Knox Appeal: The Defense Counters (14th Hearing)

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Knox Appeal: The Prosecution Strikes Back

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

Knox Appeal: Resumes Today After Summer Recess

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

Knox Appeal: Defense Witness Does 180 & Experts Speak

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Mentally Ill in Perugia: Amanda Knox

The Amanda Knox apologists will stop at nothing to try and convince the world that she is nothing more than a victim of an ‘archaic Italian Justice system’ and an unstable prosecutor. In the latest attempt to do so, a recent TIME magazine article headline actually asked, Could Amanda Knox Have an Autism Spectrum Disorder? Aside from the author’s clear ignorance of the case against Knox, she actually entertains the idea that Knox may have suffered from Asperger’s syndrome—a less severe form of autism—that caused both her unusual social behavior and a gullibility that triggered a false confession.

The author cites Valerie Gaus, a psychologist who has worked with hundreds of autistic people and is the author of Living Well on the Spectrum. “Everything I read would be consistent with it and it could be one alternative theory for the behavior that made her seem suspicious,” says Gaus. The author appears to base her assertions on the behavior of Knox at the police station the day that Meredith’s body was discovered. Somehow, this Knox apologist has attempted to spin the statements of Meredith’s friends—who said that they all suspected Knox after her odd behavior—into a mental disorder that somehow ‘proves’ her innocence. It is uncanny how far these Knox apologists will stretch their minds to believing in her innocence.


Let’s revisit what Meredith’s boyfriend at the time of her death, Giacomo Silenzi (who lived in the apartment below), told Nick Pisa of the daily mail in November 2007. Giacomo suspected Knox was the killer long before it was made public that she was a suspect. In fact, it seemed to be a unanimous decision of all those who witnessed Knox and Sollecito at the police station the day that Meredith’s body was discovered. Does Sollecito also have this disorder?

“I couldn't help thinking how cool and calm Amanda was. Meredith’s other English friends were devastated and I was upset, but Amanda was as cool as anything and completely emotionless,” Giacomo said. “Her eyes didn’t seem to show any sadness and I remember wondering if she could have been involved. I spoke with her English friends Robyn [Butterworth] and Sophie [Purton] afterwards, and they said the same thing. None of us could quite understand how she was taking it all so calmly. I knew that Amanda didn’t get on with Meredith, but I didn't think that would lead to Amanda killing her…If I could see Amanda, I would just ask her, 'Why? Why did she kill Meredith?'”

Were all of these witnesses in on the “so called” conspiracy to convict Knox, was Knox simply suffering from a mental disorder that made her look completely guilty to all who witnessed, or are these just excuses made up in order to justify abnormal, speculative behavior?


Dr. Coline Covington, an experienced psychotherapist who has studied at Princeton University, Cambridge University and the London School of Economics, seems to have a very different diagnosis of Amanda Knox. In a December 2009 article, Dr. Covington suggested that Knox showed signs of being a psychopath:

“Knox’s narcissistic pleasure at catching the eye of the media and her apparent nonchalant attitude during most of the proceedings show the signs of a psychopathic personality. Her behaviour is hauntingly reminiscent of Eichmann’s arrogance during his trial for war crimes in Jerusalem in 1961 and most recently of Karadzic’s preening before the International Criminal Court at the Hague.

The psychopath is someone who has no concern or empathy for others, no awareness of right and wrong, and who takes extreme pleasure in having power over others. The psychopath has no moral conscience and therefore does not experience guilt or remorse.

Most psychopaths are highly skilled at fooling those around them that they are normal by imitating the emotions that are expected of them in different circumstances. They are consummate at charming people and convincing them they are in the right. It is only when they reveal a discrepancy in their emotional response that they let slip that something may be wrong with them.

The psychopath is the conman, or in the case of Amanda Knox, the con-woman par excellence. Her nickname ‘Foxy Knoxy’, given to her as a young girl for her skills at football, takes on a new meaning.

Whether or not Knox, who is appealing her verdict, is ultimately found guilty, her chilling performance remains an indictment against her. Her family’s disbelief in the outcome of the trial can only be double-edged.”

Then there is the analysis of Professor David Wilson, one of Britain’s leading criminologists and is the author of ‘A History of British Serial Killing, 1888-2008’. Dr. Wilson analyzed Knox’s confiscated diary at one point and gave his analysis in a video on Sky News (The video has since been removed). Thankfully, I had transcribed his comments word for word more than a year ago. In his anaylsis, Dr. Wilson said:

“I have absolutely no doubt that Amanda Knox is guilty of murder. I know there’s a great deal of speculation in relation to the evidence that has been presented in the Italian courts; that it was circumstantial. But actually, it was DNA evidence that linked her, quite clearly—incontrovertibly, to the crime. I’d also say, having read her prison diaries, that this is a woman who was clearly involved with an older more experienced boyfriend who introduced her to a lifestyle—it would seem—that allowed her to bend the rules of morality that would guide her behavior, perhaps, in the United States, so that her behavior was different in Italy."

"Because this case has gone on for some two years, very early on, after Amanda Knox’s arrest and imprisonment in Perugia, I was sent her diaries that she had been keeping whilst in jail, to analyze. Having gone through those diaries quite carefully and repeatedly, I would say that a woman emerged (a picture of a young woman emerged) who was self-obsessed, who showed a lack of remorse, who was enjoying the fame and notoriety (the infamy) that had been attached to her as a result of this crime. She enjoyed the sense in which other men in the public were finding her ‘Hot’ as she [Knox] would say. There was a great deal of grandiosity in these diaries. In other words that she sees herself as a bigger personality than she had hitherto been, and she was rather enjoying that behavior. I can give you an example that talks about that grandiosity.”

“She says for example:

‘I know this sounds babyish, but if anything in the world that is unfair, this would have to be up there; not that martyrs and things don’t take the cake, but I’m innocent too. And even though I haven’t been killed, I’m not being allowed to live either.’

“So there’s: (A) the sense of self-obsession; this is all about her—the person who is missing in those statements is of course Meredith Kercher—and (B) there’s also this grandiosity; this sense in which she equates herself to that of a martyr and being martyred by this process. For me what again comes through the diaries in these early phases after her arrest is the sense in which she is still under the spell of her ex-boyfriend. And I have no doubt that his participation in creating a world in which murder could be committed, was the dominant participation.”

Knox Appeal: Experts on Key DNA Evidence File Their Report

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Knox 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.