Sollecito Asks for “Separate” Trial

With just a few months to go before their final appeals, Raffaele Sollecito drops a bomb on the Knox camp. Sollecito allegedly demanded that his and Knox’s cases be tried separately. Sollecito’s legal defense team is reportedly lobbying to Italy’s Supreme Court of Cassation to overrule his case and order a retrial.

Italian Horror House Gets Old, Yet, Familiar Visitor

The bizarre behavior exhibited by Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito throughout this tragic nightmare has been the source of much talk and controversy. Although it pales in comparison to other peculiar actions exhibited by the two throughout, Raffaele Sollectio added to that when he brought his new love to visit the home where he was convicted of brutally murdering Meredith Kercher.

Curse of Amanda Knox: Realtor says “Italian Horror House Hard to sell”

 

 

The Italian cottage where Amanda Knox, Raffaelle Sollecito, and Rudy Guede  have been convicted of butchering Meredith Kercher was put up for sale in December of 2013. Due to the infamous circumstances, said a Perugian agent for the Tecnocasa real estate agency, which is handling the sale, “…it has not been easy to find potential buyers who are willing to overlook the fact that a brutal murder took place there.”

Raffaele Sollecito now admits having questions about Knox’s behavior following Kercher’s murder

As if the Amanda Knox case could not get any more bizarre, Raffaele Sollecito has upped the ante. In a recent exclusive interview on an Italian TV news broadcast, Sollecito said he has several “unanswered questions” for his former girlfriend, Amanda Knox. This adds yet another waiver to the many different versions Sollecito provided over the years about the same details. In the official story, the part that remained consistent, at least, Knox and Sollecito both claimed that Knox left his flat the morning after Kercher’s murder and returned home, where she noticed the door left wide open and witnessed blood spots in the bathroom. Knox claimed that she found it odd and just assumed that one of her roommates was menstruating and left blood behind. She proceeded to take a shower and returned to Sollecito’s flat and ate breakfast. 

Amanda Knox’s Conviction is Upheld

After a long wait the Italian Supreme Court’s verdict in the Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito case was finally revealed on Thursday: guilty. The judges in Florence overruled her previous acquittal and sentence her to 28 years and 6 months in prison, while Knox’s ex-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, was also found guilty and given 25 years in jail. But their lawyers vowed to appeal to Italy’s highest court—a process that will take at least a year and drag out this legal saga even further. 

Repost of Raffaele Sollecito’s Interview with Kate Mansey (two days after Kercher’s murder)

The following is a repost of the interview that British Sunday Times journalist, Kate Mansey, did with Raffaele Sollecito (RS) on November 3, 2007 (Two days after Meredith Kercher was murdered), and was published November 4, 2007. Within, Sollecito claims that he and Amanda Knox were at “a party with one of his friends” on the night that Kercher was murdered. Obviously Sollecito has never used this [fake] alibi in any other tale that he has told, nor has he ever addressed this [false] claim. The following article was available on the internet for a couple of years, but has since been removed. Yet, unfortunately for Sollecito; it has not been forgotten.

 

Knox & Sollecito: A Closer Look at the Footprint Evidence

If you have listen to anything from the American media about the Amanda Knox case you would likely believe that there was no physical evidence at the crime scene linking Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to the murder of Meredith Kercher. However, with just a simple cursory review of some of the official sources it is easy to see that there is actually an abundance of physical evidence against the two convicts. Perhaps the best place to start is Judge Massei’s Report on the conviction of Knox and Kercher. Furthermore, it is imperative to read the Italian Supreme Court’s Reasoning on the case. Aside from the obvious four spots of blood found at the cottage (3 spots in the bathroom and one in Filomena’s room) mixed with Knox and Kercher’s DNA, there are also several pieces of convincing footprint evidence that was used to help convict the three accused, which includes Rudy Guede. Putting the plethora of circumstantial evidence and the other physical evidence aside and simply focusing on the footprint evidence gives us a very clear picture of exactly what occurred that fateful night.

Amanda Knox’s Final Conviction Appeal Just Around Corner

Not really breaking news or much of a shock, but just moments ago Amanda Knox’s lawyer, Luciano Ghirga, told the Florence daily La Nazione that she will not be attending her conviction appeals hearings in Italy. The appeals of Amanda Knox and Raffele Sollecito against their convictions will begin on September 30, 2013, and will take place in Florence.
 

Amanda Knox to face “Retrial”

The Supreme Court of Cassation, Italy’s highest court, met this morning in Rome at 10:00 a.m. and overturned the acquittals of both Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The ruling means that the case against Knox and Sollecito will be sent back to be reheard at an appeals court in Florence. Italy’s highest Court ruled today on questions of procedure, not on the merits of a case. This should make Knox’s upcoming interview on Diane Sawyer a bit more interesting, to say the least. An extradition will only be requested once a definitive conviction is reached. At which point, the conviction would then have to be upheld by the Court of Cassation again. We could be looking at another year or so.

Italian Supreme Court Set to Rule on Amanda Knox Verdict

The Italian Supreme Court of Cassation is scheduled to rule on the prosecution’s appeal of the Amanda Knox appeal verdict tomorrow. In 2011, Knox and her Italian boyfriend at the time Raffaele Sollecito were released from an Italian prison, on appeal, after previously being convicted of participating in the murder of her British roommate Meredith Kercher in 2007. Based on the Galati-Costigliola Report (112-page final appeal document), the prosecution’s appeal attacks the approach of the appeals court and their handling of trial from both a procedural and a reasoning standpoint. 

Sollecito’s New Book: “Knox May Have Left My Apartment”

In his new book In Honour Bound: My Journey to Hell and Back with Amanda Knox, Amanda’s ex-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, finally breaks his silence, and his words mirror the bizarre and contradictory behavior both he and Knox exhibited since the murder. In the book, Sollecito questions whether Knox knew more about the murder than she revealed, casting doubt on her key alibi—that on the night of the killing she was in his apartment, watching a film and making love.

In an excerpt from his book, Sollecito writes:

“My poor memory seemed a ridiculous reason to throw me into an isolation cell and accuse me of involvement in the crime…If the problem was with Amanda and the things she might or might not have done outside the house—assuming she left at all—why not focus the investigation on her?...Maybe she knew something. Maybe there was something she hadn’t told me. But please, I thought, leave me out of it.”

Sollecito goes on to insist that he “didn't believe for an instant she was capable of murder,” but admits he had doubts about the friends that Knox mixed with.

Let’s break these statements down. Let’s say your DNA is found on a murdered female victim’s severed bra next to her body and police ask you where you were during the time of the murder and you say you don’t remember who you were with because you had smoked marijuana less than 24 hours ago. Do you think that it would then be "ridiculous,” as Sollecito says, for police to hold you as a major suspect in the crime?

Moreover, Sollecito told police (less than 24 hours after the murder) that he was with Knox in his apartment the entire night. Less than two days later Sollecito did an interview to Kate Mansey of the UK's Sunday Mirror in which he claimed that he and Knox were at a party of an unnamed friend. Then, less than 4 days after the murder he changed his story again, claiming to police that Knox had left his apartment at 9:00pm and returned at 1:00am on the night of the murder, and that Amanda told him to lie. He claims that he doesn’t think that Amanda is capable of murder, even though he had only known her at that point for approximately one week.


Sollecito certainly leaves the door wide open in regard to Knox not being at his flat at the time of the murder. Then, when police confronted him and told him that a knife confiscated from his apartment was found to have Knox’s DNA on the handle and Kercher’s DNA on the tip; Sollecito said that he accidentally pricked Kercher with the knife while cooking her a fish diner in his apartment, even though it was later determined that Kercher was never in his apartment.

Police knew very well that Sollecito and Knox were inseparable from the time that they met and for a short time after the murder. That is why they focused on him as well as her. Moreover, he became even more of a focus when police intercepted a phone call that he had with his father just days after the murder, where he called police “stupid,” because they didn’t find the knife that he carried frequently on his person when they searched him. If Sollecito wanted to truly “stay out of it” he would have been honest with police right from the start, telling them that Knox had left his apartment. There is only one problem with that scenario: he was with Knox when she left his flat and he was there during Kercher’s murder. His cover-ups go far beyond an innocent bystander simply sticking up for his true love of one-week. After all, his DNA was found on Kercher’s severed bra, and the contamination theory doesn’t hold water. Sollecito’s DNA was found nowhere else in Knox’s apartment and there was no way to transfer it to Kercher’s bra.

The probability, or even plausibility, that two people could smoke a joint and completely forget where they were, who they were with, and any of the events of the night (only hours later) is comical. Moreover, even if we were to believe this truly ridiculous theory, what is to stop us from asking: if they didn’t remember anything, how can they say they didn’t do it and don’t remember?


In another section of his book, Sollecito writes that Knox did not have a key to his apartment. Therefore, he surmises that if she had slipped out to murder Kercher, he writes, she would have had to ring the doorbell for him to let her back in. This didn’t happen, he says (funny how he has such selective memory). Yet, this clearly contradicts his earlier statement that he is unsure if she had left his apartment or not. But, again, he blames his memory loss on the joint that he smoked, so he really can’t be held accountable for any of these statements…hedging his bets, if you will.

“I knew I had nothing to do with Meredith's murder, but I was furious with myself for having such a foggy memory and I knew it was in part because of the joint I'd smoked on the afternoon of November 1,” Sollecito writes. Interestingly enough, Sollecito can remember most of the events that took place during the afternoon and early evening hours, just not of any events that occurred during the time the murder was taking place.

In his new book, Sollecito also makes new allegations against Perugia police. While being held in custody in Perugia, he writes, that police stripped him naked while threatening and slapping him. Sollecito was subject to what he calls a “less than scrupulous” set of “time-honored pressure techniques,” in which, he believes, the police asked him to repeat his story multiple times in order “to catch me out in whatever inconsistencies they could find.” He also claims that police never seriously believed in his guilt, but pursued him aggressively in order to have him testify against Knox. When he wouldn’t, Sollecito claims that they set him up. Sollecito says that, while searching his apartment, officer Finzi reached into his cutlery drawer in the kitchen, “pulled out the first knife that came to hand, a large chopping knife with an eight-inch blade,” and turning to a fellow officer he asked, “Will this knife do?” to which the officer answered, “Yes, yes, It’s great.”

Sollecito paints himself as a hero in the book—much as he did in the interview he gave to UK’s Sunday Mirror (when he falsely claimed that he and Knox were at a party while the murder was taking place). Sollecito claims that his family, and his lawyers, urged him to abandon Knox and change his testimony in order to buy favor with police and save himself, but he writes, “…my determination to stick by Amanda, and by what I knew to be the truth, was one thing I knew I had exactly right. Nothing in the world—not the people I cared about most, and certainly not the threat of further punishment for a crime I did not commit—could induce me to change my mind.”


READ PART ONE

Sollecito Arrives in U.S. to Promote his New Book

Almost one year to the day that Amanda Knox and Raffalele Sollecito had been released from jail after their conviction had been overturned; they are once again back in the news. This time it is Sollecito who is stealing the headlines. Yesterday, Sollecito arrived in the United States to promote his new book, Honor Bound: My Journey to Hell and Back with Amanda Knox, which is scheduled to be released on 18 September 2012. The book is co-authored by Los Angeles-based Andrew Gumbel who spent six years in Italy and was a Reuters foreign correspondent.

In leaked excerpts of his new book, Sollecito speaks about his “indescribable joy,” after being acquitted and released in Perigua, Italy almost one year ago today. He also speaks of his love affair with Amanda Knox, including their first night together:

“I showed Amanda around and invited her to plop down on the bed while I loaded a film on my computer. Of course, by the time I settled in next to her, all thoughts of the movie were quickly forgotten and we pulled each other’s clothes off before the opening credits finished rolling. When I woke up the next morning, Amanda still had her arms wrapped tightly around me. I remember feeling safe and warm in a way I hadn't since I was a little kid.”

The Associated Press received an advanced copy of the book Teusday and say that it describes how the early days of their relationship became a nightmare: the horror of Kercher’s slaying; the misunderstandings that swept them up in the case; their tabloid portrayals as two suspects unrecognizable to themselves. In the book Sollecito also wrote about his first night in prison, saying he wavered between “great waves of indignation and a nagging sense of guilt.” He said that while he knew he was innocent, he was angry at himself for having a “foggy memory” of the night of the killing because he and Knox had smoked marijuana.

It will be interesting to see what he has to say about the night of the murders and his side of the story now, considering that he and Knox have told several conflicting and different stories about what had happened and where they were throughout this whole ordeal. UK’s The Telegraph writes briefly that in his new book, Sollecito questions whether Amanda Knox knew more about the murder than she revealed, casting doubt on her key alibi--that on the night of the murder she was in his apartment, watching a film and making love. Yet, he still appears to maintain that smoking weed caused him not to remember these crucial events.

Knox has also signed a multimillion dollar publishing deal, and her book is due out soon as well. It is unlikely that there will be any true closure or any clarity added by these two, if you are familiar with the case and with the way that they both speak so confusingly about the events; Know even falsely claiming that another man (Patrick Lumumba) was present at the murder scene. Moreover, it is not likely that anything truly enlightening will be added in this book as Sollecito’s correct legal status is that he STILL stands accused of Meredith’s murder unless and until the Italian Supreme Court signs off on the case’s outcome.


However, Gumbel told mediabistro.com, “Not only will the book leave no doubt about Raffaele’s innocence; everything Raffaele and his family have to tell, backed by previously unpublished documents in the case, suggests that his incarceration had almost nothing to do with the actual evidence but had another motivation entirely — to be revealed when the book comes out.” But then again, Gumbel may just be trying to hype it up for the sake of book sales.

Sollecito is scheduled to speak at UW's Kane Hall Room 110, Tuesday, Sept. 25, 7:00 p.m. Tickets are $5 at the door, or free with advanced purchase of his book at the University Book Store. Sollecito is scheduled to appear on the Katie Couric show on Tuesday 9/18/12. Protesters are also scheduled to meet Tuesday morning, 10:30 am to 12:00 pm, near the studio (Lincoln Center). Hopefully Katie will ask the tough questions and not fold to the Knox PR machine. Here’s a PPP from www.truejustice.org on some of the poignant questions that Sollecito is yet to answer and that Couric should be asking him (CLICK HERE). In any event, the two former lovers will become rich because of this tragedy, and Kercher’s parents will keep being reminded of what happened to their daughter.

Amanda Knox Hires Superlawyer: Looking for Book Deal

The Amanda Knox PR machine, headed by the Marriott Group, is still in full swing. This time, David Marriott announced that Knox has hired D.C. superlawyer, Robert Barnett "to represent her in discussions with various book publishers who have expressed an interest in Amanda writing a book.” Although Barnett does not call himself a literary agent, he knows his way around seven-figure deals (he’s also repped President Barack Obama, former presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Rosie O’Donnell and Barbra Streisand) — and the Knox family liked the fact that he’s a lawyer with a powerful firm behind him. Barnett is charging a hefty hourly fee instead of the standard 15 percent commission.


“The thing about Bob is not only does he know how to negotiate on behalf of his clients, but he’s very well-connected in the media world and can help create the perfect launch for the book,” said Carolyn Reidy, president of Simon & Schuster, who’s worked with Barnett for decades. Marriott did not elaborate on those additional opportunities but said few details of a potential book had been yet decided by Knox and her family, including an advance or the possibility of co-authors.

“This is a case I have followed from day one and never, not even for one moment, have I doubted the innocence of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox,” said Seattle-based literary agent, Sharlene Martin, in a recent statement.

Sharlene Martin has certainly been on the Knox bandwagon from the beginning. In a response to my query back in January 2011, Martin snippily replied to me, “It seems to me that it is YOU who is trying to cash in her [Knox’s] misfortune by writing a book for which you have NO inside knowledge or cooperation.” Apparently Martin must not have been aware of the plethora of official information made public about the case, including Judge Massei’s 427-page summation of the original trial, Judge Micheli’s extensive report, and my affiliation with www.truejustice.org. In any event, Martin appears to believe that cashing in on the case is ok as long as you believe what she does.

Moreover, it appears that Martin is inferring that she knows more about the exclusive details of the case because she has spoken to the Knox family, as she also indicated in her response. I am assuming that by this she believes that this exclusive inside knowledge makes her an expert on Knox’s innocence; even though I have yet to find any credentials that she has any qualifications to analyze evidence or the like, and she has never publicly engaged in any discussion of why she believes Knox is innocent. Surely Knox’s parents have never twisted the facts in any way?!?!


Knox certainly has many questions to answer, as she was unable to truly clarify during the trial or otherwise. So it seems as though she may be willing to roll the dice and try to fool us once again with “the real” version of events in return for some much needed funding. Curt Knox and Amanda’s mother, Edda Mellas, who are divorced, have each said they’ve drained their retirement funds, taken out second mortgages and accrued credit card debt to pay for Amanda’s defense. The Knox family also have hundreds of supporters who have dug deep into their own pockets to support her, and some of them are now asking questions like: Why hasn’t she come clean as to exactly what was her role, how did things actually unfold, and what really happened?

In another related story, ANSA News has reported that Knox prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini’s, conviction has been reversed. Those who have been proclaiming Knox’s innocence have always used Mignini’s conviction to paint the prosecutor as crooked, and they used this as another reason for Knox’s innocence. Yet, surely there will be those who believe in Knox’s innocence that Mignini is still guilty, just as there are those who believe that Knox is still guilty even though her ruling was reversed.

Amanda Knox is still facing legal action for criminal slander brought by those she claimed maltreated her at an interrogation (not at the hands of Mignini). The next hearing on this case will take place in mid-May 2012. Meanwhile, we all anxiously await Judge Hellman’s sentencing report (which will detail Knox’s reversal), due out very soon. And of course, we also expect the prosecution to file an appeal (on Knox’s reversal) to Italy’s Supreme Court of Cassation—to take place probably soon after Hellman’s motivation report is released.

Amanda Knox Dressed as Burglar for Halloween

Less than one month after her release from an Italian prison, Amanda Knox was spotted in Seattle heading to a Halloween party dressed as a cat burglar on the eve of Meredith Kercher’s murder. Meredith Kercher’s father, John, slammed the Knox saying, “I think it’s very insensitive of Amanda Knox, especially considering it is the fourth anniversary of Meredith’s death.” The reason for his comments is that Knox was originally convicted for the murder of his daughter, and the prosecution posed the theory that she and then boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito simulated a burglary at the cottage to throw police off and make it look as though someone had broken in rather than had the keys and walked casually through the front door to commit the murder.


Last Sunday Knox was seen walking arm-in-arm with new love, James Terrano, headed to Seattle’s Asian market Uwajimaja to pick up some food. Knox, 24, wore a black coat and light khaki pants, shooting a sullen look to photographers on the scene. Terrano, also 24, is studying classical guitar at the University of Washington; his brother William confirmed to Mirror News last week that they’re dating. The couple is also reportedly living together in an apartment in Seattle’s rundown Chinatown area. Knox’s new boyfriend is from a middle-class New York family. He is studying classical music, specializing in guitar, at Seattle’s University of Washington.


In his interview with Italian television (before Knox was seen with new boyfriend), Raffaele called his love with Amanda “a seed that had been planted in the earth.” He continued saying, “The problem is that someone took that seed and crushed it.” Interestingly enough, he never mentions who that someone is or who he thinks crushed it, per say, and he makes no reference there to Rudy Guede. Raffaele hinted that they could soon be reunited and that he can’t wait to “look into her eyes.” Raffaele also spoke about the chance of he and Knox rekindling their love affair: “It’s all over between us. I still have a great affection towards her but nothing else. I wish her all the happiness in the world.” Knox's slander trial in Italy has been postponed until 5 February 2013, because the judge was busy with another trial.

Spotlight on Raffaele Sollecito’s Different Versions of Events

Much of the talk about the Meredith Kercher case has been on Amanda Knox, with her boyfriend at the time, Raffaele Sollecito, getting a media pass. Aside from Knox’s voluntary spontaneous statement to police claiming that she may have been at the home during the murder and heard Meredith screaming while Patrick Lumumba was killing her; Raffaele’s versions of events on the evening of the murder are undeniably the more conspicuous of the two suspects. Perhaps that is why he decided not to testify!

Story # 1:

Just two days after the murder, Raffaele Sollecito gave an interview to Kate Mansey of the UK’s Sunday Mirror in which he explained his first version of the events.

“It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends.”

Raffaele has never identified this imaginary friend or party since this interview, nor has he ever spoken of this version since.

Raffaele also claims in this interview that Knox was afraid when she noticed that spots of blood in her bathroom, and “she ran back” to his flat in fear. This is quite contrary to what Knox said on the witness stand during trial.

Amanda Knox Testimony (June 12, 2009):

“At first I thought they had come from my ears. But then when I scratched the drops a bit, I saw they were all dry, and I thought ‘That’s weird. Oh well, I'll take my shower.’”

After that, she dried her hair, got dressed and calmly returned to Raffaele’s apartment.

Amanda Knox Testimony (June 12, 2009):

“…Then he came out and we made breakfast, and while we were preparing it and drinking coffee, I explained to him what I had seen, and I asked him for advice, because when I went into my house, everything seemed in order, only there were these little weird things, and I couldn't figure out how to understand them.”

This is hardly the panicked girl that Raffaele described.

A few days after the interview, police intercepted a call between Raffaele and his father. During the call, according to police, Raffaele’s father said to him, “Raffaele, don’t walk about with a knife; if police find it on you who knows what they may think.” Raffaele responded by saying, “Well, they have already questioned me and they didn’t find it on me, those stupid policemen.” Raffaele was speaking of a small flick-knife that he was known to carry around. This conversation prompted police to call him in for further questioning, which ultimately led to his and Knox’s arrest. Coincidentally, experts for the defense argued that the Marietti knife that the prosecution offered up as the murder weapon was too big to have caused the wounds on Kercher’s neck, and that a smaller knife, such as a flick-knife probably caused the fatal wound.


Story # 2:

Raffaele told police that he and Knox stayed at his flat the entire night of November 1, 2007 (night of the murder).

Story # 3:

During his November 5, 2007 interrogation and subsequent arrest, Sollecito wanted to come clean, and he told police that his previous version to them was “un sacco di cazzate” (a load of rubbish). “In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.” (The Times, 7 November, 2007).

In this version, he told investigators that he and Knox returned to his flat at approximately 8:30pm, and that Knox left his apartment, while he stayed there, and she returned at around 1:00am. He claimed that he believed that she went to see if she had to work that evening. This was clearly an attempt to exonerate himself from any culpability, as Knox had received a text message from her then boss, Patrick Lumumba, at 8:19pm that evening informing Knox that it was slow at the bar and she would not be needed to work that evening.


Story # 4:

Some like to point the finger at police and say that they were forceful during their interrogations with Knox and Sollecito and that is why they both changed their stories so much. However, after his arrest, Raffaele wrote several letters to his father while in prison. One letter to his father explained in detail the version above. This was written under no duress. In the letter, Raffaele explains to his father that he and Knox had arrived at his flat at about 8 – 8:30pm on the night of the murder. “Amanda had [then] left for work,” he writes, but he could not remember how long she was gone—but he writes that he is “certain” that Knox had stayed with him the “entire night.”

Explaining Amanda to his father in the letters, Raffaele wrote of her:

“She lived her life like a dream, she was detached from reality, she couldn't distinguish dream from reality. Her life seemed to be pure pleasure; she had a contact with reality that was almost non-existent.”

Then, he shows uncertainty whether or not Knox had committed the murder (or knew something about it) and blatantly calls her a liar...Raffaele writes to his father:

“I try to understand what Amanda's role was in this event. The Amanda that I know is an Amanda who lives a carefree life. Her only thought is the pursuit of pleasure at all times. But even the thought that she could be a killer is impossible for me. I have read her version of events. Some of the things she said are not true, but I don't know why she said them.”

www.truejustice.org has compiled all of the unanswered questions pertaining to the case (SEE HERE) that have been asked over the years and featured them in one article. Please visit the link for a comprehensive look at all of these and many other questions still left unanswered.

Knox Appeal: Judgment Day (Part 2)

On the 16th anniversary of the O.J. Simpson acquittal, Amanda Knox stood in the courtroom waiting for her fate to be read. The verdict was read and just like O.J., Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were acquitted of all charges except the defamation charges for accusing Patrick Lumumba of being the murderer (released on time served)—and somewhere, the ghost of Johnnie Cochran was smiling (If a portion of the DNA doesn’t fit, you must acquit)! Immediately, some of those who had predicted that Knox was guilty had changed their tune. Many celebrated; others mourned and geared—as this was clearly a win for injustice and only for injustice.

Did the Italian court cower to political or media pressure? How could they have discounted the mountain of evidence—including other DNA evidence against Knox—based on two pieces of DNA evidence that were contested in the appeal? One piece of evidence (the knife) and the other (the bra clasp) were the only two pieces of physical evidence being contested by the defense in the appeal. Were those—and of course, Anthony Curatolo’s testimony—the only evidence that originally convicted Knox and Sollecito, as the media would have you believe? Of course not. The media’s misinformation is well documented and rampant on this case…HERE is just a portion.


So, how did they discount the most convincing evidence of all—the 5 mixed DNA/blood spots of Knox and Kercher (Read Analysis 1 HERE & analysis 2 HERE)? Well, we will only know in 90 days, when Judge Hellmann’s motivation report is published. This decision was certainly historic, and proves that money, a good PR campaign, and media spin can get you anything. The lies of Knox and Sollecito—which I and many others have detailed so often—the mountain of evidence against the two, judge Massei’s 427 page report detailing their guilt (along with judge Micheli’s report detailing their guilt) has all been discounted by these two judges and six jurors.

Now Know has returned to the states and will undoubtedly benefit substantially from the shortcomings of the Italian court system. The saving grace for the two defendants was certainly the fact that Sollecito never took the stand, as he would have clearly imploded under the weight of his multiple lies. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist or even a forensic specialist to know that people who lie several times have something to hide. This is of course aside from the physical and circumstantial evidence against them as well.


Public figure, Nancy Grace, is finally speaking out on this case—saying that there is NO innocent explanation for Knox’s second written confession placing her at the house (with Patrick Lumumba) and including observations that only someone who really was there could have known. When asked about the verdict, Grace said:

“I was very disturbed, because I think it is a huge miscarriage of justice,” Grace said. “I believe that while Amanda Knox did not wield the knife herself, I think that she was there, with her boyfriend, and that he did the deed, and that she egged him on. That’s what I think happened.”

In Knox’s final statement Monday, she told the court that she was not present the night Kercher was brutally murdered in their shared apartment. Grace said she did not think Knox is telling the truth. “I believe her original statement to the police - that she was there in the home when her roommate was murdered was true,” Grace told Access Hollywood. Knox should pray that Nancy Grace does not get on her case the way she still is on Casey Anthony’s, because she could use the facts of the case to turn the American public against her, and that would be a different type of jail sentence for Knox.

Even CNN, who have been outspoken, staunch supporters of Knox, posted an article after the verdict asking: “Is she a two-faced she-devil, angelic and compassionate to some but Satanic and Lucifer-like to others?” It seems as though after the verdict has been read, the story of her innocence has slipped a bit, and the tide is slowly turning towards: What really happened and is Knox actually innocent? In other words, many media sources are now jumping on the controversial band wagon, as they do so often, because they know it draws readers.

No American media outlets wanted to hear anything from sources believing in Knox’s guilt before Monday’s verdict, because that wasn’t “news.” This will all change soon, and the opposing views (or controversial views) will be welcome soon, if not already (ala Nancy Grace). The fact that Nancy's comments have been so widely reported and popular now, but were ignored months ago when she basically said the same thing on "The View" and her own program before speaks volumes for "what's hot" in media at the moment. Google reveals that her recent comments are on about 38,000 Sites.


But there is so much more to this story than just Knox's spontaneous statement. For anyone ignorant to the facts and true evidence of this case looking for clarification, you would be wise to read the Massei report (read entire report HERE and summary HERE) or visit www.truejustice.org, or of course you can read Study Abroad Murder, which details all 50 days of the original trial and analyzes all the evidence in detail.

Justice is not always done in the courtroom. Even though the statue of Lady Justice wears a blindfold, humans look at the faces. Yet, this is the system we have, whether in Italy or in the U.S., we must deal with the mistakes, particularly the high profile cases, which come under much more scrutiny, but many times faulter to public and political pressures—the O.J. Simpsons, Casey Anthonys, and now the Amanda Knoxs of the trial world.


Surely the prosecution will appeal to the Supreme Court of Cassation, but they can only retry the case if something was done incorrect or wrong, which may be the case, as much of the evidence of the first trial was discounted without even being reexamined. The 90 day motivation report by Judge Hellmann will be very interesting to read and highly anticipated. This story is far from over!

Knox Appeal: Judgment Day (Part 1)

PART 2

The day has finally arrived: the day that will decide the fate of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The last session has already begun and is currently underway. Luciano Ghirga started off the proceedings today with his closing argument rebuttal. Ghirga spoke firmly to the court, declaring Knox’s innocence. Sollecito took the floor after Ghirga. He started off by saying that he would “…never hurt anybody.” Raffaele pleaded to the court to release him, telling mostly of the horror he has endured over the last few years.

“I’ve never met Rudy Guede before the trial,” he adamantly protested. Although he spoke freely today, he refused to testify and face cross-examination in this appeal or the original trial. Sollecito did not speak of the circumstances surrounding the murder or his involvement or lack thereof. He didn't spend any time talking about the details of his "innocence;" he only seemed to play the sympathy card and how horrible the last few years have been for him while in prison. He went as far back as meeting Knox, but then he skipped the details of where he was during the murder and went right to the police interrogation in his speech, which I believe is very telling on his part.

Moreover, he actually said:

“No one ever asked me to testify and I don’t know why. But I was ready to talk in front of you, in front of the court to explain any doubt, but nobody—not in this process [the appeal] or the previous one [the original trial] has asked my examination. So I am here, in a way, to say freely the facts, what I’ve gone through and who I am.”

This is a very strange statement to say the least, as he surely knows and was advised that he could take the stand, but refused. Wearing a “free Amanda & Raffaele” bracelet, Sollecito used symbolic, ritualistic theatrics, saying that he has never taking off the bracelet since he received it sometime ago. He said, “Now is the time to take it off,” and he did so as he closed out his plea for freedom. He also appeared very unemotional, and he even smirked once when he began talking about the “free Amanda & Raffaele” bracelet, as if he was making a profound statement or a bad joke.


Amanda Knox addressed the court immediately after Sollecito, at 4:30am Eastern Time in the United States. She stepped to the mic with no written speech; perhaps deciding to speak off-the-cuff; perhaps committing an earlier speech to memory. Speaking in fluent Italian, Knox addressed the court in a shaky voice, starting off by explaining that she was nervous. As she got rolling, her hand gestures became very animated. “I am not what they say I am: perversion, violence. I have not done the things they say I’ve done; I wasn’t there that night!” Amanda reiterated many of the things that she has said over the years. She said she was friends with Meredith; she wasn’t at the cottage during the night of the murder; she is innocent, etc.

“I want to go back home, I want to go back to my life. I am innocent; Raffaele is innocent; and we deserve to be free.”

Judge Hellman then warned the audience. “This is not a football game. There is no room for gossiping. We have to remember that a beautiful girl has died a horrible death and that the lives of two young people are in play. So when I am reading the verdict I want respect and silence.” Judge Hellman announced that he does not expect to return back with a verdict before 8pm local Perugia time (2pm eastern time U.S.). And with that, the judge informed that deliberation would start at that time: 4:41am.


There are four possible scenarios in regard to today’s outcome. It will take a majority vote of the six jurors and two judges to throw out the conviction. If they are evenly split, Knox and Sollecito will be free. The second is that the court could decide to uphold the conviction and reduce their sentences. Thirdly, the court could uphold the conviction and honor the prosecution’s request to increase Knox’s sentence to life in prison. Lastly, and in my opinion: the most likely; the court could choose to uphold Knox's original conviction and order her to serve the remaining 22 years of her sentence in Italy. Regardless of the outcome, either side could appeal the verdict to Italy's Supreme Court.

A press conference was then set up outside the courtroom, where the streets were filled with journalists and spectators. Sollecito’s lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno addressed the audience, continuing her declarations of innocence. No one knows what time that the verdict will be read. Even Bongiorno told the media that it is impossible to predict how long that the deliberation will be.

Knox and Sollecito were whisked away in a police van. They were brought back to prison to await the verdict. They will be notified when a decision is reached and brought back to the court to hear the reading.

PART 2

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.