Is Amanda Knox Guilty?

Probably yes.  Before I explain why I think so, it’s worthwhile to explain what I mean when I assert that she is probably guilty.  What I mean is that she was probably involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher, i.e. she either participated directly or was an accomplice.  It seems that the prosecution argued that she physically stabbed Kercher in the course of the murder.  This is a more narrow claim and it is necessarily less likely to be correct than the claim that Knox was involved.

Also, before I explain why I think Knox is guilty, I think it’s worthwhile to explain what I think happened, i.e. the basic outline of the crime.  I suspect part of the reason people have such a hard time believing Knox is guilty is that it’s difficult to imagine a middle class white girl taking part in the rape and murder of another middle class white girl.  In short, I think it’s worthwhile to show how it’s remotely plausible (even if very unlikely) that Knox took part in the murder.

I think what probably happened is similar to the murder of Janet Chandler in Michigan back in the 70s.  Chandler’s roommate (a white girl) took part in (and perhaps orchestrated) a conspiracy to gang-rape Chandler.  Apparently the roommate disliked Chandler who “thought a lot of herself” and wanted to “teach her a lesson.”  In the course of the rape, Chandler was killed.

It’s interesting that in this case, Sollecito had taken a strong interest in deviant pornography.  I think he would have been really turned on by the idea of setting up a pretty white girl to be raped by a black thug.

For Knox’s part, it seems that Kercher resented her promiscuous lifestyle.  For example, Kercher objected to the fact that Knox kept a vibrator and condoms in their shared bathroom.  Also, Knox had had numerous male visitors and Kercher had not.  There would have been strange men using the shared bathroom and Kercher would have resented this.  I would strongly guess that Kercher displayed her resentment by insinuating to Knox that Knox was a slut (which it seems she was.)  Girls do this to each other all the time.  I would guess that Kercher herself was a narcissistic bitch (did you know that she starred in a music video just a few months before she was murdered?)

It’s actually not super hard to imagine a conversation in which Knox mentioned to Sollecito how stuck up and annoying her roommate was and Sollecito proposed setting her up to get raped.  Much like the rape and murder of Janet Chandler back in the 70s.

I would guess that the intention of Knox and Sollecito was for Kercher to be raped at knife-point.  They expected her to submit just like girls presumably do in porn movies which depict rapes.  When she resisted, Guede started stabbing her and Knox and Sollecito fled in panic shortly thereafter.  Later, Knox and Sollecito decided that to avoid getting in trouble, they needed to pretend that they were not at the house at the time of the attack.  Probably in large part this would have been out of a need to avoid having to explain to the authorities why they did not contact the authorities immediately.

Of course, none of the above is proof or even evidence that Knox was involved, it’s pure speculation and I would write it off if there weren’t such compelling evidence against Knox.  Even with all of the evidence against Knox, I still think there is a decent chance — perhaps 5 or 10% — that she is innocent.  The point is that there are levels of extraordinary.  Claiming that Knox participated in her roommate’s murder is not like claiming that the president is actually an extra-terrestrial from Mars.  It does happen that nice white girls (i.e. girls without a criminal history) murder other white girls.

Anyway, the main important evidence against Knox is that when you look at her statements and actions for the time period in question, they just don’t add up but are instead consistent with her having been involved in the murder.  Even at trial, she was unable to provide a coherent account.  (For his part, Sollecito apparently exercised his right to remain silent.)  And we’re not talking about a few isolated inconsistencies — there are major problems with Knox’s story.  And obviously if she is hiding something important, it’s pretty unlikely that it’s something besides involvement in the murder.

For example, consider Knox and Sollecito’s flurry of phone calls made between 12:50 pm and 12:55 pm on November 2. It started with Knox calling her mother; explaining that there had been a break-in to the apartment; that her roommate was missing; and asking what she should do. Sollecito made a similar call to his sister. And a few minutes later, the pair actually did call the police apparently on the advice of their family members.

The problem is that when these calls were made, the (postal) police were already there at the apartment. They recorded their arrival time as approximately 12:30 and Sollecito later admitted that he had not yet called the police when the (postal) police had arrived. Why would Knox and Sollecito call the police when there were already police at the apartment? Why didn’t Knox mention to her mother that there were police already there? None of this makes sense unless you consider the possibility that Knox and Sollecito were trying to set up some kind of alibi to explain their failure to contact authorities upon seeing blood and signs of a break-in.

Here’s another example: Shortly after the postal police arrived at the apartment on November 2, Knox advised them that Kercher normally kept her bedroom door locked even if she left the room for just a few minutes. This fact is confirmed by the testimony of Knox’s roommate and roommate’s friends who also arrived around that time and as far as I know, Knox never denied it at trial. However, the roommate also testified that Kercher pretty much never locked her bedroom door. So it seems that Knox lied to the authorities right out of the blocks. Again, this makes sense if you consider that Knox was setting up an explanation for her failure to immediately contact the authorities earlier that day.

Here’s another example: When Sollecito initially called the police to report the break-in into the roommate’s bedroom, he stated that nothing had been taken. This was true, but how did he know it? By his account, the roommate had not yet had a chance to go through her bedroom and verify that nothing had been taken. Again, this makes sense if you assume that Sollecito (and Knox) staged the break-in.

Another significant piece of evidence against Knox and Sollecito was the fact that a break-in was apparently staged at the house.  Knox’s roommate — Miss Romanelli — apparently testified that upon returning to her room, she noticed that there was glass from the broken window on top of her strewn belongings.  Assuming the testimony is correct, it seems likely that the window was broken after the room was ransacked.  She also testified that nothing was taken and that whoever ransacked the room did not seem to have looked at obvious places where there might be valuables.  This is decent (but perhaps not compelling) evidence that the break-in was staged.  (Of course Sollecito’s statement to the police that nothing was taken is also decent evidence.)

Of course, it’s possible to explain away each piece of evidence against Knox in isolation.  But the scenario where it’s all explained away is extremely unlikely compared to the admittedly unlikely scenario that she took part in the murder.  My conclusion is that she was probably involved.

P.S.  I am happy to debate this with people, but please keep a few things in mind:

First, I am going by what I have read in published accounts of the crime.  I have tried to be cautious, but I admit there is a chance that my understanding of the facts is incorrect.  So please feel free to correct me.

Second, please try to respond to the arguments I actually make.  I can already imagine some joker saying “Sollecito’s interest in deviant pornography is not evidence that he was a murder!!!”  Dude, that’s not the argument I am making.  I have no tolerance for people who strawman me.

42 Responses to “Is Amanda Knox Guilty?”

  1. Scott Says:

    Nice post but I feel differently. I’ll try and respond only to the points you make. I do feel many of the stories in the media where later proven untrue.

    I think the physical evidence demonstrates Rudy committed the crime, and Amanda and Raffaele where not involved. I won’t dwell on this because you don’t talk about in the post.

    I will agree that just because Amanda Knox is a middle class white female doesn’t mean she could not have murdered her roommate.

    Meredith was also permiscuous and was sleeping with one of the guys in the apartment below. Amanda gave her condoms. Meredith also watered her boyfriend’s pot plants.

    [fortaleza84: How many men did Meredith have sex with during her stay in Italy? I'd be curious to know. Not that it really matters, the point is that one can come up with a remotely plausible scenario in which Knox murders her. But I'm still curious]

    There where stories that Meredith complained to her British friends about Amanda’s vibrator and maybe bringing guys to the apartment. However I don’t think there is any evidence she confronted Amanda.

    [fortaleza84: Why does this matter? In my scenario, Kercher never confronts Knox. Besides, you don't seem to disagree that it's remotely plausible (a priori) that Knox murdered her roommate.]

    In the trial the two Italian women felt Amanda and Meredith had a fairly normal roommate relationship although both where a bit untidy.

    The postal police claim of arriving at 12:30 is not supported by a video camera that shows them arriving later. A little after Raffaele called the police.

    I’m not sure if the disagreement between Amanda and Fillomena over whether Meredith normally locked her door or not means anything. Perhaps one of the two was more observent of Meredith’s behavior. I don’t really see how how Amanda’s version would help her if she was guilty.

    [fortaleza84: As I explained in the post, I think Knox probably told this lie because she felt she needed to account for the fact that she had not previously contacted the authorities about Kercher. It's true that one can get around the contradiction by speculating that one of the two was simply mistaken. But it's a bit of a coincidence that an innocent Knox would volunteer a statement like this to the authorities which just happens to help her establish an excuse for her failure to contact the authorities earlier. When you add up all of these coincidences, the reasonable conclusion is that they are not coincidences at all.]

    One of the main assumptions of the fake breakin is the glass on the clothes and the window was broken from the inside. But crime photos show the opposite is the case.

    [fortaleza84: From what I understand, the photos were taken after Romanelli had entered and started to pick up her room. Do you disagree with this?]

    The inner shutter has a large dent and glass fragment. Some glass fragments are a considerable from the window. Both points indicate breakage from a rock thrown from the outside. The photos also do not show glass fragments on top of the clothes.

    When Raffaele called the police he stated the apparent break in had occurred but nothing was taken. Now why would someone stage a breakin to cover up a murder but not actually steal anything?

    [fortaleza84: Because they haven't given a lot of thought in advance to the best way to stage a break-in. Anyway, how did Sollecito know that nothing had been taken from Romanelli's room? It's possible that he just misspoke and happened to be correct by chance. But that would be another coincidence. When you add up all the coincidences, the reasonable conclusion is that Knox and Sollecito are probably guilty.
    ]

    My opinion is the likely answer is Rudy didn’t find what he was looking for in Fillomena’s room so he moved to the rest of the apartment. Shortly later Meredith arrived and spoiled his burglary. He then raped and murdered her to a very heinous manner.

    I hope I have addressed your points in a fair manner.

    [fortaleza84: Well let me ask you this question. In your opinion, when did Knox (and Sollecito) first become concerned about Kercher’s absence? If you accept the testimony about the locked door, it seems that Knox (and by extension Sollecito) were not concerned when the postal police arrived. On the other hand, if you accept Knox’s mother’s testimony as well as Sollecito’s recorded call to the police a minute or two later, Knox and Sollecito were very much concerned by 12:55 or so.

    Of course, it’s possible and reasonable for someone to become concerned as time goes by. Perhaps Knox and Sollecito were unconcerned about Kercher when the postal police arrived and grew more concerned over the next 10 to 20 minutes. But in that case, why did they call the police when the police were already there? And when they called Knox’s mother and then the police, why didn’t they mention that the police were already there? It makes no sense at all. Unless of course you assume that Knox and Sollecito were trying to set up alibis for themselves. Then it makes a lot of sense.

    At trial, Knox testified that she did not remember this phone call to her mother. Even though she was shown the records of the call and heard her mother testify about the call. If she had remember the call, she would have been asked why she made it and what was discussed. There is no good answer to this question, and she conveniently forgot the call.]

    • scott Says:

      [fortaleza84: How many men did Meredith have sex with during her stay in Italy? I'd be curious to know. Not that it really matters, the point is that one can come up with a remotely plausible scenario in which Knox murders her. But I'm still curious]

      Meredith’s Italian boyfriend suspected she was seeing others but was not concerned. Also there where reports of Meredith and a guy at one of the bars she frequented. Plus Meredith had a boyfriend back in the UK although they had agreed to see others during while she was in Italy. I believe the UK boyfriend may have been on an exchange somewhere else at the time.

      I think Amanda had 1 steady boyfriend (Raffaele) and two one night stands in Italy. She had been dating Raffaele for 1 week before the murder. One of the one nighters occurred before she arrived in Perugia. She may have had other guys at the house but there was no sex involved.

      [fortaleza84: Ok, so it seems you agree that Kercher could have reasonably perceived that Knox was having "strange men" over as was reported. So it could have easily happened that Kercher insinuated something to Knox about this which in turn caused Knox to resent Kercher. Of course this is pure speculation, but it supports my basic point, which is that (a priori) it is remotely conceivable that Knox murdered Kercher.]

      Media reports blew everything out of proportion. I am pretty confident in the information on Amanda’s sex partners because she listed them to the police after they told her she had HIV and the list was published by the media.

      [fortaleza84: Why does this matter? In my scenario, Kercher never confronts Knox. Besides, you don't seem to disagree that it's remotely plausible (a priori) that Knox murdered her roommate.]

      I do agree in a theoretical sense that it’s remotely possible Amanda was involved. But based on the evidence I firmly believe she was not.

      [fortaleza84: Well that's a different issue. I address that in the rest of my post.]

      I’m looking for a motive.

      [fortaleza84: A clear motive would strengthen the case to be sure, but it's not necessary to be reasonably confident that Knox was involved. It happens regularly that people harm other people for reasons which are not clear to outsiders.
      And by the way, I don't believe that Knox intended to kill Kercher.]

      One possibility is Meredith objected to Amanda’s promiscuous lifestyle. However I see no evidence that Meredith’s objections where made known to Amanda before the murder and thus I don’t agree this is a motive. I also don’t think Meredith ever called Amanda a slut. A week before the murder the two had a attended a chocolate festival and classical music concert together. Friendly text messages between the two where also given as evidence of friendship.

      [fortaleza84: From what I understand, the photos were taken after Romanelli had entered and started to pick up her room. Do you disagree with this?]

      The police allowed her to remove her laptop computer. I don’t see the computer in the photos so I assume the photos where taken after she retrieved it. I don’t think she was allowed to start cleaning the room.

      [fortaleza84: According to the sentencing report, Romanelli's testimony was that she entered the room, searched it to see if anything was missing, and moved objects around in the process. She clearly testified to finding glass on top of her laptop computer.]

      [fortaleza84: Well let me ask you this question. In your opinion, when did Knox (and Sollecito) first become concerned about Kercher's absence? If you accept the testimony about the locked door, it seems that Knox (and by extension Sollecito) were not concerned when the postal police arrived. On the other hand, if you accept Knox's mother's testimony as well as Sollecito's recorded call to the police a minute or two later, Knox and Sollecito were very much concerned by 12:55 or so.

      Of course, it's possible and reasonable for someone to become concerned as time goes by. Perhaps Knox and Sollecito were unconcerned about Kercher when the postal police arrived and grew more concerned over the next 10 to 20 minutes. But in that case, why did they call the police when the police were already there? And when they called Knox's mother and then the police, why didn't they mention that the police were already there? It makes no sense at all. Unless of course you assume that Knox and Sollecito were trying to set up alibis for themselves. Then it makes a lot of sense.

      At trial, Knox testified that she did not remember this phone call to her mother. Even though she was shown the records of the call and heard her mother testify about the call. If she had remember the call, she would have been asked why she made it and what was discussed. There is no good answer to this question, and she conveniently forgot the call.]

      My opinion is Amanda first became suspicious when saw the feces in the back bathroom that had the hairdryer. But then really became concerned about Meredith after she tried to call her cell phone at 12:07. Amanda then made several calls to Filomena and more attempts to call Meredith. At 12:47 Amanda called her mother in Seattle. At 12:50 Raffaele called his sister Vanessa (who was a police officer at the time). He then called the Carabinieri police at 12:51. I believe the security camera show the postal police first arrived 1:00. One big issue with the case is the security camera itself. The timer on the camera show the postal police arrive at 12:48. However it can be shown the timer was 12 minutes slow because the same camera show the Carbinieri police arriving at 13:22 however Amanda was directing them to the apartment and the call ended when they arrived at 13:34. Hence the camera clock was 12 minutes slow so the postal police arrived at 13:00. So I think the evidence shows Raffaele called the Carbinieri police before the postal police arrived. So there was no attempt to create a false alibi.

      [fortaleza84: Assuming all of that is true, why didn't Knox and Sollecito immediately bring the police to Kercher's bedroom with the locked door, and instead advised the police that Kercher normally kept her door locked?

      Further, do you have a cite and link for the evidence of the security camera?

      Also, do you agree that Sollecito admitted to the police that he had not yet made the call when the police showed up?

      Also, do you agree that Romanelli testified that she got back to the apartment a bit before 1:00pm?]

      I’ll have to review Amanda’s testimony about her not remembering the call made to her mother, Amanda also forgot the text she sent to Patrick. My opinion is Amanda did not take the trial serious enough or her lawyers did not prepare her well enough.

      [fortaleza84: As I explained in the post, I think Knox probably told this lie because she felt she needed to account for the fact that she had not previously contacted the authorities about Kercher. It's true that one can get around the contradiction by speculating that one of the two was simply mistaken. But it's a bit of a coincidence that an innocent Knox would volunteer a statement like this to the authorities which just happens to help her establish an excuse for her failure to contact the authorities earlier. When you add up all of these coincidences, the reasonable conclusion is that they are not coincidences at all.]

      I understand your argument about Amanda saying the door was locked to trying to cover up that fact that she had not already contacted the police. Although I think opinion that the two women just remembered things differently is just as likely.

      [fortaleza84: When Sollecito called the police at 12:55 or so, apparently he specifically mentioned that the door was locked as a cause for concern about Kercher's absence. Further, Knox had called her mother a minute or two previously and expressed concern about Kercher's absence. Given that Knox and Sollecito were together at the time, it makes no sense that they would be concerned about Kercher's absence (and the locked door) at 12:55 and then unconcerned 10 minutes later, even to the point of telling the police that the door was normally locked.]

      [fortaleza84: Because they haven’t given a lot of thought in advance to the best way to stage a break-in. Anyway, how did Sollecito know that nothing had been taken from Romanelli’s room? It’s possible that he just misspoke and happened to be correct by chance. But that would be another coincidence. When you add up all the coincidences, the reasonable conclusion is that Knox and Sollecito are probably guilty.

      Even Raffaele said it didn’t appear that anything was missing when he contacted the police.

      [fortaleza84: Did he say it didn't appear anything was missing? Or that nothing had been taken? Keep in mind, as far as he knew (and assuming he was innocent), he was reporting the break-in in Romanelli's room and had not entered Kercher's room.]

      However something was missing.

      [fortaleza84: Not from the room which Sollecito claimed to have seen.]

      Meredith’s two cell phones (one was actually borrow from Filomena) and roughly 300 euros. These where taken from the victim who Raffaele didn’t know was dead when he made the call.

  2. Sky Fawkes Says:

    Hi,
    I’ll address 2 points- the timing of postal police arriving & the staged break-in.
    In the recent appeals case, both these pieces of so-called evidence were overthrown/ discounted.
    The postal police can not be relied upon for many reasons & one of them is their logging of events around this time. A video taken from the parking lot across the street from the cottage supports Raffaele’s claim of the time he called the CarabinIeri.

    [fortaleza84: Would you mind providing a cite and link? Also, do you dispute that Sollecito subsequently advised police that he had not yet called the police when the postal police arrived? Also, do you agree that at the time Knox and Sollecito called the police, they were concerned about Kercher's disappearance? If so, why did Knox advise the police that Kercher normally locked her door? Why didn't she advise them immediately on their arrival that Kercher was missing? There are no good answers for these questions.]

    AK & RS were not ‘surprised’ by the Postal Police- they initially mistook them for the Carsbinieri. If you’re looking for a conspiracy, there’s much talk about Perugian Police & their motives for wanting to railroad 2 innocent kids & take the heat away from Guede & their own history with him.
    Secondly the staged break in. If Filomena was a typical young, pot smokin’ girl, which we know she was, there’s a good chance clothes were one the floor in the first place- that would explain glass on top of them.

    [fortaleza84: Well it's possible that Romanelli was lying or mistaken about the glass. Indeed, you can look at each piece of evidence against Knox in isolation and explain it away. But when you put it all together, it's just way too much of a coincidence.

    Anyway, same question I asked the earlier poster: When did Knox first become concerned about Kercher's absence? The only answer to this question which fits the evidence is that Knox was never concerned about Kercher's absence because she knew Kercher was dead.]

    But seeing as the same Postal Police messed up the entire scene like headless chooks- it’s hard to say what the room originally looked like.
    Note that Filomena & the other Italian flatmate (name?) both lawyered-up immediately. Filomena even took her lawyer to the crime scene. Why? Maybe something about her pot stash & the fact she was a legal secretary? She also had reason to deflect attention away from herself. Would have been nice of her to advise her friend/ flatmate Amanda to get a lawyer too, but that must have slipped her mind.
    Btw, Meredith was dating one of the pot-dealing boys downstairs- Here’s a pic of him ( don’t bother reading the trashy article)

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-494740/Merediths-boyfriend-reveals-moment-suspected-Foxy-Knoxy-killed-lover.html

    Looks like a lovely, upstanding citizen hey!? He was a friend of Guede’s. Please not, Amanda only vaguely knew RG & Raffale had never met him.

    [fortaleza84: How do you know that?]

    It’s a bit jump to go from looking at porn to planning a rape/ murder with a stranger.
    For more info, look at this reputable website

    http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/index.html

    Good luck!

    [fortaleza84: I've looked at pro and con arguments all over the web, including stuff from that web site. I am satisfied that Knox is probably guilty. If you feel I missed something important, please feel free to bring it up here.]

  3. Sky Fawkes Says:

    Btw, I hope you can forgive all my typos! Proof-reading has never been my strong suit, which is ironic … you’d laugh if you knew what my job was! ;-)

  4. Laura Says:

    Laurie Swank, Janet Chandler’s roommate, had a jealousy motive for murder. Also, she confessed, which Amanda Knox didn’t, despite being abusively interrogated overnight by a tag-team of twelve police officers. I don’t know what previous history Laurie Swank had, did she have a reputation as a kind, intelligent person as Amanda Knox did?

    [fortaleza84: I don't know either, and it doesn't really matter. The point is that Knox murdering Kercher is remotely plausible, even if unlikely. By the way, it does not appear that Swank intended for Chandler to be killed. I doubt that Knox intended for Kercher to be killed either.]

    Why don’t you go online and find how your arguments are refuted?

    [fortaleza84: I've studied a lot of online arguments on both sides and satisfied myself that Knox is probably guilty. If you feel I missed something, feel free to bring it up here.]

    That’s what I’ve done with the “guilter” arguments, and they all had good refutations. Nor do I buy that many pieces of flimsy evidence add up to solid evidence, which is basically what the guilters claim.

    [fortaleza84: Sometimes different pieces of weak evidence can add up to something solid. For example, suppose that one morning your 10 year old child who is always lying about stuff and making up stories wakes you up and tells you that he looked out his window and saw a big red animal running down the street. You are pretty skeptical so you walk out the door to look around. Ernie, the town drunk, stumbles up to you and slurs that he saw a big red animal run down the street 5 minutes earlier. At that point, based on the two pieces of evidence, you would actually think there is a pretty good chance that a big red animal really did run down the street. Even though you would be justifiably skeptical based on each piece alone.

    In the case of Amanda Knox, we have numerous pieces of decent, but not compelling evidence. When they are put together, the case against her is pretty strong.]

    That’s what conspiracy theorists do. They come up with a lot of little details that are suspicious, and they find all those little details to be convincing proof. By this method, people have “proved” to themselves that JFK was assassinated by the CIA, that aliens are abducting people, and many other strange things.
    Jean-Paul Sartre had a saying “break bones in your head”: pay attention to people who disagree with your beliefs.

  5. George Barwood Says:

    fortaleza84

    Others have replied to some of you points, I think you are mostly mistaken, or rather there are quite innocent explanations of the issues you describe – that’s not surprising because the amount of dubious and plain wrong information that has been published on this case has been enormous.

    [fortaleza84: If you believe some of my assertions are plain wrong, please let me know. I promise to consider what you are saying.]

    Anyway, what I have done is to examine the prosecution’s case, specifically the Massei report. Basically I found quite several compelling reasons why Massei is not plausible.

    My analysis is here:

    http://massei-report-analysis.wikispaces.com/

    Of course it’s possible that Amanda Knox is gullty in spite of the official case against her being wildly implausible. That’s hard to defend, but I think if you look harder at the points you found suspicious you will find they don’t amount to anything.

    [fortaleza84: Please feel free to address the points I raise specifically.]

    If you have questions, why not raise them at http://www.injusticeinperugiaforum.org

    There are many people there who can help answer your questions better than I can – I only started looking at this case in October this year.

  6. George Barwood Says:

    Oh, I will reply specifically to one of your points. You say

    “Here’s another example: When Sollecito initially called the police to report the break-in into the roommate’s bedroom, he stated that nothing had been taken. This was true, but how did he know it? By his account, the roommate had not yet had a chance to go through her bedroom and verify that nothing had been taken. Again, this makes sense if you assume that Sollecito (and Knox) staged the break-in.”

    Here you are taking people’s words too literally. What Sollecito would have meant is that they had quickly checked the unlocked rooms and found that nothing valuable had apparently gone. I suggest you look at a transcript of the call. It was actually mostly about Meredith’s door being locked ( I only know a few words of Italian, but even I can see that ). It’s at

    http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=1674#p1674

    [fortaleza84: It's certainly possible that's what he meant. And if that were the only evidence against him, I would be pretty confident he is innocent. It's possible to look at each piece of evidence in isolation and explain it away. But when you combine it all, the case is pretty strong.]

    Mind you, you are in good company, because Massei also found this suspicious. To me it really doesn’t amount to anything at all.

    Here is a google translation of the call:

    “Ready hello, feel, huh … someone entered the house breaking the window and put a lot of clutter. There is a locked door. The path is: Via della Pergola 7 in Perugia.

    Basically they went in, broke a glass? And as you know who came?

    You see the signs, there are blood stains in the bathroom.

    They have taken away anything. The problem is that the door is closed … There is a lot of blood.

    There is a locked door? What is the door locked?

    … Diuna of roommates who do not know where it is not. Yes yes we have tried to call but does not answer anywhere.

    Okay, now I send a patrol so we verify the situation.

  7. George Barwood Says:

    “It’s certainly possible that’s what he meant. And if that were the only evidence against him, I would be pretty confident he is innocent. It’s possible to look at each piece of evidence in isolation and explain it away. But when you combine it all, the case is pretty strong.”

    Sorry, the case is actually very weak when you start looking in detail at facts that make the prosecution case very improbable. Did you look at the link I posted? ( http://massei-report-analysis.wikispaces.com/ ). There is a table near the bottom that shows the defence case is thousands, if not millions of times more likely than the prosecution case.

    [fortaleza84: I looked at your web page. I didn’t notice any mention of the evidence that Knox and Sollecito called the police after the police were already there. And didn’t mention in those calls that the police were already there. This is strong evidence against Knox and Sollecito which you seem to have completely ignored.

    Also, you did not mention Romanelli’s testimony that she found glass on top of her disturbed items. It looks to me like you are simply ignoring a lot of the best evidence against Knox and Sollecito.

    It also seems you are ignoring the expert testimony about the state of Kercher’s digestive system. Sollecito’s own expert testified that based on the stomach and duodenum contents, the time of death was between 9:30 pm and 10:30pm. Professor Bacci, the prosecution’s expert, testified (based on the same digestive issues) that the time of death was between 9:00 to 9:30 pm and 11:00pm to midnight.

    You are claiming that not only is the prosecution expert wrong, but also the defense expert is wrong, even though he had every incentive to push the time of death back as far as possible.

    It looks to me like you are simply ignoring the evidence you do not like.]

    Adding a few very circumstantial “slightly suspicious” events cannot change this in any significant way. Only something “for sure”, like good DNA evidence would do that, and as I’m sure you are aware, independent court appointed experts found the DNA evidence to be unreliable.

    [fortaleza84: Actually, to my understanding the independent court experts made that finding as to the bra clasp and knife; not as to the mixed blood in the bathroom.

    Anyway, the events I pointed to in my blog post are more than “slightly suspicious.”

    Do you agree that it’s more than slightly suspicious if Knox and Sollecito called the police after the police arrived and didn’t mention the fact police were already there?

    Do you agree that it’s more than slightly suspicious if Knox lied to investigators about Kercher keeping her room locked?]

  8. George Barwood Says:

    “I didn’t notice any mention of the evidence that Knox and Sollecito called the police after the police were already there.”

    That’s because this myth was discredited long before Massei, so it’s not part of Massei. See point 10 at http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/Prosecutionscase.html

    [fortaleza84: Regarding Massei, that's not true the point is mentioned -- admittedly in an indirect way: See page 89. Regarding the rebuttal you link to, where is the evidence that the Carabinieri in the photo is the same who called Knox? There's none as far as I know. Presumably many Carabinieri came to the house that day.]

    “not as to the mixed blood in the bathroom”

    There was no mixed blood in the bathroom, that was a myth.
    Instead samples were taken from the bathroom that included Meredith’s blood, and these were found to contain DNA of Amanda and Meredith. But this means nothing, because it was a shared bathroom, and of course there was DNA from both of them there. Saliva has large amounts of DNA, so just cleaning your teeth will deposit large amounts ( something Amanda did in that bathroom the morning after the murder.

    [fortaleza84: Well that's a different claim. It's one thing to say that the DNA evidence is unreliable; it's another to say that some of the DNA evidence is reliable but not inculpatory.]

    “Do you agree that it’s more than slightly suspicious if Knox lied to investigators about Kercher keeping her room locked?]”

    She didn’t lie. See the Amanda’s testimony about this if you don’t believe me. Simply Filomena didn’t know that Meredith sometimes locked her door, and Amanda corrected her about this. Remember Amanda shared a bathroom with Meredith and her room was next to Meredith’s, so she would have been more aware.

    [fortaleza84: First things first: Do you agree that Knox is alleged to have told police officers that "even when she went
    to the bathroom for a shower Meredith always locked the door to her room"?]

    On the empty duodenum, remember the prosecution case is that Meredith died at 11:30 ( this hypothesis was introduced very late in the first trial ). From what I have read about how our digestive system works this is pretty unlikely ( I put it at no more than 10%, although some people think it’s even less likely than that, more a 1 in a million event ).

    [fortaleza84: I'm not sure what your point is here. Do you dispute that you are pronouncing both the prosecution AND defense experts as wrong?]

    I’m afraid you have fallen for many of the false stories that arose. Don’t you see a pattern here? Each piece of putative evidence just crumbles to nothing when you look close enough. The witnesses were not credible ( especially Curatolo ).

    I’m probably not going to post further here ( no disrespect, but this is not an easy format for extended discussion, and answering each of the many supposedly suspicious things takes a lot of time ), but I’d be quite willing to discuss further in a more structured format at http://www.injusticeinperugiaforum.org/index.php

    If you want to know about some aspect, start a thread in “Questions about the case” and knowledgeable people will respond. Or if you look there, you will see many of the topics you mention have already been discussed.

    [fortaleza84: It looks to me like you are the one who has fallen for "false stories." You are asserting that experts on both sides of the case are mistaken or lying. That makes no sense. You imply that according to Knox, Kercher "sometimes" locked her door but that's simply not what she is alleged to have said to the police. According to the police, Knox stated that Kercher "always" locked her door, which pretty clearly appears to have been a dead cold lie. Last, you have uncritically swallowed the defense's smoke and mirrors regarding the arrival of the police when there is plenty of solid evidence that the police arrived before the phone calls were made.]

  9. George Barwood Says:

    Oh, something I didn’t address – the glass on top of the clothes in Filomena’s room. The reason I don’t talk about it in my analysis is that the facts are hard to establish and it doesn’t seem very conclusive. Firstly (as Massei acknowledges) the photographic evidence doesn’t show glass on top of clothes. Massei says this is because the scene was re-arranged before the photographers got there. Secondly I don’t know what Filomena actually said, how much glass, on top of what clothes? Is she sure the clothes were not lying on the floor when she left her room? Thirdly it seems to me that it’s quite possible in a “non-staged” break-in for the glass to have got all over the place. Rudy may have tossed clothes around, they could have picked up glass from the floor or elsewhere, or glass originally not on the clothes could have been moved as he moved other objects, He or Amanda could have transferred glass from their shoes onto the clothing. Who knows? For me it’s quite inconclusive.Amanda testified that there was glass all over the room,as follows

    [fortaleza84: Here’s the apparent translation of Romanelli’s testimony:


    “I picked up the computer and perceived that in lifting it, I was picking up pieces of
    glass, in the sense that there was actually glass on top of it” (p. 41), and she noticed
    this circumstance so particularly that she added the following comment: “It was
    really a stupid burglar; not only did he not take anything, the broken glass was
    actually on top of the things” (p. 41)

    It seems pretty clear and unambiguous to me. Again, it seems to me you are ignoring evidence simply because you don’t like it. Just like you ignore the testimony of the experts from BOTH sides.]

    MIGNINI: And the glass? On top of the clothes?
    AK: Well, I saw that the glass was broken and there were pieces
    of glass all over the place.
    MIGNINI: Also on top of the clothes?
    AK: I suppose there was, but I can’t say

    The one thing I’m pretty sure about is that if the break-in was staged, it wasn’t done by chucking the rock from the inside as the prosecution claim – the physical evidence is quite clear on this ( the mark on the shutter and the embedded glass on the shutter ). Therefore I’m pretty sceptical about other prosecution claims on this. But there is no firm answer.

    But it would be great to have the actual testimony of Filomena,when she first said it, what she actually said. I don’t have any of that.

  10. George Barwood Says:

    “According to the police, Knox stated that Kercher “always” locked her door, which pretty clearly appears to have been a dead cold lie.”

    No, the police were mistaken. This was clarified during the trial.

    She only said Meredith sometimes locked her door.

    [fortaleza84: Clarified by whom? Knox herself? Please give me the cite to the trial testimony which shows that the Massei report is wrong about htis testimony.]

    “Here’s the apparent translation of Romanelli’s testimony..”

    Hold on now you are talking about a computer, not clothes.
    You keep on changing your points.

    [fortaleza84: You are the one who changed the point. I clearly said "glass on top of disturbed items" Please address the points I actually make, instead of the points you wish or imagine I had made.]

    The point is that much of the prosecutions circumstantial evidence is based on dubious testimony based on people’s memories of what they saw or heard. This kind of evidence is really unreliable, easily manipulated and there are almost alternative explanations. Just look at Curatolo, and you can see how doubtful the prosecutions use of witnesses was.

    [fortaleza84: Sometimes it's possible to combine numerous pieces of inconclusive evidence and reach a reasonably strong conclusion. That's the case here. But anyway, I eagerly await your citation to the trial testimony about the locked door.]

    Never mind the outright lies told by Stefanoni.

    The evidence that shows Massei is highly improbable is things that are pretty undeniable, such as the 10:13 incoming MMS, which prove beyond reasonable doubt that Massei is wrong.

    I would concede that it’s theoretically possible that a completely different case could be built that is somewhat more probable than Massei. It would have a time of death shortly after 9pm, a slightly more plausible motive ( maybe Raffaele was jealous of Rudy fancying Amanda say, since we know that was the case, and decided to set him up for a rape charge against Meredith ), no double knife, a staged break-in with the rock thrown from outside… But this is a really fanciful exercise, and I really don’t see any solid evidence linking Amanda and Raffaele to the crime once the knife and bra-clasp DNA evidence is deemed unreliable. So even this case would be very weak, not really anything more than speculation based on nothing.

    I will start a thread at http://www.injusticeinperugiaforum.org about the glass on the computer, because it’s something I haven’t looked at before in any depth. I’ll need to look into it a bit first, may not be until tomorrow, because I’m going out tonight to see Handel’s Messiah in Gloucester cathedral.

    [fortaleza84: Sorry, I'm not particularly interested in discussing this on yet another another forum. This forum is adequate as far as I am concerned.]

    • George Barwood Says:

      “[fortaleza84: Sorry, I'm not particularly interested in discussing this on yet another another forum. This forum is adequate as far as I am concerned.]”

      Fortaleza

      Sorry, the quoting facilities seem to be non-existent here,

      [fortaleza84: That sounds like an excuse to me, since most computers have a cut and past function which is pretty easy to use. My guess is that your real problem is that you prefer to discuss the Knox case on a forum where the popular view, including the views of those who are responsible for moderation, agrees with your view of the case. However, if it’s really just a matter of having a one-key quote function, I have set up a discussion board here: http://fortaleza84.proboards.com I invite you to post there and to try to answer the questions I have asked you. I promise not to respond “in-line”]

      so likewise I’m not interested in continuing further here, Remember you are replying in-line all the time, but I don’t seem to have that function, so trying to reply to your inline posts is too much hard work. I would encourage you to visit http://www.injusticeinperugiaforum.org if you really want to find out about and discuss the case in depth. There are many people there who know far more than me, and it has proper threading capability which allows the various topics to be kept organised and separate. Anyway, I hope I have given you a few things to think about, I’ll say goodbye for now.

  11. George Barwood Says:

    Ok, the thread on Filomena’s computer is here

    http://www.injusticeinperugiaforum.org/filomena-s-computer-with-glass-on-it-t1499.html

    [fortaleza84: As mentioned above, I’m not particularly interested in discussing the case on yet another forum. I am asking you to provide evidence in the form of links, quotes, and cites regarding (1) your claim of “clarification” of the testimony regarding the locked door; and (2) your implicit claim that the Carabineiri officer in the 1:22 photograph was the same one who called for directions (there is no a priori reason to think he is; I would assume that numerous Carabinieri were in that neighborhood that afternoon.) I am also asking for you to back up your implicit claim that the experts — including Sollecito’s expert — were wrong about the time of death.

    I have studied the evidence in the case carefully and I am reasonably satisfied that Knox and Sollecito are probably guilty. I have explained why I think so; you are making certain assertions which, if true, would undermine my confidence. I am very skeptical of your assertions, but I am happy to consider your evidence for the same.]

  12. Unamused Says:

    Amanda Knox is innocent. The black guy did it (of course).

    [fortaleza84: I'm probably almost as racist as you, i.e. I'm well aware of the massive connection between blacks and violent crime. In this case, it appears that the murderer was indeed and unsurprisingly the black guy. But this doesn't logically rule out the possibility that Knox and Sollecito were also involved. I have been reading your blog on and off for a while, so I think you are aware that a lot of whites are not above using blacks for their own purposes. In this case, I think that Knox and Sollecito wanted to set up Kercher to be raped by a black man and did not intend for her to be murdered in cold blood. In any event, the circumstantial evidence suggests strongly that Knox and Sollecito were involved.]

    The “Injustice in Perugia” website (not forum) is probably the best source for evidence, expert testimony, and plausible explanations for things you claim have no plausible explanation besides Knox and her boyfriend conspiring to have Knox’s roommate raped and murdered, by a stranger, who happened to be a serial burglar, in the apartment Knox and the victim shared.

    [fortaleza84: I don't believe that Knox and Sollecito intended for Kercher to be murdered. I think that like many whites, they simply underestimated the violent propensities of blacks. In any event, I have considered the pro-Knox responses to the evidence and I do not believe that such responses have much merit. Normally they consist of either (1) accepting certain pro-Knox assertions as gospel, without any apparent basis; or (2) considering each piece of evidence in isolation without looking at the big picture.]

    For example, here is something about broken glass.

    “There is photographic evidence showing that the rock was thrown from outside the cottage.

    “The outside shutters were open. Filomena stated that she did not remember if she closed the shutters. The inside shutters were pushed closed but not latched.

    “The rock broke the glass and hit the inside shutter causing damage to the wood. The rock then fell downward toward the floor catching the edge of a glossy black paper shopping bag. The rock knocked the bag over and came to rest on the tile floor on the edge of the bag. The photographs clearly show dust from the rock and small pieces of the rock that had broken free caused by the impact of the rock hitting the tile floor. ”

    There are some photographs there. I assume you are “not particularly interested” in looking at them.

    [fortaleza84: Why would you assume that? I have no problem looking at and considering evidence in the case as long as people don’t use the “thick book tactic” on me.

    In any event, I don’t have a strong opinion either way on the rock from inside versus outside debate. The main reason I believe the break-in was probably staged was that (1) nothing was taken from the room; (2) Romanelli reported finding glass on top of her disturbed belongings; (3) Sollecito reported to the authorities that nothing was taken before he could have known this.

    The web site you link to doesn’t seem to contradict any of this. I do note that it seems to have mischaracterized Romanelli’s testimony. According to the Massei report, she did remember closing the shutters:


    Filomena Romanelli stated (cf. declarations at the hearing of February 7, 2009) that
    when she left the house in via della Pergola 7 on the afternoon of November 1, 2007
    she had closed the shutters of her window (p. 68); she had pulled them in (p. 95);
    “the wood was slightly swelled, so they rubbed against the windowsill” (p. 26),
    adding that “it was an old window…the wood rubbed”. And on the day she went
    away, she recalled “having closed them because I knew that I would be away for a
    couple of days” (p. 96). She later added, when noting what she had declared on
    December 3, 2007, that “I had pulled the shutters together, but I don’t think I closed
    them tight” (p. 115).

    Also, I noticed that there was quite a bit of glass on the window sill. This is not smoking gun evidence, but it occurs to me that a burglar would have cleared off that glass before climbing through the window.]

  13. Leon Myerson Says:

    I quite agree that it is theoretically possible for someone like Amanda to have committed murder, although I’m convinced that this particular middle-class white college girl did not. I believe that in the right situation, any of us could be pushed that far. Since this applies to every human being on the planet, it doesn’t help us decide whether any one person has murdered another.

    One point I’d like to make about circumstanstial evidence and “coincidences” adding up to a case for guilt is that the prosecution is free to cherry pick its points from literally thousands of pages of information. Gather that much data about anyone, and you can compile all sorts of interesting coincidences about them. Such facts are not unlike the famous “six degrees of separation” by which most people have a connection to practically everyone on the planet.

    [fortaleza84: I disagree. As an attorney, it happens to me regularly that I question somebody at length and look at hundreds (or thousands) of pages of documents, looking to build a case that the person is lying, and at most I find one or two minor inconsistencies which are easily explained. This is not such a situation. Knox and Sollecito's stories simply don't add up.]

    But this kind of fact proves nothing without actual evidence. When the court appointed DNA experts in the appeals trial shot down the DNA evidence from the first trial, the prosecution was left with NO actual proof that either Amanda or Raffaele were in Meredith’s room. It is physically impossible to have committed a violent homicide in a very small room and leave no trace of yourself.

    [fortaleza84: I am skeptical of this, particularly if Guede played the primary role and Knox and Sollecito played secondary roles. Only 2 or 3 traces of DNA from Guede were found on or about Kercher's person. If it were so easy to transfer DNA, one would have expected to find dozens or hundreds of traces of Guede on or about Kercher's person. Anyway, please feel free to provide a cite for your claim.]

    If you combine this type of crime with modern forensic techniques, when used correctly, then absence of evidence becomes affirmative evidence of absence. All of the theories of why they might have been there become irrelevant against the hard physical proof that they weren’t.

    Reading through the motivation report of Judge Massei from the first trial, I am struck by how many times he fills in gaps in the prosecution’s story while actually saying that he’s making an assumption, hypotheses or conclusion. In an American courtroom this would be cause for the objection “fact not in evidence”. You don’t get to guess what happened when you’re the prosecution. Either you tell the jury you know, and share it all with them, or you don’t know, in which case the whole thing shouldn’t have been brought to trial.

    [fortaleza84: I disagree. For example, Scott Peterson seems pretty likely to have murdered his wife and was properly convicted (in my opinion) even though the prosecutors surely did not exactly how the crime went down. But anyway, you are getting away from the point of the blog post, which is that Knox and Sollecito are probably guilty. Not that the prosecution's scenario was correct or even that they were properly convicted.]

    A narrative such as the theory of a crime is not unlike a chain. Each part supports the rest, linearly, not as a web or mesh, because it must be sequential with all events in temporal order. This chain of cause and effect fails completely if even one link fails, regardless of circumstances or coincidences on either side of the break.

  14. Unamused Says:

    “nothing was taken from the room”

    Kercher’s phone and credit cards were stolen, weren’t they?

    [fortaleza84: I don’t know about the credit cards, but I do understand that Kercher’s phones were taken. However, as far as I know, they were taken from Kercher’s room not Romanelli’s room. Note that according to Sollecito, he had not entered Kercher’s room at the time he called the police.

    Probably Guede took the credit cards and cell phone after he killed Kercher and after Knox and Sollecito had fled the scene, what you would probably call TNB in your circles.

    Anyway, like I said above, from a race-aware point of view, the key thing to keep in mind is that blacks in Western culture are so destructive not just because of who they are, but because because certain whites use them as pawns in their attempts to gain status, wealth or other advantages in conflicts with other whites. If it were not for these whites, blacks would be far less of a problem.]

  15. George Barwood Says:

    I just came across this page, which I had not read before.

    http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/garagemyths.html

    It seems to reliably establish that the postal police arrived at 1pm and not “a little after 12:30″ ( this is in Massei – he says “or so it seemed to the two policemen.” hinting that they were mistaken ).

    Do you have any questions about this? I assume Massei did accept the defence timeline on this, or he would surely have made the same point you did.

    [fortaleza84: Sure I have questions:

    1. Do you agree it’s likely that multiple carabinieri came to the scene after Kercher’s body was discovered?

    2. Is there any evidence that the carabinieri in the 1:22 photo is the same as those who called at 1:29? Or are you just assuming it?

    By the way, I set up a discussion forum about the case here: http://fortaleza84.proboards.com/

    I promise not to respond to you “in-line” on that board.]

  16. George Barwood Says:

    fortaleza

    “1. Do you agree it’s likely that multiple carabinieri came to the scene after Kercher’s body was discovered?”

    At some point, yes, but not early enough to my knowledge that this could cast doubt on the photos establishing the time offset of the garage camera.

    [fortaleza84: Well what exactly is your knowledge on this point? It seems to me that you are just speculating.]

    “2. Is there any evidence that the carabinieri in the 1:22 photo is the same as those who called at 1:29? Or are you just assuming it?”

    It’s an assumption. But there is nothing to the contrary, so this is a most plausible interpretation of the garage camera evidence.

    [fortaleza84: There's a lot to the contrary. Starting with the testimony that the clock was actually checked and was found to be ten minutes off in the other direction. You want to ignore all of this other evidence based on the apparently baseless assumption that one and only one additional police unit came to a lurid crime scene within half an hour of its discovery. Not only is your assumption (apparently) baseless, it goes completely against human nature.]

    My main point would be that Massei does not suggest that the calls between 12:50 pm and 12:55 pm were made after the arrival of the postal police (your point). If this was sustainable, it would have been discussed. In some respects Massei is infuriating – it never lays out the actual timeline accepted by the court in a consistent way, but reports various bits of evidence that are contradictory, leaving us to try and piece the mess together.

    [fortaleza84: Not necessarily. Where is it written that the Massei report must contain each and every strong argument for Knox's guilt?]

    I also cannot understand what the postal police could have been doing if they arrived around 12:30. It just doesn’t seem to build up to a picture consistent with the description that they give. It wouldn’t have been too hard to ask the postal police approximately how long they were there before Filomena arrived shortly after 1pm. Amanda and Raffaele were with the postal police at this time, so the postal police would have observed the flurry of calls, and would presumably have described this in their evidence.

    [fortaleza84: To my recollection the postal police took a few minutes to get to the house; spoke to Knox and Sollecito; were taken on a tour of the house; looked at Romanelli's room; and wrote down Kercher's phone numbers on a piece of paper. This could easily have taken 10, 15, or 20 minutes.]

    All the above is based on my personal rather flimsy understanding of the case – I would stress that I am not a defence expert I’m just someone who took an interest soon after the appeal verdict was announced, and if you want the real deal you need to ask your questions elsewhere ( especially http://www.injusticeinperugiaforum.org – you will get much more complete explanations there ).

    [fortaleza84: At this point, I am not particularly interested in discussing the case on yet another forum. I've reviewed the evidence and arguments on both sides and I am reasonably satisfied that Knox and Sollecito are probably guilty. If you would like to present some argument or evidence you think I have missed, I am happy to consider it.]

    I will hopefully look at your discussion forum later.

    [fortaleza84: I set it up purely for you based on your claim that this blog is not suitable for discussing the case at length.]

  17. George Barwood Says:

    I have now posted on the forum you set up, re the arrival of the postal police. I do think any discussion would be much better done at http://www.injusticeinperugiaforum.org but if you insist on using your own forum I’m happy to discuss there.

    I’m not going to respond here to you inline comments here, it’s just too awkward, please post your points there, and I will try to resspond or consult others via threads at http://www.injusticeinperugiaforum.org

    [fortaleza84: I think your refusal to respond to inline comments is a bit silly, but anyway I am happy to engage on the message board I set up. My rules of debate still apply.]

  18. George Barwood Says:

    I don’t seem to be able to access

    http://fortaleza84.proboards.com/

    any more. It’s saying

    “An Error Has Occurred…”

    Is there something wrong with it?

    [Fortaleza84: I have banned you from the site for weaseling and evading reasonable questions about your position. Our discussion of Amanda Knox is concluded.]

  19. Poppy Says:

    Anyway, like I said above, from a race-aware point of view, the key thing to keep in mind is that blacks in Western culture are so destructive not just because of who they are, but because because certain whites use them as pawns in their attempts to gain status, wealth or other advantages in conflicts with other whites. If it were not for these whites, blacks would be far less of a problem.]

    This is what you quoted above. I do agree that AN and RS are guilty any lawyer would tell you that the evidence is overwhelming. However I find your comments about “Blacks” disgraceful. I have many black friends who are professionals and aren’t at all destructive.

    [fortaleza84: I doubt anyone is claiming that every last black person is a criminal or welfare queen. But generally speaking and on average, they cause a wildly disproportionate amount of harm. ]

    There is good and bad in all races. I think that these comments just make outrageous assumptions about people because of their skin colour and completely undermines the integrity of your blog.

    [fortaleza84: What exactly is the outrageous assumption? My position about blacks is not an assumption, it is based on solid evidence.]

  20. Luca Says:

    Amanda confessed! And gave a written statement! She spent a few days And nights in custody (have you ever been in jail?) and Very Quickly figured it out that she was not for the system of Jail! Sollecito (Pobrecito) was guilty by association And he very quickly figured it out too that he did not very much like being caged either!

    unless You have been caged – you can argue pears and bananas all lovely day long darlincito y darlincitas. Facing your entire life in that cage … You Would deny that your own mother existed and even convince yourself (WholeHeartedly) that you had never ever I mean Ever have been to the toilet in your life!

    Duress is for ignorant people! One does not wake up the next morning after duress and write a confessional essay – guilty girls do.

    [fortaleza84: I'm not sure what your point is here. I have not heard anywhere that Amanda Knox confessed. Do you happen to have a cite and link?]

  21. Shada Says:

    You wrote: “I don’t believe that Knox and Sollecito intended for Kercher to be murdered. I think that like many whites, they simply underestimated the violent propensities of blacks.”

    I had underestimated the violent propensities of white people until I read “The Lord of the Flies” and experienced Columbine, Sandy Hook and a litany of brutal serial killers like Ted Bundy and Gary Ridgeway (Green River Killer).

    I liked this blog, but newsflash, black people are not inherently more violent.

    [fortaleza84: Your argument seems to be (1) whites engage in violence; therefore (2) whites are just as violent as blacks. Is that your argument? Or did I misunderstand you?]

    It’s probably an issue of socio-economics than race.

    [fortaleza84: That's not so, but even if it were, it doesn't change the reality that blacks are wildly disproportionately more violent than other groups.]

    Please try to go outside of your white world and experience other types of people…please!!

    [fortaleza84: Interesting that you assume I live in a "white world." Anyway, I have experienced many different types of people and my experiences are completely consistent with the observations I have made here.]

    Your comments are apalling!!

    [fortaleza84: I agree 100%. Unfortunately, the truth is sometimes appalling.]

  22. Strawberry Picker Says:

    If “Knox and Sollecito are probably guilty”
    Then you are “probably” WRONG in your assumptions and you’re a racist. Ha!

    [fortaleza84: I'm not sure what your point is here. What's your definition of "racist"?]

    “If” Knox and Sollecito were in the room when “Guede started stabbing her” don’t you think he would just confess to it .

    [fortaleza84: Not necessarily, since that would mean Guede would have had to confess to playing a role in the crime. If he had admitted to the murder from the beginning but insisted that he had acted alone, that would be a pretty good piece of evidence in favor of Knox.]

    Don’t you think he would just admit that Knox and Sollecito were in the room too and watched it all happen and that they were the Master Minds that made him do it. Instead he flees to Germany. Why would he? Cause he’s Guilty! He’s a thief. He “probably” thought no one was there and broke into the flat (he has a police record) and little did he know he would find Kercher alone. She “probably” saw him and he panicked so he had to get rid of her. No witness. And yes he didn’t take material items, but I’m sure he took whatever cash he found. Why take material items? A thief wouldn’t want to go pawn/sell items from a place he just broke into and killed someone. He wouldn’t want anything traced back to him. In one of his many alibis, he mentions that Kercher blamed Knox for missing money, 300 euro. That’s “probably” the money he took from her purse. The purse that had his fingerprints all over. Guede has changed his alibi many times, just like Knox.

    [fortaleza84: I'm not sure what your point is here. I believe that Guede is guilty and that the evidence is consistent with his guilt. No need to demonstrate it to me.]

    I can understand why Knox and Sollecito were a bit weird on that morning… they were probably still high. Stoners tend to act weird, slow and forgetful when they’re high.

    [fortaleza84: That doesn't really explain the evidence against them. For example, Knox lying to the police about Kercher's door-locking habits. That's a lie which is a lot more consistent with guilt than with intoxication.]

    Do you really think Knox and Sollecito conspired/schemed to have Kercher raped? Knox and Sollecito only knew each other no more than 1 week. How can they even trust each other to commit such a disgusting crime and not throw each other under the bus. It’s just craziness.

    [fortaleza84: People do stupid things all the time. Besides which, if the crime had been successful, there would have been essentially no evidence against Knox.]

    Its ok fortaleza84, I’m sure by now you’ve figured out that you’re “probably” wrong, but you just can’t admit it. It’s ok.

    [fortaleza84: No . . . it's not like you've presented a compelling argument. Your argument is that if Knox had been involved, Guede would have surely implicated her. Since he failed to do so, it follows that Knox was not involved. However your starting premise is false as I explained above.]

    • juliahubbard Says:

      If there is any truth in Guede’s statement he was seeking a romantic frisson with Metedith, it would have started badly by breaking into her home. It is reasonable to suppose he misinterpreted her friendliness but it also dubious she would have made an arrangement inviting him to hers when the entire building was vacated. If Guede had intelligence of her movements, he could well have been lurking about for her return but would Meredith have let him enter if she was in alone? Doubtful ! Two possibilities; he intercepted her on her way home or he encountered Amanda who gained him access to the villa. Perhaps, from spite Knox left them alone together and the bloodcurdling scream heard by a neighbour was made by Amanda encountering the scene.
      Clearly Guede had no part in the ‘clean up ‘ so, one has to ask why there was one and the moment of declaring the crime delayed.
      Perhaps Rudy’s violation of Meredith led her to arm herself and the fatal wound was inflicted during a struggle to overcome her.
      Another possibility is two crimes were occurring simultaneously – the property is a prime location for illicit activity – and Amanda was set up by the older flat mates.
      In his statement, Guede says the outcome may have been different had he opened the door. Does he mean by this he was not in fact listening to his IPod and cowardly hiding in the lavatory to conceal his presence, along with not flushing the loo? This could also explain the absence of DNA because the attack occurred in the hall way by someone else and ended with him alone in Meredith ‘s room. Perhaps he left barefooted and his shoes were worn by someone else to leave a trail.
      None of this explains the blood in the basement flat or the two cell phones belonging to Meredith being discovered at the same address where a bomb hoax call was made around the precise moment Meredith was attacked.

  23. aword4thewise Says:

    Wow great post, I’ve been following the Knox case, but had never heard of the Chandler mur der. The evidence against Knox and Sollecito is strong. I don’t think they did themselves any favors publishing books during an ongoing legal proceeding. it will be interesting to see what happens during the new appeal.

  24. Catherine Clements Says:

    I’ve read the bulk of the Massei report, and believe that RS and AK are guilty. Like you, when taken in totality, it’s evident that there is no way these two are innocent. Beyond a REASONABLE doubt is the treshhold in the states. The evidence goes well beyond that. Their supporters are useless to argue with, they are incredibly selective with the evidence they wish to discuss.

    Since pretty white girls usually walk for crimes in the US, I’ve been pleased that she at least did 4 years in Italy. I do hope the Italian courts get it right this last round and the US extradites her for trial.

  25. harryrag (@harryrag) Says:

    The English translation of the Italian Supreme Court report which explains why Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito’s acquittals were annulled can be downloaded from the Perugia Murder File website:

    http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=599

    [fortaleza84: Thank you!!]

  26. Kevin McEniry Says:

    Now that the appeal has started I am hoping that some points of interest which do not seem to have attracted much focus previously may be highlighted by the prosecution.

    Interviewed on 8th November 2007 Sollecito stated on record to Judge Claudia Matteini that on the morning of 2nd November on his arrival at the house he had gone to Meredith’s door and ” I looked through the keyhole but could only see her bag and the open wardrobe door”. Looking at the crime scene photos of the door and room layout it would be possible to see the bag but impossible to see the open wardrobe as the area of vision through that dimension of door and keyhole is very narrow and offers vision of only approximately 18 inches either side. The wardrobe was 4 feet to the right hand side of the bag so the wardrobe is invisible to the naked eye looking through the keyhole. Only if you knew how the room had been left before the door had been closed would you know the wardrobe door was open. You would definitely see the bag as it was in direct vision line through the keyhole but also in direct vision was a bloodied towel and small blood stains near the bag why did these not seem to concern him on the morning of the 2nd November

    The next area which seems odd is the bloodied foot prints leaving Meredith’s room and the house which seem to be clearly made by Rudy and all are pointing in a pace movement towards the exit of the house. My question is why are his bloodied footprints not seen standing directly by the door as he used the keys to lock it. And if you take the time to lock Meredith’s door why then exit the house but leave the main door “wide open” as AK stated when she arrived the following morning.

  27. Michelle Moore Says:

    Hi, if I’m not mistaken you mentioned you were an attorney. If so, what is your name? Where do you practice and what kind of cases do you take? I am interested in seeing your website as well.

    [fortaleza84: At the moment, I wish to remain anonymous. Sorry.]

    I, too, was not able to access the discussion forum.
    Some of what you’ve written does not seem logical to me.
    Filomena’s room was compromised if she went in it so it becomes a non issue at that point.
    I haven’t seen a picture of the window sill, but how much glass was on it? I’d love to see the pic if you have it or can point me in a direction to find it.

    [fortaleza84: I'm not sure I understand your point. As I understand things, Filomena testified to finding glass on top of her disturbed belongings. Do you agree that she gave this testimony? And assuming that her testimony was accurate, do you agree it is evidence that the break-in was staged?]

    Regardless, to me, logically a burglar would be in such a hurry not to be seen that the glass on the sill would be the last thing on my mind. I would think he would have been in fight or flight mode.
    There simply was not enough evidence pictures taken (ie. the grass below) to be able to tell more of this part of the crime that took place on that horrible night of the crime. Otherwise, we could tell by the evidence the exact story.


    [fortaleza84: I disagree, but I don't think it's a very important point.]

    They announced they were looking for a black guy on day three. They got Rudy’s fingerprint and knew it was him on day 2. His fingerprint was already in the database from when he had recenty broke into the Nursery school for the 2nd time. This 2nd break in was a week before the crime.
    Lastly, I guess I’m wondering why his DNA and Meredith’s blood was in her purse and on the pillow that lie underneath her and the wall.
    He’s eligible for work release next year. This is a true shame.
    Thanks, Michelle Moore

    [fortaleza84: I'm not sure what your point is here either. I have never disputed that Rudy was a party to the crime. ]

  28. michellesings Says:

    Really? wow. Just for very starter’s: “On! the! subject! of! the! contrast! between! the!
    testimony! and! the! documents! (photographs! of! Filomena`s! room! that! do! not! show!
    pieces!of!glass!on!top!of!the!clothes!and!objects!scattered!around). I copied this straight from Massei report page 53. Yes, I took the time to find this just for you.
    No stone should be left unturned.

    [fortaleza84: Umm, does that mean yes or no? Do you agree that Filomena reported finding glass on top of her disturbed belongings? It's a simple yes or no question. And if the answer is "yes," how exactly is it a non-issue if her room was subsequently "compromised"? Either you believe her testimony or you don't.]

  29. lilly Says:

    It’s so obvious AK and RS were involved. I will throw out all the dna and other “hard evidence” because we don’t need them at all in this case. This case is simple, and resolves only with eye witness testimonies, other students testimonies, framing boss who just fired you, and common sense.
    WHO hits their head repeatedly when they are guestioned by police or judge? What’s the thought process inside a persons head who hitse their head? Answer: “Oh! Why did I do it!” or “oh, why didn’t I clean the bloods better”, or ” what have I done”, Why was I so stupid”! etc.A guilty person.
    Amanda’s psyche was disturbed already when she came to Italy, and smoking marijuana and heavier stuff made her mind to go over the line. Her having sex in train with a stranger shows a person who is going to have fun, forget all the rules and parents advices.She came to Italy to live free and lie it up with drugs.

  30. lilly Says:

    The biggest prove of their guilt is Hekuman Kokomani’s testimony. Yes, his story may be a little strange, but, actully there is no law against mentally ill people testifying in court. If they saw something, they saw something, even if they tell it weirdly. He said he saw A and R & RG out with knives that night, Amanda behaving very weirdly, like in some kind of state of psychosis, ready to stabb him too with a big knife, and Raf trying to calm her down. They were in killing spree. I bet they used heavier drugs too, as Guede was their dealer, and they bought drugs with Meredith’s rent money.Mer was about to call police, but they killed her and took phones away.Motive: money for drugs, avoiding jail and embarressing trip to home usa. Motive also: “since Mer took my job, she will finance my drug use”.Meredith was about to call police and report Amanda’s theft and drug use, that would have led all them three in jail, and Amanda kicked from university.

  31. Jessica Says:

    Agreed they were def on acid but everyone was. I do think Meredith was having sex with Guede but because she wated to. They all were messed up and that’s why AK can’t remember her story if it was fiction or if it’s reality. Telling the police a fiction story even though she heard a “scream” when she was tripping shows their is guilt there. I think Knox didn’t kill Meridith. Yes they didn’t love one another, weren’t best friends as roomies but that’s not a motive to kill. I am confused of why Knox thought her boss visited merdith that night. Maybe when he said don’t come to work and she said see u later, good evening that means to me that Meridith & her boss were sexually involved or maybe her boss took some drugs too. Picking it up from Meredith. Even though her boss’s name was cleared I think somehow he is involved! The facts r why get her boss involved? Is she involved too. I know u all think she is guilty but why wasn’t any Amanda’s blood on the pillow. She did not kill Merdith. Did she or maybe bf set the stAge or was that Guede. Maybe Guede destroyed the house, and maybe AZ & boyfriend knew about killing. They did call the cops because they saw blood in the bathroom and a footprint found was Amanda checking to see what’s going on. I want to see what Supreme Court says even though we now have a guilty and a non guilty verdict. We also don’t know how Meridith was acting on the drug. I know it wasn’t pot, because u can remember on pot!! I just hope they can find justice for Meridith but also not send someone away who is innocent. Even if she may of known about murder I doubt she left the home for 5 hours and left her roommate body on the floor. Also if they were on drugs they could of waited to the drugs were out of their system before they called. Amanda probably knew Guede killed Meredith before she left but she needed to be drug free before cops arrived. If they all took drugs doesn’t make sense why they didn’t all do it together. The sex game sounds to me like false information. Maybe door was left opened and not locked & Guede was a professional he set the stage.maybe there is someone else keeping quiet. I would like to know what Knox and Meredith roommate feels?

    [fortaleza84: I have no idea what your argument is here. Let's do this -- do you disagree with anything I have stated? If so, please quote it.]

  32. michael mills Says:

    Fortaleza,

    It appears to me that you are looking at this case through the prism of your own sexual fantasies, which you have transferred to Knox and Sollecito, in the form of a theory that they conspired with Guede to sexually assault Kercher.

    [Fortaleza84: It appears to me that you have completely misconstrued my argument to the point where I question whether you even read it. I agree that I am speculating about the motives of Knox and Sollecito. But my argument does not hinge on their motives. Sometimes people misbehave for reasons which are not entirely clear and this is such a case. One can be reasonably confident that Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder but not reasonably confident about their exact roles and why they did what they did.]

    What evidence is there that any such conspiracy was hatched? What evidence is there of any desire by either Knox or Sollecito to have Kercher sexually assaulted? What evidence is there of any connection between Knox and Sollecito on the one hand and Guede on the other?

    This whole pornographic theory of a “drug-fuelled sex romp” seems to have been concocted out of thin air, based on nothing more than the prejudices of small-town officials about young girls who use marihuana and engage in casual sex.

    You mention Sollecito’s interest in what you call “deviant pornography”. My understanding is that he had a collection of Japanese “manga” (comic books). I have seen “manga”, and I know that they often contain graphic images of violence, eg bodies being carved up with swords and blood flying everywhere. But such comic books are widely read in Japan, without the readers turning into violent killers; in fact the crime rate in Japan is very low.

    It seems to me you are simply regurgitating the thesis promulgated by the Reader’s Digest back in the 1950s that reading comic books caused teenaged American boys to go out and commit crimes of violence.

    Your entire interpretation of small pieces of evidence, such as whether or not Kercher habitually locked her bedroom door, rests on your assumption of a conspiracy by Knox, Sollecito and Guede to rape Kercher at knifepoint, for some unspecified reason.

    [fortaleza84: Not at all. The evidence indicates that Knox and Sollecito were involved in the murder. It is not entirely clear what their role was or why they did what they did, but my argument does not rest on their motives. ]

    In any case, in the retrial just concluded, the Prosecution entirely abandoned the theory of the “drug-fuelled sex romp”, and instead concocted the theory of a quarrel between Knox and Kercher over the former’s uncleanliness in which Knox lost her temper and attacked Kercher with a knife.

    That theory only holds water if it can be shown that Knox is a dangerously violent psychopath, with a propensity to lash out in an uncontrolled fashion when roused to anger. Sane people involved in a quarrel about untidiness might well shout at each other, but not resort to deadly violence.

    Is there any reliable evidence that Knox is that sort of person? I know she was once fined for holding a rowdy party at which guests threw rocks at houses and passing cars, but that sort of delinquency is hardly evidence of a murderously psychopathic personality.

    It seems to me that the Prosecution has been engaged in concocting melodramatic scenarios within which minor pieces of evidence can be invested with an ominous connotation, and when one such scenario is shown to be absurd it is simply abandoned and replaced by another.

    [fortaleza84: It seems to me that you need to respond to my actual argument, as opposed to what you wish or imagine I argued. I agree that the prosecution -- like me -- is speculating about motives. That doesn't change the fact that there is strong evidence of guilt.]

  33. michellesings Says:

    Whether or not a court of law requires a motive there is ALWAYS a motive.

    [fortaleza84: So what? That motive might not be clear to other people, which is the case here. The fact that there is not enough information to be confident of Knox's motive does not mean that there is not enough information to be reasonably confident that she was involved in the murder.

    Anyway, I earlier asked you a simple, reasonable question in order to pin down your position. I asked you if you agreed that Filomena reported finding glass on top of her disturbed belongings, and you completely ignored the question. People who play "hide the ball" with their position are not welcome on this blog; you are hereby banned. Goodbye.]

  34. michael mills Says:

    From what I have read, there is evidence of the presence of Knox and Sollecito in the house in the period between the murder and the arrival of the postal police, eg traces of their DNA, footprints etc.

    That is not in itself evidence of their being present at the time of the murder itself, or of their complicity in that murder.

    [fortaleza84: Agreed and I have never argued otherwise.]

    One significant detail is that in the first statement given by Guede to the German police on 21 November 2007 upon his arrest in Germany, he stated that Knox was not present when he and Kercher were together in the latter’s bedroom.

    An alleged translation of Guede’s statement to the German police (I say alleged because I have no way of knowing whether or not it is true or not) can be found here:

    http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/04/28/rudy-guede-amanda-knox-was-not-there/

    In that alleged statement, Guede claimed he was acquainted with Kercher, and she let him into the house. He stated that after they entered the house, Kercher went into her bedroom and discovered some money was missing, and that she went into Knox’s room and searched for the money there. It was at that point that he stated that Knox was not in the house.

    He claimed that afterward, he and Kercher kissed but did not have sexual intercourse. He did not state where that took place, whether in Kercher’s bedroom or elsewhere.

    He that they talked, and that Kercher complained to him about Knox smoking hashish (Comment: it is difficult to see how Guede and Kercher could have had such a conversation since, according to what I have read, he knew little English and she little Italian).

    Guede claimed that he was in the toilet when he heard Kercher scream. According to his statement he came out of the toilet and saw a man shorter than he, holding a knife. He grappled with that man, but he got away.

    He then returned to Kercher, who had been stabbed but was still alive. His statement than contains details to account for the various pieces of evidence of his contact with her blood; he was trying to stop the bleeding, trying to comfort her, trying to write a name on the wall etc etc.

    The most amazing part of his statement relates to his subsequent actions, namely that he just went home, without making any effort to call for help.

    [fortaleza84: It's not really that amazing -- the obvious explanation is that lying and trying to come up with a story which would be consistent with the evidence and would also exculpate him. Add in the fact that he probably is not very bright and you end up with a story which is not very believable.]

    From what I have read, there is corroborating evidence that Guede was seen at a disco later that night, after the assumed time of the murder of Kercher.

    The details given by Guede demonstrate that he was in the house that night, and that he did see Kercher’s body lying on the floor.

    His subsequent actions suggest that he was the person who stabbed Kercher, and that he invented the story about the man he grappled with to explain why Kercher was living when he entered the house and why she was dead or dying when he left.

    [fortaleza84: Yes, and the corollary to this conclusion is that Guede is not a credible witness. Even if he flat out pointed the finger at Knox, I would not put much weight on it even though I am pretty confident that Knox was involved in the murder.]

    It is impossible to tell whether his story about knowing Kercher, her letting him into the house, and their having low-level intimacy is true or not.

    His story about Kercher finding money missing and searching in Knox’s room for it is possibly an invention designed to account for money that was actually missing, and that he himself stole.

    The detail about Kercher’s missing money suggests that robbery was Guede’s motive for entering the house.

    [fortaleza84: Not really, the theft might have been an afterthought.]

    One possibility is that Kercher returned to find him rifling through the house, and he then stabbed her, took money from her purse (which was found to have his fingerprints on it) and then fled, not bothering with other valuable items such as jewellery or computers.

    Another possibility is that Guede was indeed acquainted with Kercher, and she did let him into the house. Under that scenario he possibly demanded money from her, she refused and tried to throw him out, and he then killed her in a wild rage.

    Whatever actually happened, the crucial element in Guede’s first statement to the German police does not implicate Knox in the murder of Kercher in any way whatever. Guede specifically states that Know was not in the house when Kercher was allegedly looking for her missing money, and at no point does he claim that she came to the house while he and Kercher were there. The only other person he claims to have been at the house was another man, shorter than himself (a man who, according to what I have read, cannot have been Sollecito who is reportedly taller than Guede).

    When Guede stated to the German police that Knox was not present in the house at any time when he and Kercher were there, and therefore cannot have been present when the murder was committed, he most probably was telling the truth, since he had no reason to exonerate her. His sole aim was to divert the blame for the murder from himself, and if she had been there he certainly would have named her, rather than telling a story about an unknown short man.

    [fortaleza84: That's not true at all -- if he and Knox had acted in concert, Guede might have decided that pointing the finger at Knox could easily lead right back to him. He might have decided it would be safer to blame an unidentified stranger.]

    I would now like to propose a possible scenario to account for the evidence linking Knox and Sollecito to Kercher’s body and blood, and to other unexplained elements, such as the break-in that was possibly staged, the evidence of a clean-up, etc.

    In that regard, it should be pointed out that the only plausible evidence linking Sollecito and Knox to the murder itself is the kitchen knife belonging to Sollecito and having Knox’s DNA on the handle. That knife was and is claimed by the Prosecution to be one of the murder weapons, the one used to cut Kercher’s throat, which is the only wound allegedly inflicted by that knife. (All the other wounds were inflicted by a much smaller knife, which has never been found, and which might even have inflicted the throat wound).

    The link between that knife and the murder is an infinitesimal amount of DNA found on the blade, that might possibly be Kercher’s. However, at the first appeal hearing, independent experts concluded that the specimen was too small, only a few cells, to test the DNA properly.

    Accordingly, the likelihood is that that knife is not the murder weapon, since it is too large to have inflicted any of the wounds on Kercher’s body except the throat wound, and the evidence of Kercher’s DNA on the blade is inconclusive.

    Without the knife, there is no evidence to link Sollecito or Knox to the murder, only to events after the murder.

    [fortaleza84: I think this is mostly correct, although I recall there were some blood stains with Knox's DNA in the bathroom.]

    Under my proposed scenario, Sollecito and Knox return to the house much earlier than they later claimed to have done, find the house in a mess, blood everywhere, and Kercher’s body lying on the floor in her bedroom. They panic, and do not know what to do; perhaps their cognitive faculties had been affected by the ingestion of marihuana.

    At this point, my hypothetical scenario has two variants:

    (1) Knox suspects that Kercher has been killed by a man she (Kercher) was acquainted with, whom she let into the house. She may genuinely think that man could have been her (Knox’s) employer, the bar-owner Lumumba.
    (b) Knox may have left the front door unlocked when she left the house previously, and realises that her negligence was what allowed the killer to gain entry. In that case, she may have felt a strong sense of guilt at having contributed to the murder.

    In their state of panic and confused thoughts about who may have committed the murder, they decide to tamper with the crime scene in order to make it appear that the murderer broke in. That could account for the signs of a break-in that are unconvincing.

    They also decide to do a partial clean-up of the floor, although that is irrational, since a clean-up would not be consistent with a break-in. It is possible that they were just not thinking clearly, which is not in itself an indication of guilt, only of extreme shock and distress.

    It needs to be borne in mind that in these situations of extreme shock that are totally unexpected, quite innocent people can often act irrationally.

    After completing the clean-up and staging the break-in, Sollecito and Knox are pondering what to do next. At that point, the postal police arrive and the rest is history.

    The above question immediately begs the question why Sollecito and Knox did not, once they had come under suspicion, just tell the truth about what had happened.

    The most likely answer is that they knew, once they had come under suspicion, that their story, which in this hypothetical scenario is true, would simply not be believed, and would be dismissed as an attempt to distance themselves from the murder. Any admission of their presence in the house, of their knowledge that Kercher had been killed and her body was lying in the bedroom, would inevitably have been taken by the police as an indication of their having been present during the murder itself.

    In regard, it is a highly significant that once the occupants of the house learned that a murder had been committed in it, they immediately engaged legal representation; presumably they sensed a danger that the police might try to implicate them, and they needed expert legal advice on how to avoid that possibility.

    Once Sollecito and Knox had decided on their version of when they had arrived back at the house, they were stuck with it. Any variation to it would simply be taken as an admission of guilt.

    [fortaleza84: I disagree. For one thing, Knox changed her story at least once anyway. For another, it doesn't strike me as very plausible that an innocent person -- even someone on drugs -- would return home to find a stabbing victim and proceed to majorly tamper with the crime scene as opposed to calling an ambulance.]

    I wish to stress that the above is a hypothetical scenario only, but it is consistent with the statement made by Guede on 21 October 2007 to the German police, namely that Knox was not in the house when Kercher was murdered.

    The other scenarios peddled by the Prosecution, the quasi-pornographic one that Knox, Sollecito and Guede had tried to force Kercher into a perverted sex-game that went wrong, or the less sensational but still scarcely credible one that Kercher had quarrelled with Knox over the latter’s lack of hygiene, including Guede’s unflushed faeces in one of the toilets (the one more distant from Kercher’s room) and Knox had become enraged and killed Kercher, are simply unsustainable since they are toitally inconsistent with Guede’s first, unextorted statement, that Knox was not present in the house when the murder took place.

    One is left puzzled why the Prosecution, and all those who believe Sollecito and Knox guilty of murder, have simply ignored the statement by Guede that Knox was not in the house when the murder occurred.

    [fortaleza84: As mentioned above, Guede is not a very credible witness. Even if he out and out accused Knox and Sollecito, I would not put much weight on it unless there were corroborating credible evidence. That's probably a lot of it]

  35. Alexander Baron Says:

    Two points: Meredith Kercher wasn’t white. And in her book, Barbie Latza Nadeau says there was evidence that Kercher had engaged in anal sex while in Perugia, something she is said not to have liked. That being said, even though common sense tells us to look no further than Guede, Knox has told too many lies, and there are too many things about her and her Harry Potter lover;s actions that don’t ring true.

  36. michael mills Says:

    You are right when you say that there are too many things about Knox and Sollecito that do not ring true.

    But you are also right when you say that common sense leads us to Guede as the murderer. In his first statement to the German police, given after Sollecito and Knox had been arrested, he did not claim that either of them had been involved in the murder, but rather that it had been committed by an unknown man acting alone, ie most probably himself.


    [fortaleza84: Do you agree that Guede is not a very credible witness for the reasons I mentioned above?]

    As I have written previously, the suspicious elements about Knox and Sollecito do not necessarily point to their involvement in the murder, in fact point away from it, since there is a clear division between their actions and those of Guede.

    Those suspicious elements can most rationally be explained in terms of their discovering the murder sometime after it was committed and Guede had fled, their belief that it had been committed by someone known to Kercher and to themselves ( since Kercher must have let that person into the house), possibly Lumumba, and their fear that they might be framed for the murder as persons with access to the house, a fear that led them to tamper with the crime scene to make it appear that the murder had been committed by an unknown person who broke in.

    In that regard, it is noteworthy that Guede, in his statement to the German police, claimed that he was acquainted with Kercher, that she let him into the house, and that they had had low-level sexual contact. The only reason why that claim was rejected was the saintly image of Kercher that has been painted by her family, a counterpart to the relentless denigration of Knox. We know she was not so saintly, since she was involved sexually with one of the boys living in the downstairs apartment.

    As stated, it is likely that Sollecito and Knox, on discovering Kercher’s body, concluded (correctly) that she had been killed by someone known to her and them. They may also have suspected ( incorrectly) that that person was Lumumba, since Kercher was acquainted with him, and indeed had introduced him to Knox.

    Furthermore, there was the fact that Lumumba had told Knox not to come into work that night. That might have generated in Knox’s mind the idea that Lumumba was going to be doing something else, perhaps having an assignation with Kercher. Furthermore, the relentless police questioning about the message sent to Knox by Lumumba may have reinforced in Knox’s mind the idea that he was a suspect, and may have been the killer.

    It appears that Knox and Sollecito were caught in a situation in which they feared being implicated in the murder because it almost certainly had been committed by someone with whom they were associated, and therefore decided to tamper with the crime scene in order to deflect suspicion away from anyone connected to Kercher and therefore from themselves. In that attempt they obviously failed, since all it did was to draw even more suspicion to themselves.

    It we hypothesise that Guede alone committed the murder sometime before midnight, before Sollecito and Knox came back to the house, and that the sole involvement of the latter two was to tamper with the crime scene, then a lot of anomalies can be explained.

    For example, that hypothesis explains why Guede was present at the time of the murder, but was not involved in the tampering with the crime scene, having fled the scene leaving a trail of bloody shoe-prints. It explains the strange behaviour of Sollecito and Knox, and also the lack of any credible evidence tying them to the murder itself.

    The scenario peddled by the Prosecution is one of Guede, Sollecito and Knox coming together to commit the murder, but then going their separate ways, with Guede fleeing the scene while Sollecito and Knox stay behind to clean up the mess, thereby allowing themselves to be caught at the crime scene. However, it has offered no credible explanation of why that divergence of post-crime actions should have taken place, given that the allegation is one of a common intent to commit rape and murder.


    [fortaleza84: Would Knox and Sollecito be more motivated to "clean up" if (1) they were involved in the murder and afraid of being implicated in some way; or (2) they were not involved in the murder and afraid of being implicated in some way? Or is it equal?]

    The explanation that there were two separate actions occurring at different times, first the murder by Guede, then the attempted cover-up by Sollecito and Knox, makes more sense.

  37. The Maati (@SrTamale) Says:

    Glad I found you :). Question please? Was your cosmetic bag missing after Meredith’s brutal murder? bwell

  38. juliahubbard Says:

    The blood in the basement flat, the synchronised acts of the bomb hoax and Meredith’s two cell phones abandoned at the same address, present endless questions.
    New to this affair, doubtless raising questions asked repeatedly by others intrigued by this tragedy, the motive for the ‘clean up’ remains unclear.
    If Guede acted alone, there is no explanation for tampering with the crime scene.
    Agreed, if Amanda felt in any way responsible for enabling the crime to take place, a motive is produced to do so.
    Recalling your point, Guede is more likely to cite a third party than incite provocation from Knox yet, even as a non credible witness , he seems clear he was alone when encountered Meredith.
    A point to be made here is the words Rudy attributes to Meredith, uttered in his version of how they entered the villa are, word for word , the same as those issued by Amanda in her account of returning to the villa on the morning of 2nd Nov and discovering the door open.
    It is extremely unlikely Meredith would willingly agree to a meeting with Rudy at her home which was, as far as she believed, an unoccupied building.
    It must be remembered the autopsy found the contents of a large glass of wine in her stomach and a mushroom in her throat, none of which were consumed at the meal eaten with her friends. In the absence of any witness reports Meredith stopped by a bar or visited different friends on her way home, it is reasonable to say this occurred at the villA.
    Yet, the ‘clean up’ also erased any suggestion a ‘social’ had taken place at the villA. Question: would Meredith who left her friends earlier to have an early night and revise for an exam she thought she had the following morning, return home to drink alone?
    The phone towers indicate her phones were already in their found location shortly after 10.00p.m on the night of the 1st because of a 15 second MSM message sent to one of the phones. I have no details to affirm this, of course but it clearly needs establishing. It has always struck me as curious how similar in character to the plot of Amelie, was the hoax bomb call suggesting a bomb would explode if the toilet was used. As said above, it was at this same address Meredith’s phone are found

  39. juliahubbard Says:

    Dismissing for a moment , the blood found downstairs belonged to cat, it seems unlikely Guede would harbour himself here , in close proximity to an horrendous crime scene, waiting like a sitting duck, for what? To be discovered? He hasn’t sought help from fear, by the same token, it makes no sense to hide away, there are plenty of dim lit places around the villa.
    Is it possible multiple crimes occurred at one and the same time?
    The property is an ideal location for illicit deAlings; drop offs and drug deals etc. What is known of the two older roommates who were quick to distance theirselves after the event, seek counsel and dissolve into obscurity. We do know, Filomena Romanelli, a trainee lawyer, removed her lap top from the crime scene and on demand, returned it many hours later – a day? – with the hard drive unexplainable broken. We know her quick talking, strongly visual language creates a believable witness in contrast to Amanda’s casual and unmeasured verbosity.
    Guede states in his diary he acted cowardly and not how Meredith would have, that had he opened the door things could have been different .
    Could he be telling the truth here ? Might he have been on the lavatory, not listening to his iPad, afraid of what he was hearing, too afraid to flush the loo? He claims there was no penis penetration with Meredith and the autopsy confirms his DNA but not seminal fluid were found in Meredith’s body. Would someone who, albeit, an opportunist, not perform rape but carry out a senseless murder? Or was Meredith do disturbed by the violation, she armed herself with a knife and was lethally injured in a struggle of self defence? Is it conceivable the ‘clean up’ was not carried out by Knox and Sollecito
    , or in the event it was, it was a naive attempt to distance theirselves from the crime ? Is it plausible it was undertaken by other occupants of the building ? Guede refers to the boys in the basement as ‘men of their word’. There is no reason to doubt this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: