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 Battles Lifetime; Knox’s Parents Battle Libel

Not many fireworks on this 4th of July for Amanda Knox and her parents in court. Both Amanda Knox and her parents entered separate Italian courtrooms to do battle on Monday: Amanda in Perugia’s civil court for the second hearing of her case against producers of Lifetime’s made-for-television movie about the case, and her parents fighting defamation charges for an interview that they gave Britain’s Sunday Times back in 2008 where they claiming that their daughter was abused by police during her interrogation.


Amanda arrived amidst a bevy of reporters, but side-stepped them as the van carrying her backed into a side entrance of the courthouse, concealing her from the public. Amanda’s hearing was a closed-door session that lasted just a half-hour. The session was cut-short as the producers of the movie—“Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy,” starring Hayden Panettiere as Knox—did not show up. Knox’s lawyers said in the first hearing in March that the movie had caused their client “very serious, irreparable damage,” and they are asking for more than $4 million in reparation. The judge, Teresa Giardino, did not set a definitive date for the next hearing, claiming that the court would need to contact the producers of the movie.

Earlier in the day, in another courthouse in Perugia, Edda Mellas and Curt Knox appeared in criminal court for the beginning of their trial, facing libel charges brought on by five Perugia police officers. In an even quicker hearing than Amanda’s, judge, Paolo Micheli, opened the hearing by postponing it, saying that he was recusing himself from the case. This request was made by the defense at the indictment, citing a conflict because Micheli is the same judge who indicted Knox and Sollecito in 2008. This process is sure to drag on, as Micheli set the next hearing date for 24 January 2012, at 11:00a.m., before an unnamed judge. Edda’s current husband, Chris Mellas, watched the proceedings from the public section of the tiny courtroom. Neither Curt Knox nor the police officers were present at this hearing.

Knox’s Slander Trial Begins

Amanda Knox was back in court today, a saying that has become very familiar over the last few years. This hearing, however, was not part of her appeals trial, but rather on charges of slandering seven Perugia police officials and an interpreter. Dressed in a white long-sleeve t-shirt, black slacks, and a green band in her hair, Knox entered the courtroom and smiled as soon as she saw her father, Curt Knox.

During the seventeen-minute session, Knox answered, “Si” (yes in Italian), to the question from Judge Daniele Cenci if she understood Italian.

Knox's lawyer, Luciano Ghirga, said that the slander trial was adjourned until 15 November 2011, after a brief hearing devoted to procedural issues raised by the defense.

Knox’s appeals trial resumes this Saturday. Independent experts had been scheduled to discuss their review two pieces of DNA evidence that the defense is contesting; however, the independent forensic experts have requested 40 more days to file their report. They are expected to formally make this request on Saturday in front of the judges, at which time a decision on the matter will be rendered.

US Judge says Amanda Knox is “100 percent innocent”

The Knox misinformation train continues to pick up speed as if moving down hill and without breaks. This time, however, it comes from what seems like an unlikely source. During a recent speaking engagement at the Bellevue Breakfast Rotary Club, King County (WA) U.S. Superior Court Judge, Mike Heavey Sr., asserted that Knox is “is 100 percent innocent.” And in an abhorrently false statement, the article explains that Judge Heavy has problems with Perugia Police’s assertion that Knox confessed to the crime because he “believes after she was interrogated for almost two days without food or water she told officials what they wanted to hear.”

Knox’s father, Curt Knox, was also present at the speaking engagement where Heavey proclaimed Amanda’s innocence, so I guess we can now see a little clearer under what circumstances these statements were uttered.

If Judge Heavy was correctly quoted as saying the above then it is pretty clear that he is getting his information on the case from Knox’s family members, much as most of the media have been doing. It is unfathomable to even consider that the good judge has any credibility when it comes to this case after such a statement.

This two-day interrogation fabrication has to be the biggest fabrication yet that I have heard about this case. With this statement, Judge Heavy makes Knox sound as though she was treated like a captured Al Qaeda terrorist. I would believe in Knox’s innocence as well if I read this statement without any real knowledge of the case. I guess now all there is left is for a Knox supporter to make the proclamation that she was ‘water-boarded’ as well.

Judge Heavy either needs to make an amendment to this statement--after getting the real facts-- claim that he was misquoted, or he needs to be sure that he never visits Italy, because he may be facing libel charges, just as Knox’s parents are facing.


Above: In this Facebook posting from September, poster “Charlie Wilkes” (Knox activist Jim Lovering) writes of his photo: [“At the table are (Washington State Judge) Mike Heavey, Mark (Waterbury) and Michelle (Moore, wife of ex-FBI / ex-university security man / screenwriter Steve Moore). Chris (Mellas) is seated at the table in the background. I’m not sure who he is talking to. Christina Hagge and Edda (Mellas – Amanda’s mother) are standing on the right …. It was a very enjoyable gathering.”]

Don’t Let the Truth Get in the Way of a Good Story: 10 False Claims on the Knox Case

In light of the recent indictment on Amanda Knox’s parents for defamation, it seems only fair to illuminate further the many false statements made by the Knox family and others. These untrue statements below are only a few of the many that have been asserted throughout this process and are not related to their indictment; they instead show the pattern of rhetoric over the last few years regarding the case. The underlying point in this story is the America media’s obsession with not letting the truth get in the way of a good story.

One might think that the family has simply innocently mistaken the facts of the case after this post, but remember that the Knox family hired David Marriott of Gogerty Stark Marriott, a Seattle, Washington (US) based publication relations consultant, soon after the charges against their daughter. Their public relations campaign has been predicated on the notions that there was no evidence against Amanda, and an inferior Italian justice system; the American media bought it hook line and sinker.

The validity and veracity of any of these statements can be checked by viewing either of the two Italian judge’s reports on the case: (Micheli Sentencing Report of 26 January 2009) and (Massei Sentencing Report of March 2010)

Let’s take a look at some examples:



False claims # 1 - 3: “His [Rudy Guede’s] DNA was in her [Kercher’s] purse, after the crime he all of a sudden had money that he didn’t have earlier in the day…when he was on the run and police were secretly wiretapping him, and he was talking to a friend of his, the friend said, ‘you know, they think Amanda was there,’ and he goes, ‘oh, I know who Amanda is and she was absolutely not there’” (Minute 3:16 above)

FACT: Somehow, Edda was creatively able to squeeze 3 completely false statements into a very short amount of time. The first is a completely false statement with no proof to back this up. No evidence was ever provided, nor was ever even brought up at any hearing in the case, from the prosecution or the defense, indicating that Guede had stolen Meredith’s money. The second: Guede’s DNA was found on the zipper of Kercher’s purse, not inside of it.

And the third: the transcript of that call to a friend that Guede made while unknowingly being recorded by police shows that Guede claimed not even to be there that evening. How could he say Amanda was “absolutely not there” if he himself claimed not to be there? Rubbish, as they say in the UK! Moreover, in the only other coversation that Guede had with a friend that was recorded by police, he says, "...Amanda or Raffaele did it."

False claim # 4: “They believe Meredith was killed at about 9.30pm” on Larry King Live (minute 1:37 above)

FACT: Knox’s mother makes this statement in order to explain that Amanda and Raffaele were at his apartment as late as 9:15p.m., and they could not have killed Meredith by 9:30p.m. Perugia Police Pathologist, Dr. Luca Lalli, was the first to examine the body. Italian coroner, Francesco Introna, also examined the body. Professor Introna concluded that the initial attack took place sometime between 9:30p.m., and 10:30p.m., and Dr. Lalli determined that Kercher’s time of death came between 8:00p.m., and 4:00a.m., on November 1, 2007 and November 2, 2007. Raffaele's flat was about a 10 minute walk from the cottage.



False claim # 5: “The prosecution had to admit that there was no physical evidence” (Minute 4:29 above)

FACT: The prosecution took nearly five-months indentifying and laying out the evidence against Knox and Sollecito during the trial, using the testimony of several specialists to prove the validity of the evidence. Not once has the prosecution made the claim that they had no evidence, physical or otherwise.



False claim # 6: Michael Archer – “There’s no evidence that brings Amanda into this crime scene; there’s no footprints, there’s no blood of hers there, there’s no biological fluids of her there; it perplexes me to see how they achieved a conviction” (minute 5:37 above).

FACT: Mr. Archer, who has consulted with the Knox family and is somehow listed as a forensic scientist, should be ashamed of himself for claiming to have “reviewed the [case] report” and misrepresenting the facts as he has above. You can either come to two conclusions regarding Mr. Archer’s statements here: he is either being paid by the Knox family to misrepresent the facts, or he is simply not a good forensic scientist and his reading comprehension is poor at best.

After CNN legal analyst, Lisa Bloom, points out that there was DNA of Amanda’s in the bathroom, Mr. Archer then says, “for Amanda’s DNA to be in her own bathroom…is not evidence of guilt of a murder” (minute 7:30 above). He has clearly made up his mind here and is not going to be swayed by the truth of the evidence, nor is he going to even acknowledge that there was a mix of Knox and Kercher’s blood in 3 spots in the house as well as footprints tracked by Knox in Meredith’s blood.

False claim 7: Anne Bremner, Spokesperson for ‘Friends of Amanda’ – “There is no evidence of Amanda Knox at the actual crime scene.” (minute 1:02 above)

FACT: The crime scene involves the whole cottage and it isn’t limited simply to Meredith’s room. Knox and Sollecito were both convicted based on their staging of the break-in and tampering with the crime scene. Moreover, there is plenty of evidence actually placing Amanda Knox in Meredith’s room on the night of the murder: the double DNA knife, and the blood she tracked into the bathroom, the hallway, Filomena’s room, and her own room. According to two imprint experts, there was a woman’s bloody shoeprint on the pillow under Meredith’s body which matched Knox’s foot size. Even Sollecito’s forensic consultant, Professor Vinci, claimed that he had found Amanda Knox’s DNA on Meredith’s bra.

Guede’s footprints went straight from Meredith’s room to the front door of the cottage. There is no physical evidence indicating that Guede went into either Filomena’s room or the bathroom used by both Knox and Kercher. “…Rudy, who, on leaving Meredith’s room (according to what the shoe prints show), directed himself towards the exit without deviating or stopping in other rooms” (Massei, pg. 379). Guede could not have staged the break-in or cleaned the cottage after the murder. Moreover, the clean-up and staged break-in benefited Knox and Sollecito more; accroding to Judge Massie, “...without which, lacking signs of forced entry at the door, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito would have been the first under suspicion” (Massei, pg. 88).



False claim # 8: Peter Van Sant, 48 Hours Correspondent – “Why would Amanda Knox lie to police [regarding her signed confession]? Well it turns out that her ‘so called’ confession came after an all night 14 hour interrogation in which she was denied food, water, sleep, and legal representation” (minute 1:06 above).

FACT: Shame on you Peter Van Sant, 48 Hours Correspondent! Her questioning began at 11:00p.m., on the 5th and ended at 5:45a.m., on the 6th (Nov.), far from 14 hours. Moreover, Knox confessed to being in the house during the murder after only 2-plus hours, at which time she implicated Patrick Lumumba of being the murderer.

False claim # 9: Private investigator, Paul Ciolino – “Amanda and Raffaele never laid eyes on Rudy [Guede], never met with him, and never hung out with him—didn’t know him” (minute 2:34 above).

FACT: This is probably the most ridiculous statement of them all. This guy is a private investigator? He should keep his findings private! This program was aired on 19 June 2009, just seven days after Amanda testified at her own trial. Not only did Knox and Guede know each other, they met on more than one occasion, even smoked weed together—as testified to much earlier in the trial by all three Italian boys who lived downstairs from Meredith and Amanda. With just minimal research, Mr. Ciolino could have read the trial transcripts before completely discrediting himself and making himself look foolish.

Here’s the actual court transcript:

Carlo Pacelli (CP), Patrick Lumumba’s lawyer: Did you know Rudy Hermann Guede?
Amanda Knox (AK): Not much.
CP: In what circumstances did you meet him?
AK: I was in the center, near the church. It was during an evening when I met the guys that lived underneath in the apartment underneath us, and while I was mingling with them, they introduced me to Rudy.
CP: So it was on the occasion of a party at the house of the neighbors downstairs?
AK: Yes. What we did is, they introduced me to him [Rudy] downtown just to say “This is Rudy, this is Amanda”, and then I spent most of my time with Meredith, but we all went back to the house together.
CP: Did you also know him, or at least see him, in the pub “Le Chic”, Rudy?
AK: I think I saw him there once.
CP: Listen, this party at the neighbors, it took place in the second half of October? What period, end of October? 2007?
AK: I think it was more in the middle of October.

False claim # 10: Edda tells Linda Byron that Amanda hasn’t changed her story, in an interview with KING 5 News. Linda Byron: “Did she [Amanda] change her story?” Edda Mellas: “No, no. For this whole year they have maintained the story what they did that night. They stayed at Raffaele’s, they made dinner, they watched a movie. That’s it, that’s the story.”

FACT: Both Knox and Sollecito each gave three different alibis.

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’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.