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.

Facts About the Double-DNA-Knife & Bra Clasp

Let’s take a closer look at the alleged murder weapon that will be examined and reported on in the months to come. All DNA evidence was overseen by Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, forensic biologist and Chief of the Italian Scientific Police Unit in Rome. Dr. Stefanoni is respected around the globe and she had no vested interest in a particular outcome—she had no dogs in this race, per say. The Marietti knife, which was found in the cutlery drawer in Sollecito’s kitchen and marked “Exhibit 36,” has a 6 ½ inch stainless steel blade. Dr. Stefanoni testified that the knife possessed Knox’s DNA in a groove on the black handle of the knife and Kercher’s DNA on the tip; hence the title "the double DNA knife."


When confronted by police about the knife early-on in the investigation, Sollecito coolly explained that Meredith’s DNA should be on the blade of the knife because he accidentally pricked her with it while he was cooking a fish diner at his place. “The fact that Meredith’s DNA is on my kitchen knife is because once, when we were all cooking together, I accidentally pricked her hand,’’ he said. It was later proven that Meredith had never even been to Sollecito’s place. In fact, she had only seen him once or twice very briefly: remember Knox and Sollecito had only met a week before the murder. Furthermore, the girls who lived in the flat testified that they had never seen the knife at the cottage at Via Della Pergola 7 (site of the murder). Sollecito has not spoken about that statement since and has yet to retract it; he did exercise his right to silence during the original trial.


Several doctors testified that the knife matched the most significant wound on Kercher’s neck—the deepest and fatal wound. During an independent review of the forensic evidence in 2008, Dr. Renato Biondo, the head of the DNA unit of the scientific police, reviewed Dr. Stefanoni’s investigation and the forensic findings. During his testimony he confirmed that all the forensic findings were accurate and reliable. Dr. Biondo and Dr. Stefanoni (Shown in pic above) are among the top forensic experts in all of Italy. The Kercher family hired their own DNA expert, Professor Francesca Torricelli (Director of a genetic facility at Careggi University Hospital). She also agreed with Dr. Stefanoni that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade of the double DNA knife. Moreover, by the admission of Sollecito himself; Meredith’s DNA was on the blade, as he recalled pricking her with it while preparing a meal at his apartment—not only was he not surprised, he confirmed it to be true.

And, as for the bra clasp: there is absolutely no question whether Sollecito’s DNA was or was not on it—it was! There is less than one chance in a trillion that this was not Sollecito’s DNA. This is a mathematical fact, as plenty of his cells were present to provide a reliable test (1.4 nanogram or 1400 picograms—which contains approximately 160 cells). The only thing that can be contested was contamination from the machine, which is virtually impossible to prove—and would almost have to be performed by monkeys to occur, because of the large amount of cells present. Or, due to some type of physical transfer, prior to removal or testing, that would involve an incalculable improbability, considering that Sollecito’s DNA was not found in the cottage anywhere else (other than a cigarette but).

Although the knife & clasp are two pieces of evidence being re-examined, there were a total of 23 separate pieces of forensic evidence in the case.

Knox Appeal: Date Set for DNA Results

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


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

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

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

Knox Appeal: More Defense Dilly-Dallying

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

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

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

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

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

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

Knox & Sollecito Get Early Christmas Present

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

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


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

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


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

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

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