca, called the statements of the two inmates, “extremely credible.” Bongiorno responded by saying, “We are beyond the realms of the reasonable,” adding, “Not even the prosecutors appear to believe this story and I will be reporting this libel.”

On June 30, the forensic experts will submit a report to the court detailing their examination, and they will testify to these findings at the next hearing, which is scheduled for July 25. Closing arguments should begin in early September, with a verdict expected in October.

Sollecito Family Trial Begins

Today, the family members of Raffaele Sollecito faced their first day of trial. Raffaele’s family: Francesco Sollecito (his father), Vanessa Sollecito (his sister), Mara Papagni (his stepmother) Giuseppe Sollecito (his uncle) and Sara Achille (his aunt) all from Bari have been charged with leaking a crime scene video out of the 10,000-plus pages plus of evidence and exhibits to Telenorba, a Bari television station. The charges are as follows: defamation, invasion of privacy, and publication of arbitrary acts of a criminal case.

The prosecutors are Giuliano Mignini and Manuela Comodi; the judge is Alberto Avena; the Sollecito defense team consists of Marco Brusco, Francesco Crisis, Luca Maori and Donatella Donati; and the Kercher family (along with their lawyer, Francesco Maresca) is civil party to the trial and damages could be awarded to them if the defendants are found guilty.


The video included deeply upsetting close-ups of Meredith’s uncovered body and the wounds to her neck. It was later re-broadcast by the state network RAI throughout Italy. Vanessa Sollecito was fired from the Carabinieri late in 2009 for her involvement in this attempt to manipulate politicians.

During today’s proceedings, the Sollecito defense team raised an objection regarding issues of jurisdiction. Judge Avena postponed the hearing until 27 June 2011, at which time this matter will be decided.


In related news, the Lifetime movie Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy makes its debut in Canada this Sunday May 1 at 6 p.m. ET on Slice. The TV movie depicts the real-life murder case of British university exchange student Meredith Kercher (Amanda Fernando Stevens). The film focuses on Amanda Knox (Hayden Panettiere, Heroes), and Raffaele Sollecito (Paolo Romio) and Ivory Coast-born Rudy Guede (Djibril Kébé).

Some journalists praise the movie, claiming that it was well-crafted and executed. However, the movie is flooded with inaccuracies—so much so that it will confuse those who know little about the case. Amanda Knox and her lawyers have protested against the movie. However, it is not as incriminating as if a movie was made on the story accurately portraying the full details. I am not trying to dissuade anyone from watching the movie—it was an interesting portrayal and provides a decent visual of the events—but don’t think that you can “solve the case” simply by watching the movie.

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's Parents Indicted for Slander

It seems that the lies of Amanda Knox’s parents, or at best their “false statements,” are finally catching up with them. About an hour ago Amanda Knox’s parents, Curt Knox and Edda Mellas, were indicted in an Italian court for slander. The charges stem from an interview they gave Britain’s Sunday Times in an interview published on 15 June 2008.

In it, Knox’s parents stated that—during Amanda’s 5 November 2007, interrogation—Amanda was interrogated by police for nine hours until she signed a statement at 5:54a.m.

FACT: the interrogation began at 12:30p.m., on the 5th and ended at 5:45a.m., on the 6th (5 hours and 15 minutes). Moreover, Knox confessed to being at the crime scene and implicated Patrick Lumumba after only an hour (1:30a.m.), at which time questioning was halted until Prosecutor Mignini was called in.

Another erroneous statement given by Knox’s parents during that interview was that—during that same interrogation—“no professional interpreter was present, only a police officer who could speak English and who was not always there.”

FACT: There was an interpreter at that interrogation, Anna Donnino, and she testified during the trial. Moreover, Amanda herself testified to the presence of Anna as the interpreter during that interrogation.

In that same article the dynamic-duo also said that “[Amanda] was given no food and no water for all the nine hours,” and she “was abused physically and verbally.” The couple did not attend today’s hearing, but Knox’s Lawyer, Luciano Ghirga, confirmed the indictment and said trial was set for 4 July 2011. Shockingly, a Knox family representative told various news sources that there would be no comment for the previously vocal duo.

Knox’s parents are being defended by lawyers Luciano Ghirga and Maria Del Grosso. Former Kercher family lawyer, Francesco Maresca, is representing the police officers who filed the charges. Amanda Knox’s own defamation trial resumes on 17 May 2011, and her appeal resumes on 12 March 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.

Tearful Beginning: Knox up to Old Tricks

Today was the first formal hearing in the appeal against conviction for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. No one is sure just how long the trial will be, but one thing is for sure; Amanda Knox has had enough of prison living. Knox, now 23, broke down several times as she delivered an emotional twenty-minute address to the court; her voice sometimes quavering as she claimed that she had nothing to do with Miss Kercher’s brutal death. Her nervous, rambling statement—reminiscent of the court address she made at her 4th preliminary hearing back on 18 October 2008—was once again a limited, evasive, non-explanation of an explanation. It was an “I didn’t do it but I am so sorry for Meredith and her family anyway” kind of address. The fragile yet defiant Knox insisted that she did not kill Kercher and pled with the judge and jury to give her back her “shattered life,” calling her conviction unjust and an “enormous mistake.”


On 2 December 2010, Meredith Kercher’s (the victim), father, John Kercher, wrote a letter in which he made a strong plea for the cruel, callous, and inaccurate PR games, of Knox’s family, to stop. The well informed Kercher family has remained singularly cool-headed, dignified, and truthful throughout. On the other hand, the Knox family has continued to lie about the basic facts of the case; and unlike Edda Mellas, Knox’s mother, they have read Judge Massei’s sentencing report.

During Knox’s address to the court, Kercher family lawyer, Francesco Maresca walked out of the courtroom. Maresca later said he left because he wasn’t interested in comments he felt were “inappropriate, out of place and untimely.”


She went on to apologize to the Congolese bar owner, Patrick Lumumba, who spent nearly three weeks in jail after Knox told police he had killed Kercher. Lumumba was later cleared of all connection to the crime.

“Patrick: I'm sorry,” she said, turning in the direction of the courtroom where he was sitting with his lawyers. “I was naive and not at all courageous because I should have put up with the pressure that pushed me to hurt you. You didn't deserve what you went through and I hope you are able to find your peace.”

In a break after Knox’s statement, Lumumba told reporters that he felt her apology lacked sincerity, however. “If she had said it to me in the first weeks, after I got out of isolation, and we were both going in front of the judge, well then I would have believed her. But now, three years later, well, it seems like strategy. It's as if she's playing a card game and she's losing, so she’s playing every card she's got.”

Knox’s lawyer, Carlo Dalla Vedova, in his formal requests later in the day, asked for a complete review of “dubious” forensics in the case, and criticized the first judge’s sentencing report as full of personal reflections and conjecture that resulted in “perhaps one of the biggest judicial errors to happen here in recent years.”


Lawyers for Knox and Sollecito requested the court hear testimony from two new witnesses, convicted child killer Mario Alessi, who was housed in a prison cell across from Rudy Guede and says he heard another version of what happened, and mafia snitch Luciano Aviello, who claims his own brother killed Kercher and asked him to hide the murder weapon. On Friday, Perugia police raided Aviello’s prison cell on the grounds that Aviello is slandering his brother with a false homicide accusation. Italian newspapers hinted that police had sequestered documents or letters from Aviello’s cell that show his story was fabricated, but the matter was not brought up in court.

The prosecution and civil parties give their arguments next Saturday (Dec. 18). Knox’s appellate trial is expected to last for several months, with hearings held only on Saturdays.

See video footage of today's hearing

Knox in Court for Slander

Amanda Knox was back in court yesterday, facing slander changers. Francesco Maresca, the attorney for the eight police officers listed on the request for trial filed Friday, told the Seattle Post Intelligencer that the complaint was “all based on what she [Knox] said herself on the stand on the 12 and 13th of June.” Sources say that Knox appeared visibly “drawn and pale” when she appeared in court Friday for the hearing, and that she had also gained weight.

The next hearing for the slander trial against Knox is scheduled for 8 November 2010, at which time arguments are expected to be heard. The actual slander trial, however, may not take place until after Knox’s criminal appeal has been heard and ruled on, which may not take place until January 2011. If she wins the appeal the slander charges may be shelved, but the prosecutor appears to be determined to pursue the charges in order to prove Knox was not mistreated.

Knox’s Parents Facing Jail Time

Amanda Knox turns 23 on July 9, 2010. It will be her third birthday in Capanne prison just outside Perugia, Italy. Today, however, Amanda Knox’s parents were not pleading for Amanda’s innocence, but they were pleading for their own. Edda Mellas and Curt Knox (Amanda’s biological parents) appeared in court today for their preliminary hearing. Twelve Perugia police officers had filed defamation-charges against the pair well over a year ago after they told the London Times in June 2008, that their daughter was struck by police during her November 5, 2007 interrogation. Surprisingly enough, the officers were represented in court today by Francesco Maresca--the lawyer who represented the Kercher family during Amanda and Raffaele’s murder trial.

The purpose of this hearing was to determine whether their was enough evidence against Amanda’s parents to proceed with a full trial. The hearing today did not bring good news, as it was determined that there is enough evidence to proceed. The trail is scheduled to begin in mid-October. Knox’s parents have been very outspoken critics of the Italian justice system. Italian law enforcement pushed back heavily today, and no doubt want the pair silenced. Regardless, Curt Kox is not backing down, saying that “With respect to Edda’s and my slander charges, I believe those will get thrown out and this is nothing more than a harassment.”

If convicted, Knox’s parents face heavy fines and up to 3 years in jail. It is unlikely that her parents will go to jail, although if up to the twelve police officers, they would. However, it is more likely that they will be slapped with heavy fines, and considering their financial hardships (regarding their constant traveling back and forth to see their daughter as well as Amanda’s extensive lawyer fees) these fines may be just as debilitating.