The Nencini Papers

September 27, 2017

nenciniDay 6

Day 6, 26 November 2013

Get away, you beast, for this man

does not come tutored by your sister;

he comes to view your punishments.

                                    Inferno, Canto XII, lines 18–20 Dante


If the Minotaur is the monstrous beast in the dark heart of the Labyrinth, then Crini could perhaps be Theseus sent to confront and slay it.

The court reconvenes.  Sollecito is absent today,   Patrick Lumumba will be here.

Today Crini will finish his submission.  He begins with housekeeping technicalities.

  • Crini heavily criticises Conti & Vecchiotti in their methodology and failing to give any credit to the prosecution forensic experts, Professors Novelli and Torrecelli, one of the reasons the appeal was sent back down by the Chieffi Supreme Court.
  • He defends Dr. Stefanoni against criticisms of procedural flaws.
  • He refers to Vecchiotti’s brushes with authorities over her professional methods.
  • He mentions the fridges in her own laboratories do not even have a thermometer.

There is a lot to go through and to sum up, the main difference between Crini’s submissions and Massei’s findings are:

  • It was not a ‘sex game gone wrong’ but a simple domestic dispute that escalated
  • Massei gave the initator of the aggression as Guede. Crini says it could have been Meredith who was the trigger, annoyed by the unwelcome guests when she was tired and wanted an early night.
  • Whilst he gives no credence to Guede’s testimonies, he considers Guede’s claim Amanda and Meredith had a fight when Meredith confronted her about her missing rent money.

CRINI: So then … and then for a problem of money. He apparently from the thief puts the money problem on the fact that Knox had stolen them from Meredith. There is no emergency in this matter, though there were some money Meredith had already prepared for, because he had to pay for the rent, and in short, as a little girl, it seemed to be diligent, had already been taken into account … he had already put money for the day 05. So … and when she declares this to the Mezzetti, Knox is present. … But the problem remains that a problem of money actually, , it is related to the fact that the cleanliness had an implication, because it was problematic to manage the cleaning in the apartment

  • Massei allowed the defence argument that Sollecito’s call to the police was before the Postale Police arrived, Crini resets the time to ‘after’ they arrive.
  • Massei fixed the time of death as 23:00 or thereabouts. Crini favours an earlier time of 22:30, after the last phone signal on Meredith’s phone.
  • He says the identification of the sample 36-I as Knox is incriminating to Knox as it is just below the hilt.

CRINI: in addition to the genetic profile, “a good profile”, this was also the word used by Professor Vecchiotti, “A good profile” by Knox Amanda at a point on the handle most projected on the side of the blade, it is also interesting to note that there is another profile, more complex to read, but the experts have wonderfully identified, which is the the profile of the same Knox Amanda, at the point of junction between the blade and the handle.

[Later] But let’s say that at the point where DNA is found, there in that particular position, certainly is a point that is much more significant at the level of improper use than the DNA found on the handle, because that is not a point of normal contact, is a point where DNA is hiding, so to speak, as well as Meredith’s DNA hidden in the striata, it’s a place to hide after obviously there was a wash. And which DNA can be hiding there after washing? You have understood what I mean. That’s why I say that this element, of the knife compared to the Knox, is a significant analysis, because there Knox has a close relationship with this knife, very strong. 

a serious wash, but it leaves more DNA in the part that holds it and less DNA in the least part of it. Indeed, the blade was destined to have no trace of it, if the DNA did not get embedded at the point where it was concealed, in that striata of the blade, fortunately for us and unfortunately for the defendants.

  • The knife is outlined perfectly by a blood stain on the sheet and fits the large neck wound.
  • The bruises and marks around Meredith’s lower face indicates an attempt to cover her mouth to stop her screaming.

CRINI But this scenario is conterminous with the presence of other traumas inside the mouth, which is a strong constraint because there are internal lacerations at Meredith’s mouth – understand? – and these lacerations are not part of things that are derived from a knife. No. It is purely and simply the very intent to keep this girl’s mouth shut, to stab her in the neck and to stop her from obviously doing what…? What she did, was to explode in a formidable scream.

  • Crini believes it is not important to explain why the knife was brought from Sollecito’s abode to the cottage.

Both parties turned off their phones for the night, before 21:00, and Knox was pinged as being in the vicinity the cottage, so transporting it there in her bag, as Massei suggested does conjure up a suspicion of a sinister quest that night.  Against the backdrop of the totally inane and harmless movie ‘Amélie’ which was to be their alibi, it takes on the surreal undertones of a horror movie.  A children’s musical box tinkling way in the soundtrack, with something evil happening in the foreground in front of a blinking doll and a laughing clown ragdoll…

CRINI: let’s say we do a photography of the story because the photograph of the affair certainly does not belong to a process in which those who are supposed to be present, starting with Guede, tells of different things, in the sense two do not say anything about, except that one – as we have seen – explains in short having dreamlike memories of this story, this is one. 

So we have a silent defendant, who says he was in his house smoking a spliffs in front of the computer; another who says she has dream memories and accuses a person of which he is well aware is innocent; and then the third one who tells the things you know, that is, to say “I came home” … etc.

  • As the charge is ‘aggravated murder’ (= US ‘First Degree) because of the sexual assault element, there was no onus for the prosecution to prove premeditation.

To my mind the sexual assault and sexual posing of the body does indicate a sexual motive on some level.  However, Crini believes it sufficient to keep the matter simple and the motive a simple heated row over hygiene, housekeeping, money and manners.

  • He affirms Meredith was fully sober and awake. Knox, Guede and Sollecito were high on drugs.
  • He believes Guede restrained Meredith with both hands. Crini believes Guede was intent on sexually assaulting her, whilst the other two tormented her with knives. There were almost no defence wounds, aside from three small nicks on her fingers, when normally in a knife crime, injuries to the hand can be severe from the victim grabbing the blade.
  • He details how her body was moved away from its original position, with just a t-shirt and vest pulled up over her breasts, her jeans and blue sweater removed and her legs splayed.

Interestingly, both Knox and Sollecito mention in separate statements Meredith wearing her ex-boyfriend’s jeans earlier that afternoon.  We see that the jeans were at the forefront of the pair’s minds immediately after the murder.

  • He avers that Meredith’s bra was cut multiple times by a very sharp small knife and this is how Sollecito’s DNA became deposited there.

CRINI  let’s say, if one wants to cut it right, a few inches away, making a sharp cut, it’s where it is held, so it’s significant that there is that DNA, because it is exactly where the hook is to be held. And there’s this Kercher-Solicited DNA in reconstruction, that’s not Rudy Guede’s DNA at that point, that is Kercher-Sollecito’s Mixed DNA.

…[…]… in the words of Amanda Knox, who speaking not in general, but speaking with reference to a question, [from her father], said, ” Raffaele always carries a knife with him, Knox tells him, so it’s a matter of fact that Knox knew this at the house.

  • Crini reintroduces the ladies size 37 clear footprint found on the pillow in the victim’s blood as evidence of Knox’ involvement.

CRINI …the famous pillowcase – famous because this piece of sliver, let’s say, became the element from which the identification of Guede was made – on the famous pillowcase that contains the handprint and even the footprint of a shoe, the right, if not the wrong, of the Guede, – a pillow that is right in the middle of the crime, is like the centre of gravity of the crime scene.. The Bureau of Police Science, the Central Office of the Scientific Police, tells us the presence of a shoe and gives us this indication of a foot shoe,  feminine, like that  ‘Exalted by Luminol yesterday. 

And this… “For such considerations the size of the shoe that produced the footprint could be varied from the number 36 to the number 38”. It seems to me the same numbers of the imprints found with Luminol in those other areas of the house. Here, then there was a female foot that had – so to speak – pounded, which was imprinted, a female shoe that was imprinted on this pillowcase. 

  • He focuses on how Amanda’s blood is on the bathroom tap, yet her claim not to remember bleeding is unconvincing.
  • Mignini in the Massei trial believed the mixed DNA of Amanda and Meredith in the small bathroom was the most incriminating of all as it appeared they were both bleeding at the same time, for it to comingle.

CRINI: “Yes, I saw blood but I did not connect it with myself. ” But how not, dear, it, is your drip! How do you “do you not connect it with me”?  Explain why a drop of blood has fallen into the sink, right? It’s not what you say, “I saw blood, I did not connect it with myself.” No, you’re talking about your blood, not the blood of Meredith or Romanelli. Your blood, because it turns out to be yours. So if you’ve got a spill, it’s best to say. 

 I see the girl in possession of this knife, and a situation that maybe at the moment does not offer specific indications of injuries that she has suffered; the fact remains that Amanda Knox’s blood is in this bidet,  mixed with that of Meredith, and one present alone, to a sufficiently large extent, to which is not given … the slightest explanation. 

In the sense, she rightly evades the subject and says “well, I see blood but it does not make an impression”. But how? It’s your own. Is absurd. However, she says “it’s okay” … so. 

…[…]… The context is that we are here with a bloody, cruel, killing-killing person, in which anything can happen  I have to give this blood to Knox, who runs this into this bidet, some explanation, otherwise I cannot imagine it closely related to the bloody story that was consumed little by little. I can be happy to say “well, it’s Knox’s blood, but in short, let’s say it will come from a cut “? Maybe. The fact is that this element, too, is also corroborating, and that is precisely what we say is integrating; it indicates a clear presence at the scene of the offender but not as a resident , but as a cover. 

  • The calunnia of Patrick was part of Knox’ calculated strategy to subvert the investigation, together with the staging of the body and undressing it after the murder, set out yesterday, and he will make a submission on this.
  • Crini winds by demanding the maximum sentence of 30 years for Knox, and increase of one year to four years for ‘aggravated calunnia’ rather than simple calunnia in that her motive was as an extension to the murder.

CRINI: So, excluding the futile reason, I ask you to assert the criminal liability of both defendants, condemning each one to the sentence of twenty-six years of imprisonment. Thank you for your attention and I have finished. excluding the futile motive, I ask you to assert the criminal liability of both defendants, condemning each one to the penalty of twenty-six years of imprisonment. 

Crini’s testimony concludes at 14:15

It is a powerful submission which sends shock waves throughout the court and is sensational fodder for tomorrow’s papers, such as the New York Daily Times

A bird’s eye court circular can be seen on TJMK.

Back at 3:15, and so begins the conclusions of the civil parties.

First up is Pacelli for Lumumba.  He gives a colourful account of Knox’ sex life, bathroom habits, and clashes as described in the testimony of Meredith’s British friends.  For example, he quotes Sophie Purton:

PACELLI: “Meredith told us that Amanda had men at home, and that was something we did not do. Amanda was pretty open about her sex life, and left a beauty in the bathroom, with a vibrator and condoms. “

And so on, in that vein, including a long character assassination of Sollecito and his drug-taking habits.  He leads up to his memorable speech, oft quoted in the tabloids:

PACELLI  So, Mr President and Members of the Court, who is Amanda Knox? It’s that sweet, sweet, water-soaked face that you see in TV talk shows today, her most intimate English friends, Italian coinquilines, Italian roommates, your school friend, who describe you as lazy and drug-addicted and alcoholic? 

So, as I repeat, it is from court proceedings. I tell you, Amanda is one and the other. In her she lives a double soul: the angelic, good, compassionate, I have already had on other occasions to define the Santa Maria Goretti, tender, naive; and that luciferin, demonic, satanic, diabolical, which leads her to live extremist, borderline conduct and adopt disordered behaviors. 

And Amanda was the one on November 1, 2007. Amanda was a concentrate, an explosive mixture of sex, drugs and alcohol, at the time of the crime, not unmodified by a marked lack of hygiene. And it must be said in clear letters, Ladies of the Court: Amanda was a muddy girl outside because she was black inside.

He is, of course here, on behalf of Patrick Lumumba.  Pacelli articulates the outrage and fear felt by Patrick in being wrongly accused of rape and murder by Knox and imprisoned for two weeks.

PACELLI: But if no one knew it, neither the English girlfriends, the roommates nor the roommates downstairs, nor the same police, how could Amanda know that poor Meredith had sex just before she was killed, if not because Amanda was in the house of Via della Pergola on the crime scene at the time of the crime?

He refutes that Knox was under pressure by the police.

PACELLI: And I would like to conclude on this point with the testimony of Dr. Profazio, manager at the estimated time of the Mobile Team in Perugia: “Do you remember how Amanda was treated by the staff”? “Amanda was treated well.” “There have been acts of violence”? “Absolutely not. Amanda was given to drink several times, was brought hot chamomile, brought to the cafeteria bar to have breakfast and were given some brioches. It’s been treated well. ” “It was handled well” – he adds shortly afterwards – “obviously firmly, because we were not, in short, at the cinema or the circus, even though someone could think so, no firmly but with courtesy.”

He, too, fixes the scream as a key moment.

PACELLI: Therefore, the fact that Meredith before being assassinated shouted, shouted, is historically true and processively proven and demonstrated. And Amanda is so clever and clever that in the spontaneous statements at 5:45 am, she immediately notes, literally: “And I’m frightened, I plugged my ears.” 

This is an embellishment, a posting of a diabolical subtlety, because it makes a fact, in itself credible, certain. Turns the certainty into certainty. But the question I pose for the purposes I have set is as follows: But how could Amanda know that poor Meredith had yelled, if this was not yet public domain?

Then there was the issue of the frightening time Patrick spent in jail, suspected of a terrible crime.  Police intercepted conversations of Knox’ prison visit with her mother.

PACELLISo let’s see what happens in the next few days, when Amanda in her jails interview with her mother, speaking in English, in the belief that she is not heard, feels the irrepressible need to shake the weight of lies and the intolerable burden of her sobbing consumed, and under the feeling of iniquity committed against Patrick hastens, yes, she hastens to tell the truth to her mother. 

In the environmental interception of November 10, 2007, between Amanda and her mother, November 10, Edda Mellas, on page 4, is the following interview: “Have you told everything about your lawyers?” Amanda: “I told him everything that happened.” 

Always in this environmental interception in jail between Amanda and her mother, on November 10, 2007, Amanda states: “I feel bad because I put Patrick in a horrible situation, now he is in jail and it’s my fault, it’s my fault that he is here, I feel bad,” p 29

and adds,” I feel bad for Patrick, I do not know if I can look at him later this after all because I have to apologize. Here’s what I have to do. I have to go to him and tell him “I’m really sorry” “, page 33.

Environmental interception in jail between Amanda and her mother, November 13, 2007:” I’m so sorry for Patrick, I’m so sorry I ruined his life. I want to kneel every time I see him and tell him that I’m so sorry. I talked to him before he was arrested, he came to ask me if I wanted to be interviewed. I said no. And then he said, “Okay, good luck.” And I: “Thanks.” He’s a good guy. He does not frighten me. ” Amanda Review, June 12, 2009


After winding up, it is the turn of Magnini for Mrs Tattanelli, the cottage owner.

MAGNINI: This little cottage, which is no longer a small house, has now become Perugia’s “villa of horrors,” “the home of the crime,” and at best “the house of Meredith”

Mrs Tattanelli is a widow, aged 90, who had acquired the cottage to rent out as a retirement supplement.

MAGNINI: On November 2, the house was seized and was seized for a year and a half. But lucky circumstances also allowed a quick breakdown, because they had entered … intrusions, curious, fanatics, and had altered the scene of the crime. The damage to the lady is the lack of perception of rentals for this year and a half, all the damage that was created inside the house, broken doors, broken glass, stains, and reagents; the need to put the grates on the windows because then curious and fetishists came to the house, wanted to enter the house of Meredith, and above all the damage that almost confounded like a permanent damage, because the house, as I said in the opening , is “the villa of horrors”, is “the house of the crime”. 

It was no longer possible to rent it to students, students recognize it all, the story has had a global eco-media, the home is a home that is now part of the imaginary of macabre sites, crime sites, and hence it is a good thing that has completely lost its economic worth.

The proceedings come to a close for the day and Nencini defers the next hearing to hear the rest of the Civil Lawyers to the 16 Dec 2013, as requested by Luciano Ghirga for Knox, and Bongiorno for Sollecito cannot make it for the 17 due to other commitments.

Knox defence will appear on the 16th December.  


The Nencini Papers

September 27, 2017

nenciniDay 5

The Florence Appeal Court has vacated other hearings listed for 25 – 27 November 2013 for the next three days for the Nencini Appeal.

Day 5, 25 November 2013

As a consequence of Hellmann’s decisions being rejected in whole by the Supreme Court, Nencini has a wide scope to cover: almost everything that came up at the 2011 appeal, is having to be dealt with again.

Raffaele Sollecito is present.

Today the lead is taken by Alessandro Crini, for the prosecution. Mignini is no longer involved in the case.  In short, Crini’s aim is to refute the defence’s automatic grounds for appeal.  He describes the Hellmann Court as ‘razed to the ground’ and urges the new court to look at the case as a whole, rather than by piecemeal, as Hellmann did, taking one small part of the evidence at a time and systematically rejecting it.

Criticisms of the previous court out of the way, Crini outlines the problems with Knox and Sollecito’s alibis.  ‘A false alibi is also evidence’, he contends.

CRINI: ‘What is the alibi?   …[…]…  It is a kind of defensive argument that is used by saying no, that “I did not commit the offense” but that “I was somewhere else when someone obviously committed that offence”. 

…[of Knox and Sollecito] it is realized that the alibi is actually false, because it is appreciated that it is false.’

Key is Sollecito’s false claim that he was on the computer that evening.  D’Ambrosio, the computer expert, found no human interaction after 21:10 when the Amélie film crash finished and someone must have clicked on the ‘end’ message.  Sollecito’s internet provider, Fastweb back up that there was no activity that night at the salient time.  In effect, Sollecito’s lies about this is positive evidence against him.

Let’s recap Sollecito’s alibi, as given to the police:

Statement to police 5 Nov 2007 [excerpt]:

QA I have known Amanda for about two weeks. From the night that I met her she started sleeping at my house. On November 1st, I woke up at around 11, I had breakfast with Amanda then she went out and I went back to bed. Then around 13:00-14:00 I met her at her house again. Meredith was there too. Amanda and I had lunch while Meredith did not have lunch with us.
QA Around 16:00 Meredith left in a hurry without saying where she was going. Amanda and I stayed home until about 17:30-18:00.
QA We left the house, we went into town, but I don’t remember what we did.
QA We stayed there from 18:00 until 20:30/21:00. At 21:00 I went home alone because Amanda told me that she was going to go to the pub Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends.
QA At this point we said goodbye and I headed home while she headed towards the center.
QA I went home alone, sat at the computer and rolled myself a spliff. Surely I had dinner but I don’t remember what I ate. Around 23:00 my father called at my home number 075.9660789. During that time I remember Amanda had not come back yet.

QA I browsed at my computer for another two hours after my father’s phone call and only stopped when Amanda came back presumably around 1:00.
QA I don’t remember how she was dressed and if she was dressed the same way as when we said goodbye before dinner.
QA I don’t remember if we had sex that night.
QA The following morning around 10:00 we woke up, she told me she wanted to go home and take a shower and change clothes.

CRINI: “I have nothing to do with the way of murder, I have nothing to do with Via Pergola, because I was in Via Garibaldi “- the singular -” in front of my computer “, with this lightweight drug pastime”.

Thus, Sollecito has insisted he was on his computer on the murder night, yet there is no trace of the interactions he describes.  In addition, he never has, to this day, withdrawn his claim Knox went out without him until 01:00, and declined to testify in court under oath.  He was no doubt advised by his counsel it would be a mistake to change his alibi.

Pausing for a moment, Sollecito has provided a false alibi from the outset and yet has never amended it, supplied the correct details of what he was doing, nor explained why he said it.

Crini turns to the prosecution star witness, Antonio Curatalo.  He points out Hellmann made the mistake of focussing on the person and ignoring the content of the eye witness testimony.

CRINI: Toxic or non-toxic, Curatolo is confident of his memory, which, let’s say, places the two defendants at compatible times – then there is the issue of the date we will address – in this Grimana Square.

He touches on timings, the time of death, which he believes is more likely 22:30 than after 23:15.

CRINI: ..we’re talking about phones that to be found in the [woman’s] garden around midnight have certainly left the house … that is, they probably left home in the same context as the murder. So even this aspect, let’s say, somehow returns its likelihood to the possibility – as it were to say – that time of 22:13 [when it is last pinged at the cottage]is a time that must somehow already belong to the offence, otherwise we say, the time becomes no longer consistent.  The timetables that derive from this- these indicators are all pretty elastic, the first of which is the time of death , with respect to which, once the defendants have been placed, and in the hourly part of which  Curatolo indicates from ten pm onwards in Grimana Square …

Then there is the issue of the reliability of Quintavalle, who claims to have seen Knox outside his shop circa 7:45 in the morning after the murder and who went to browse around the cleaning section of his grocery store.  The issue here is that it took him a year to come forward and then only at the urging of an acquaintance.

CRINI:  Quintavalle gives us certainty, that is, the certainty of seeing him, as a layman of Via Garibaldi, of having seen Knox in front of his shop at the opening of the blinds, that particular morning. Quintavalle, he’ll remember seeing Knox once with Sollecito, but at that moment he has a stranger, but it makes clear to us that despite the delay in propagation …[…]…he did it I did not say right away, but almost immediately, that is to say later a few days that this photograph began to circulate on printed paper, or it was seen on television, etc., and so on.

Crini is abundantly talkative and it is now 13:15 and proceedings break for lunch until 14:00.

Resuming, Crini  refers to the bloody footprint on the bath mat with no blood leading up to it.  This, he points out, indicates a clean-up in the surrounding area.  He covers the luminol-highlighted footprints in the hallway – identified as those of Knox, Sollecito and Guede – and the one in Filomena’s room as being the most important, as it includes the mixed DNA of Knox and Meredith.  He dismisses the defence’s claim the footprints were not blood.

CRINI:  For a policeman, the most striking feature is precisely the blood pound found on the small bath mat…[…]… the most impressive figure, because it is a unique one, as though it were a spoken word, it is this imprint that we find on this pattern, on this mat, a celestine, greenish mat, that of the small foreigners’ bathroom.

Coming onto the footprints exposed by luminol, which reacts with the iron element in haemoglobin to produce a fluorescent light in the dark:

CRINI ;…[…]…[re Luminol]. in my opinion is the most important element of this whole story – at least in one case we are superimposed on the DNA of the victim, on this footprint, with the DNA of Knox. Then we, to imagine – understand? – that this DNA comes from something other than Kercher’s blood, we have to conjecture that there is a substance that is exalted by Luminol through a reagent X, which is certainly not signalled, but which we hypothesize, and that for the very part that was torn, clearly left either by Knox or by Kercher, of course, or perhaps by Kercher, but in that case then on that point, let’s say, there would be the Knox DNA itself. 

He believes the most incriminating evidence of all is against Knox:

…[…]… So there is a fluorescence in Romanelli’s room, which remarks at the same time – we are not in the victim’s room, we are not in the Knox room, indeed, that of Knox is totally cleaned from this point of view – simultaneously refers to DNA victim and Knox.

…[…]… That in this room of the Italian, in which the presence of the other two is certainly there … yes, precisely in that room they were given a convention the two strangers, leaving their DNA exactly in the same spot in the room.’

In other words, Knox has trailed Meredith’s blood into Filomena’s room and shed her own DNA on exactly the same spot as the victim’s and that they were mixed together.

Next, there is the issue of the staged burglary, the clean-up operation and the attempt to subvert investigators.  Only one person had the motive to go to these lengths, he claims.  He specifies the glass from the window found on top of the clothes and not underneath.  He sets out why the staged burglary is a part of a ‘post factum plan’. The plan he explains is to point to a third party, Guede, as the sole perpetrator.  He doesn’t accept that the fact of the break in at the Milan nursery just days before shows a pattern and argues that Guede would not have broken in to the cottage.

CRINI: It is clear that, by the probability that this is any how a property altogether off limits for him from the point of view of his very easy recognizability, it is of solar evidence. And then it is clear that this hypothetical theft – fake – certainly, it seems the more faked to the extent that it turns out that ex post is known to be that of Rudy rather than a stranger. When the hand print tells me “it’s him”,  what does Rudy think he’s doing trying to rob people at home? But there is not an attempted theft built in this Baroque way, in this way it is absolutely devoid of any actual burglary on the concrete plane. ..[…]… we say the camouflage profile is a profile that involves both scenarios [Rudy’s bloody handprint and the staged mise en scène].


After a short break the hearing resumes

Crini points to the behaviour of the defendants, in particular Knox’s various email and memoriale claims, and makes clear that the issue of the motive for the calunnia is still to be determined.  By this, he means whether her falsely accusing Patrick of rape and murder was because of undue police pressure or, ‘aggravated’, as a tactical device to throw suspicion away from her own involvement by subverting the investigation onto him.

CRINI: ‘There is an email sent to a number of people, including one who is a person who then posts this mail to the investigating bodies, and then there are two verbal statements by Miss Knox Amanda, which are – here, here are all – that’s just one of the full night of 05 on 06 and the other on the morning of 06. Those are statements in which you also introduces this character, Lumumba, and it is not that you introduce it so, pour parler, you introduce it to throw out the conditions for him then to be arrested for murder. ‘

Crini has it that Knox didn’t just blurt out Patrick’s name under police pressure, she insisted on underlining it over and over again.  When she handed her privately written and entirely voluntary memoraile to the police she referred to it as ‘a present’.  There is something about her email to 25 people that tells us she knew perfectly well it would find its way back to the Perugia investigators.  Here we have the sense of a puppet-master pulling strings and controlling the narrative.  Amanda Knox is going to tell us how it is, right from the start.

The very late phone call by Sollecito to the police is deemed significant regardless of whether it was before or after the Postale Police arrived.

CRINI: So the Postal Police arrived at 12:35, or, following the on-site (CCTV) camera and analyzed by the Mobile Team, at 12:26. Now, we have a phone call of 12:51 and one of 12:54. 

…[…]… frankly I must say that even if the call had been made five minutes before the arrival of the Postale,  it would still have been a phone call delayed with regard to the state of affairs…[…]… most of all, it seems to me that the thing takes on a completely implausible window dressing,… I use the word “suspect” a very suspicious piece of cloaking from the investigations of the Judicial Police. So, to arrive at noon in a situation such as this …it’s  not convincing, in the opinion of the Prosecutor. 

But even at a time that follows this unexpected arrival of the Post Police, it is an element that… it is not that he says “I’m calling the Carabinieri.” And then he says “well, I’m late but somehow” … No. He says, “we have already called the Carabinieri” and then adds that other element, which the judgments have well underlined, “there was a theft, but they did not steal anything

As well as Sollecito’s various statements, there are those of Knox.  For example, her claim that Meredith’s door being locked was normal.

Crini expresses scepticism about Knox’ story about experience with the faeces in the large bathroom toilet, her shower and seeming indifference to the blood.  There are anomalies between Knox’ and Sollecito’s accounts: she said Filomena’s door was shut, thus could not see any disturbance, whereas he claimed it was wide open, when he arrived at the cottage on the morning of 2 November 2013.  Knox showed foreknowledge of the scream and the sexual assault, even though she had not seen into the room when the door was broken down.  She accused Patrick and included elements of truth about the scream and sex attack and embellished her stories with ‘dreamlike’ references to ‘fish blood’ on Sollecito’s hand.  Crini believes Knox’ calunnia is a deliberate strategy and a clear piece of evidence against her.

Expanding Crini, continues:

CRINI: Now, for heaven’s sake, it is conjectured that Knox did not even look in there [Laura’s room] to see if something had happened,  [Laura’s drawer was hanging open] It is a fact, that he [Sollecito]tells us that that door was open when he arrived. Then it’s a bit strange – you know – that this Knox, when she arrives and gets ready for its shower, finds a situation of doubt, certainly worthy of suspicion, but for this very reason … let’s say this suspect construct does not add that suspicion that would immediately make the need to call the police, right? If you find theft at eleven, at eleven and two minutes you have to call the Carabinieri. 

But of all these things she sees, she does not see the most striking, which, I repeat, was available to her, because … not only, but then also the Mezzetti  room. was a bit tricky. But it was a visual view as the door was still open. And then, in this situation, …there is a bathroom with a flush to pull, there is a bathtub with blood inside, there is a locked door, a situation that then Knox a little suspicious, because Knox says, though, “I’m sorry, so I went out from outside and went to see, trying to figure out what could be in that room”. 

Knox claims she came back to the cottage to find the door open, and despite her uneasiness and the cold November air and no heating, she claims she proceeded to have a shower and change, with door still unlatched in case whoever had gone out to empty the trash or whatever needed to come back in.

CRINI: ..then you come home, to the boy’s house, in Via Garibaldi, and return [together]to Via della Pergola. It is there that at that moment we are aware of the presence of a theft. But at that point we are at that time that it is back to the remarks made by Sollecito…

 So, the combination of all these elements is plainly plausible this eleventh hour tale of eleven to  eleven, with all this set of elements that are, sufficient to induce suspicion. I would say … the theft not seen, frankly would make a clown smile. 


Crini looks at the behaviour of the couple as a whole, their individual discrete actions painting a wider picture of deception.

CRINI: The locked door, in a situation that everyone else tells us not to be a normal situation. And this is the first segment of the borderline declarations. Then there is the second segment, because Knox intervenes, spouting the name of Lumumba, we say it’s severely calunniatory, she wants to emphasize this figure.

 This person is jailed, like a murderer, and goes out on the 20th, which is just the day Guede is caught following the call from Benedict’s Skype of 19. So let’s go ahead and consider this thing as well , an element … a little girl. She is a little girl who, however, told Mama that she was a little worried that this wretch was in jail. 

In an intercepted conversation with her mother, Edda Mellas, on a prison visit, Knox had stated Patrick was innocent and yet neither she or her mother did anything about it.

CRINI:, Knox Amanda, says meaningful things, because it provides a context that, in their historicity, of the process, which was not available at that time.  Let’s not miss that English friend’s report, corroborating that Knox makes it known that she has seen Meredith’s position in the room. This is also a source of suspicion,

When the door to Meredith’s room had been kicked down, Knox and Sollecito were to the back of the cottage and were not there to see inside it.

CRINI…[…]… the substance of the words, which they refer to … “Well, that’s all plausible, basically, I mean, there was a theft and say .. what happened happened, surely … you want there to be some kind of violence “? Bah. And why? And why should you go, as you say, in the face of a theft situation, you have to go to the fact that the girl was raped? 

For what reason, if, say, the data is not known to the person concerned, how can she somehow refer to it? And because she must, tell of a scream? …[…]…we see how incongruous it is to say, there are bruises around all parts right in the mouth area . 

 But meanwhile it is important that Knox delivers us two data, she reports two data: the cry of the poor Meredith Kercher, and the dark violence ; which are data that are not normal in the context in which the action has developed. …[…]…

The speech is set in the face of slander, it is in the necessity of having to include other elements that are somehow complementary to slander

Crini elaborates in which way controlling the narrative enables Knox to spin a web of deceit.

 If I shed the slander of a person who may not be there, but maybe it may be plausible if nothing else but the colour of his skin. ..The segments of truth that part of the narrative, precisely. But not as a natural development of the chaos caused by this wretched man climbing the window. No, absolutely no! They describe the process on other bases: the process of aggression that then is over, as it is over. And then you understand the scream, and then you understand the violence. But if I start from theft, there is not much screaming or violence to see. 

 When I blurt out a slander about a wretch [Patrick] who has nothing to do with it, …these pieces of truth that are the ones that emerge from these words – as if to say – uttered by this girl who finds herself in this particular situation and therefore has the need to build this strategy of defence, in particular. 

Drawing in Sollecito’s similarly false narrative and proven false alibi, Crini asserts:

CRINI: And then we also have this other piece, which has no relevance to itself, but it is significant. At a certain point, when we say the accused Sollecito states what he says, that is, “I was at home alone at the computer and I even smoked” – I do not want to repeat the statement, but it seems we are loaded on it – for Knox, Sollecito in her memory, becomes one who had his bloody hands. The fish. …[…]… why do we have to hypothesize this dreamlike component? It appears like a pochettino, a bit ‘baroque, right? a bit excessive, a little bit of weight, a little justification, here is a little justification to make sense of the statements that instead … which instead have a primary meaning from the point of view of the indictment,’

And thus, Crini elegantly sums up Knox’ strategy in particular.  Her calunnia and determination to control the storyline all makes sense within the context of her involvement in the crime:  He has spoken for seven hours.

Nencini adjourns the prosecution submissions to continue for 9:30 tomorrow, together with the civil lawyers.

There is an excellent ‘bird’s eye’ view from the courtroom today from ‘Yummi/Macchiavelli’ for True Justice of Meredith Kercher, well worth a read, together with a photo of Crini.



The Nencini Papers

September 27, 2017

nenciniDay 4

On 3 Nov 2013 ahead of the next session, Rudy Guede joins in the press clamour by issuing a statement that ‘Meredith Kercher’s killers are still free.’

Guede, who was born in Ivory Coast and grew up in Italy, made the claim in a letter sent from his prison cell in Viterbo to the Italian TV show, ‘Quarto Grado’.

“I want to point out that whoever committed this terrible crime is still free,” Guede said.


Day 4, 6 November 2013  Today the court will hear evidence pertaining to reports by Stefanoni (2007-2008), Conti-Vecchiotti (2011) and Berti-Barni (Rome RIS, 2013).


Carlo Dalla Vedova makes a submission to cast doubt on Stefanoni’s report.  This is dismissed by the judge as already having been settled at trial.  Taggliabracci had made submissions that Stefanoni had been ‘suspect-centric’ in her approach and that she had failed to disclose her raw data and controls. According to ‘Yummi (Machiavelli)’ who reports from the case today in person in a tweet :

Dalla Vedova said Tagliabracci was the only Italian source in the RIS report, all others are foreigners, emphasized the American labs [TJMK]

In a thinly veiled sideswipe at Conti and Vecchiotti, Nencini directs Barni to formulate opinions ‘without reference to American standards’.

C& V’s report had been full of references to American standards which led to specious claims by the defence that Stefanoni had not followed ‘international standards’ In ‘The Great DNA Sting’, it is noted.

The Italian Scientific Police follow the guidelines of the ENFSI – the European Network Forensic Science Institutes. Dr Stefanoni observed that they followed these specific guidelines whereas Conti and Vecchiotti basically picked and mixed a random selection of international opinions:

“We followed the guidelines of the ENFSI, theirs is just a collage of different international opinions”.

In other words, Conti and Vecchiotti were not referring to the specific guidelines and recommendation of one particular international forensic organisation despite giving that impression at the appeal in Perugia. They cited a number of obscure American publications such as the Missouri State Highway Patrol Handbook and Wisconsin Crime Laboratory Physical Evidence Handbook. The Italian Scientific Police are under no obligation to follow the DNA protocols of the Missouri State Highway Patrol and Wisconsin Crime Laboratory.

Raffaele Sollecito makes a ‘spontaneous declaration’.  In Italy, these are statements to the court by defendants, which have little evidentiary value, as the speaker cannot be cross-examined on what they say.  Nencini had urged Sollecito to make statements.  He had declined to take the stand during the first instance trial phase.

There had been speculation that Sollecito was preparing to flee the country after he took a holiday in the Dominican Republic, which does not have an extradition treaty with Italy. But his father said his son’s decision to return for the hearing showed he had no plan to escape Italian justice.

We can give credit for Sollecito’s appearance to Francesco, who has suffered a nightmare, by Sollecito’s own account.  In Honor Bound he writes:

Papà was spinning like a dervish to clear my name’


He recounts how Francesco was asked for €8K up front from a consultant to monitor the RIS, but who was loath to criticise them.  Another demanded €50K and ‘I’ll get your son out of prison.’


Elsewhere in the book, Sollecito relates how his father all but gave up his job as a respected urologist in order to visit his son dutifully in Capenne Prison, ‘for six hours a month’ all the way from Terni.  One gets a sense of the sheer stress Sollecito put his family under and the desperate attempts by his father to get his son to show respect for the court.


Addressing the court, Sollecito is reported as saying:


First, Sollecito spoke of his Italian family and background and stressed that he was an honest man. He said Knox was his first true love, and he insisted he had no reason to want to murder anyone just a week before his graduation. He added that he has never enjoyed going to parties or drinking alcohol, although he admitted to smoking a joint now and then.

Sollecito also spoke of how difficult it had been for him in prison and how he feels he is constantly scrutinized for anything he does, even traveling abroad.


“I never knew Rudy Guede and I only knew Meredith a little bit. It doesn’t make any sense that I would have had any interest in her that could have led to such an atrocious act, against a 20-year-old girl, it has no basis in reality. And this thing, unfortunately, is going on for too many years,” he said.


“I humbly request you to please look at the reality of this situation and to consider the immense wrong that has been done,” he told the judges


‘Yummi/Machiavelli, the on the spot reporter for True Justice for Meredith Kercher, tweets as follows:

            Sollecito said his family absolutely never had issues with justice. And he is a proud ‘member’ of that family

  1. He also played the ‘national’ card, as he re-emphasized ‘I am Italian’ twice and then addressed the court ‘I am an Italian, as you are’
  2. Sollecito mentioned the defense’s arguments (he has an orthopedical issue with his foot etc.).
  3. The questions of all parties to the experts were intended to elicit information to be used in arguing the unrelated previous finding
  4. He mentioned Meredith’s name only once, to say he barely knew her.
  5. Sollecito talked with a faint voice, a long speech in which he described himself as a victim.

What Sollecito is doing here is manipulating people’s emotions (and indeed, one of the jurors, Genny Ballerini came out later to say she was on his side).  Ballerini, much later, gave an interview to OGGI claiming she thought the prison sentence was ‘too long’.

I myself once felt so sorry for Sollecito, despite being convinced of his guilt, I sent him some funds of £10 through his Go Fund Me page.


To see how well Sollecito elicits sympathy, it is worth visiting his book, Honor Bound wherein on p 126 he recounts his visit to Dachau concentration camp, as an Erasmus student in Germany, and compares it with his taking a shower in Capenne:


‘I thought about the forced marches and the hymns of joy prisoners were forced to sing.  I thought about the mass slaughter, all those people killed for no reason, just as Meredith had been killed for no reason.’


A cold callous psychopath skilled in stirring people’s emotions, or an ill-fated waif unlucky to be in the wrong place at the wrong time?


Back to the court room, where people are now beginning to fidget after a long day.  Nencini declares the evidence phase closed.  Aviello’s testimony is to be sent to  the Attorney General’s Office (the state prosecutor, possibly to see if any charges can be brought).


The next court dates are 25 Novemebr, for the prosecution arguments, 26 Novemner, the civil parties, 16 December of Sollecito’s defence and 17 December for Knox’.  The closing submissions, rebuttals and deliberations are listed for the 9th and 10th January 2014.  In Italy, courts are expected to give the verdict immediately after this, at the hearing.




The Nencini Papers

September 27, 2017

nenciniDay 3

Day 3, 30 October 2013

Berti and Barni of the RIS have tested the LCN DNA sample 36-I and have filed their report.

The subject of the question, as formulated in the body of the assignment minutes of the assignment, recites the following:

“Examined the documents of the case and in particular the findings of the expert report submitted on 29 June 2011 by Prof.ssa Carla Vecchiotti and Prof. Stefano Conti, together with the statements formulated by the consultants of the parties Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni and Prof. Giuseppe Novelli in their papers filed at the hearing on September 6, 2011, and provided the analysis of the sample previously worked, the peritians say about the attribution of the track marked with the letter (I) found on the finding no. 36 and if DNA itself can be identified as referring to Meredith Kercher or the condemned Rudi Herman Guede.

In the event that the sample is not possible for failure to perform, poor conservation or any other cause, the pertinent experts will give the Court of Justice immediate notice by fax.”

The document is in the form of a laboratory report and is highly technical.  The key finding is the following:

The comparison between the genetic profiles of the trace I and the genetic profiles of the comparison subjects and the subsequent biostatistic analysis allowed to find:

  • a high degree of compatibility. statistically supported. between the genetic profile of Amanda Marie Knox and the genetic tracers of the I track;
  • a high degree of incompatibility. statistically supported, among the genetic profiles of the remaining subjects (Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher, Rudy Hermann Guede, Raffaele Sollecito) and the genetic profiles of the trace I.

In plain English, the Sample 36-I is neither starch nor rye bread and is compatible with Amanda Knox.  There is incompatibility with Meredith, Guede or Sollecito.  It also demonstrates that the sample was not ‘too low copy number’.

The court will convene on 6 November 2013 to have the report entered into evidence.

Predictably, the US press erupts with headlines about how ‘the DNA on the knife is not the victim’s’ as though the sample 36-I near the handle cancels out the one lower down on the blade, a completely different sample, 36-B, which shows a near full profile of Meredith Kercher (15 alleles).  New York Daily News is typical:


The knife was used for cooking, not killing.

Stunning testimony in the third Amanda Knox trial revealed Wednesday that new DNA found on the purported murder weapon belonged to the suspect — and not the victim.


The Nencini Papers

September 27, 2017

nenciniDay 2

Day 2; October 4th, 2013

“No one has ever claimed that I was ever taking part in deviant sexual activity.”― Amanda Knox on whether she would return to Italy to face trial

The press reaction to the first day brings this report from CBS News:

‘But now, the Italian Supreme Court thinks trace 36-I should be front and center in the new trial that started today. And that could make things very interesting. Italian writer Luca Cheli made an important point about trace number 36-I in Wrongful Conviction News in August. Cheli reminded his readers that the Supreme Court’s decision in March declared that the result of any new test on 36-I would not only be significant, it would be “decisive”. The be all and end all so to speak. Game, set, match.

So, following the path of the Supreme Court’s “decisive” dictate, if trace 36-I contains Meredith Kercher’s DNA, the new trial is all but over, the two defendants are once again found guilty. But conversely, if trace 36-I has no Meredith Kercher DNA, Knox and Sollecito have, what should be a hands-down argument courtesy of the Italian Supreme Court, “if 36-I doesn’t fit, you must acquit”.’

Knox’ supporters are hopeful because the sample is LCN (low copy number) and ‘trace 36-I is just 120 picograms; one pictogram is a trillionth of a gram’.

One of the most strident, Candace Dempsey has reported, ‘the experts found neither blood nor the victim’s DNA on it–only what appears to be starch from rye bread’. [Seattle PI]

This was Conti and Vecchiotti’s claimed reasoning for not carrying out the test in Hellmann’s court.  They were rapped by the Chieffi Supreme Court for not making an application to the court to get permission to ignore the sample.

The knife is not the sole evidence, of course, but this is what grips the imagination of the press.  There is the suspicion that Conti and Vecchiotti did not carry out the test, because of fear of what they might find.  The pair have made no secret of the fact they are pro-defence, despite being appointed as ‘independent’ expert witnesses.  They accused the cops of harassing them during the Hellmann appeal for trying to conceal a DVD they were making for the defence.  Dempsey claims:

“According to university sources who witnessed part of the event the cops were sent by the Procura of Perugia (ndr., prosecutor’s office), and ordered  Conti and Vecchiotti to hand over the DVD containing the presentation with which yesterday the two scientists had explained in their report in court.”

Since the cops didn’t have warrants, the experts didn’t hand over the DVD. Instead, they dialed Judge Hellmann for support. He made a copy available to the prosecution.’

Day 2, 4 Oct 2013, top of the bill then, is the testing of what has come to be known as the ‘Double DNA Knife’. The two RIS [Reparto Investigazioni Scientifiche] experts appointed by the court, Major Andrea Berti and Filippo Barni to test the DNA as directed in Day 1, are mandated to test sample 36-I and to deliver their results by 6 Nov 2013.

Next on the schedule is the appearance of Luciano Aviello.  When he does turn up, he is dressed in women’s clothing and now wants to be addressed as ‘Lucy’.  As a vaguely entertaining side show, there is not much point in dwelling on his testimony, in which he again affirms Knox and Sollecito ‘innocent’ and that his brother Antonio was the real perpetrator.  The following anecdote is relayed by TMOMK:

Judge Nencini seemed dismissive and mentioned Aviello’s “three versions” of his story: Knox’s lawyer, Dalla Vedova, objected on the grounds that there have only been two versions. Nencini smiled and said: “Don’t forget the next!”

What is interesting about Aviello is his link to Sollecito, who writes in Honor Bound that he sent Aviello an embroidered handkerchief in jail as a gift.  Aviello, somewhat of an exhibitionist, had also claimed the Sollecitos had offered him €30K for his testimony.  A fantasist, his testimony is easily dismissed, without much comment.

Bongiorno tells the court that her client would like to make a spontaneous declaration.  However, Sollecito still appears to be on holiday, so no-one knows when this will be.








The Nencini Papers

September 27, 2017

Day 1

30 September 2013

As the opening of the Appeal hearing looms, listed for 30 September 2013, in Florence, Knox  is reported widely as saying she refuses to attend.

“”I was already imprisoned as innocent person in Italy,” Ms Knox said to NBC. “I just can’t relive that.”  [BBC News]

She claims it is ‘common sense’ not to return.

Given that extradition can take years to effect, this is the best strategy for someone who is guilty and wants to string things out.  We saw the same phenomenon recently, with a British man, Phillip Harkins, wanted in the USA for felon-murder who managed to stave off extradition for 14 years.  24 at the time, Harkins tactic was to apply to the ECHR claiming a breach of his Human Rights.  Finally, he was extradited to stand trial in 2017 with a promise he would not be executed if found guilty.  [Guardian]

Then, of course, there was the case of Shrien Dewani who held off extradition to South Africa for three years, claiming mental health problems.  By the time of the trial, the key witnesses, the jailed South African perpetrators, were unable to remember events correctly, contradicting each other and causing the South African judge to throw the case out.

There were reports that Knox’s lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova had pleaded with Knox to show up in court, in the belief it makes a better impression on the court.  In March, the Supreme Court had ordered the appeal to be held again, having expunged the egregious acquittal verdict of Hellmann and Zanetti earlier, which saw Knox flee to Seattle immediately afterwards.  Of course, there was no way she was going to be turning up in Italy again, any day soon.

To conceal the motive of the expectation she would lose, as even the defence were predicting, Knox tells newspapers her reasons are high-minded and a fight against injustice.  She also claims she hasn’t got enough money for the trip. Her supporters claim there is no way the US State Department will allow her extradition.

To underline her high priniciples, of being indignant by the idea that the Kerchers consider her to be culpable in their daughter’s murder, Knox yet again declares she wishes to visit Meredith’s grave, less than two weeks before the hearing is due.

‘Contact the Kerchers? I haven’t yet tried. There is this abyss of pain that separates us, that has grown during the trial, I haven’t had the courage to cross it. Millions of times I’ve thought about it and millions of times in my own way I haven’t done it because I am scared that they will think it a legal strategy or a media one.


‘I don’t want them to think of me like that. I read what they said about the trial, about Meredith. I’ve read John Kercher’s (Meredith’s father) book. I was absorbed and annihilated by the trial, by prison. 


‘I still don’t have the strength to cry, to digest the loss of Meredith. I would like to meet them, one day I would like to go with them to the grave of my friend.


I don’t want to impose myself on their pain, I hope that I can meet them halfway, even if for now it is too early, they still think I am guilty and that is something that hurts me a great deal.’  [Daily Mail]


“The greatest closure would be for the Kerchers to take me to Meredith’s grave,” she said in an interview with ITV’s Daybreak last week. [Daily Telegraph]
The Kerchers respond angrily, telling her to ‘stay away’ form Meredith’s grave.  Sister, Stephanie retorts, ‘Her grave is now her safe place to sleep in peace and be with us and we hope that is respected by all.” [ibid]


Knox seems strangely blind to the inappropriateness of her demand and its poor timing.  Either that, or she is cruel and defiant, knowing full well the effect of her words.  An innocent person, wrong accused, would surely just want to walk away from it all, one might think.  An angry person might want to provoke an argument with the object of her ire.


In addition to Knox’s media campaign, Raffale, too, has launched one, making an ‘exclusive video’ for OGGI, whilst his father makes the talk show rounds.


Andrea Vogt comments wryly that Knox is featured in a number of ‘exclusive interviews’ in the very same UK tabloids she complains of sensationalising her case.


On the opening day of the hearing, Sollecito is lying on a beach in the Dominican Republic.


This then, is the backdrop leading up to the Appeal hearing.


Day 1 30 September 2013


The hearing opens at 9:45. It is well away from Florence’s tourist attractions, in a bland suburb called Justice Palace.   There are six lay judges, of whom six are female, including one professional judge, and two lay alternates and four men.  They are not true jurors as in the UK or the USA sense, with voting rights, but rather, are there to act as ‘witnesses of the people’ and to raise objections as they see fit.  They are adorned in robes and sashes across their chests in the colours of the Italian flag: featuring three equally sized vertical pales of green, white and red, with the green at the hoist side, i.e., at the top.


The presiding judge is Alessandro Nencini, a large well-built man with a deep baritone voice. He is aged 58, and is the President of the Second Chamber of Appeal of the Court of Florence. He is assisted by Judge Luciana Cicerchia, who is President of the Court of Assizes.  In Italy, the junior judge writes up the motivational report and the presiding judge signs it off.


Present today are the lawyers: Luciano Ghirga and Carlo Dalla Vedova, representing Knox, Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori for Sollecito, Alessandro Crini for the prosecution, Francesco Maresca for the Kerchers, and civil lawyers Carlo Pacelli for Patrick Lumumba, Letizia Mangini for Tattanelli – the owner of the cottage – and Viera Fabiani for the Kerchers.  Patrick Lumumba is present as a witness.


The Kercher family are not present, due to the ill health of John and Arline, but have been asked to write a letter to read out to the court, but which Raffale’s lawyer objects to.  However, Nencini rules that the letter is admissible.


Sollecito’s father, Francesco is here in person and is seen writing copious notes.  He has told the press his son will make an appearance at some point.


Nencini spends fifty minutes summarising the main issues of the hearing: the facts leading up to the case being remitted back to the second instance appeal court as lodged by the prosecution and upheld by the Chieffi Supreme Court, when it expunged Hellmann’s acquittal, together with a summing up of the case so far against Rudy Guede, tried separately and convicted, serving a sixteen year reduced sentence in Viterbo.


Nencini then requests the defence applications, of which they have several, and grants their request to have the imputed murder weapon, a kitchen knife, to be re-tested for the Kercher DNA on the blade and the Knox DNA on the handle.   In addition, for another sample on the knife near the handle to be tested, which independent, court-appointed, experts, Conti & Vecchiotti had declined to do in the Hellmann hearing, claiming it was ‘too low copy’.


In Italy, an Appeal court is allowed to revisit facts found at the trial, but is limited to what is allowed under the accepted points of law of the appeal application.


Nencini dismisses the defence application to retest the bra clasp, which had a full profile of Sollecito’s DNA and another to test what the defence claim was a sperm stain on the pillow found underneath the body, on the grounds there would be no way of knowing when the stain occurred.  The defence had not requested this at the all-important trial stage because, as Sollecito states in his book Honor Bound his defence team – meaning himself on his instructions – were afraid it would be revealed as Sollecito’s.


The defence also applies to hear a witness, which is granted, who is a prison inmate named Luciano Aviello, a small time Mafiosi with numerous convictions.  He claims his brother, Antonio, is the real killer and had hidden the knife in the garden.  His testimony is due to be heard again, as the police had not investigated the claims at the time.


Nencini also accepts an application for photos of Sollecito’s fingernails to be submitted as Maori claims his fingernails would have been too short to tear off Meredith’s bra and leave his DNA on the clasp.


Bongiorno requests that Meredith’s cell phones be tested and this is dismissed.


After a break, Crini sums up the prosecution’s points of appeal, mainly, focussing on the contradictions and illogicality of the reverted Hellmann Court and the soundness of the original Massei court’s ‘Guilty’ verdict.


Maresca for the Kerchers makes his opening submissions in support of the prosecution and dismisses the defence claims as a rehash of old settled arguments.    She witnessed loud screams on the murder night.


Then, I think that you are trying – in some ways – to dress with a new dress that which is vice versa, evidence, or at least assessments, of strong, consistent, robust clues that the first degree judgment has offered in its motivational fabric and then the Cassation … today the Supreme Court puts it to you as you like it.

 It is said, “Just new guesses because” – for example, for the solicitous defence – “Capezzali” – the famous head, marvellous lady, that all of us who have heard in the hearing for long hours – “is untrustworthy.” 

Eh, but the First Instance Court in Perugia says something different; The Cassation, you know, says something different about the Capezzali’l {Court transcript]


Pacelli opens for his client Patrick and comments that it was Knox who first mentioned the harrowing scream.


But let me remind you that Amanda Knox, sitting on the scene of the crime, giving details that only those on the scene of the crime could know, is the first to talk about screaming. It’s Amanda Knox.’ [Court transcript]

Other applications dismissed during a two hour retirement to chambers are, one to hear Rudy Guede again, as a witness, other witnesses the defence claim are unreliable, not to re-examine ‘selective cleaning of the scene’, nor to hear new experts regarding the time of death, nor to hear new scientific experts for the defence.


The court is then adjourned until 4th October, when Aviello will testify and the RIS – the Rome Scientific Police – would be given the mandate for testing the knife.


Nencini has made it clear in a newspaper interview it is not within his remit to criticise ‘the experts’, but rather, to assess the legal rectitude of the trial court’s decisions (Massei) which led up to their (‘Guilty’) verdict.  This is something which the Chieffi Supreme Court had found Hellmann patently failed to do.


The appeal courts function is to assess that the correct legal protocol was followed and whether the merits court decisions – and the judges have wide-ranging powers – fall within the range of ‘reasonable’, even if another court might have found differently.


In Italy, an appeal court can reassess specific facts, and in this case the facts that will be re-examined are the DNA sampling on the knife.  The trial, as it were, is to be extended to hear Aviello’s testimony.  This is a puzzling choice of ‘star witness’ for the defence, given his reputation as a compulsive liar.  So much so, one judge quipped he was ‘five times a liar’.

In addition, Aviello had alleged that Bongiono had tried to bribe him by offering to pay for his sex-change operation.


It is hard to imagine anyone will believe Antonio – now missing on the run from jail – is the real killer.


Apart from the applications upheld today, all of the other facts found in the first instance trial stand, and cannot be overturned.


Additional Sources:








What Marasca-Bruno Supreme Court said about Raffaele Sollecito

February 7, 2017


Bongiorno, Sollecito, Maori legal team

Compensation claim by Raffaele Sollecito


BREAKING:   Claim thrown out! ‘ANSA) – PERUGIA, FEBRUARY 11 – Rejected by the Court of Appeal of Florence, the claim for wrongful imprisonment advanced by Raffaele Sollecito, finally acquitted of the charge of having participated in the murder of Meredith Kercher. He asked over 500 thousand euro for almost four years in jail before being released from prison. As learned by ANSA Tuscan courts have held contradictory his statements in the initial survey. ‘ – Too many lies in the early stages.

Motivation Report of the Florence Compensation Claim Dismissal now available:

This translation was done by a group of unpaid volunteers who are regular posters on the message board devoted to discussing the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy, in November of 2007. The translation and editorial team was international in its make-up.

It was completed in February 2017, having been undertaken for the sole purpose of promoting a better understanding of this complex case, and to ensure that the facts are readily available to the English-speaking world without selective emphasis, misstatement or bias.

It has been translated on a “best efforts” basis, and has gone through multiple rounds of proofreading and editing, both to ensure its accuracy and to harmonize the language insofar as possible. Persons fluent in both Italian and English are invited and encouraged to contact PMF if they find any material errors that influence the meaning or intention of the judges. All such corrections will be investigated, made as required and brought to the attention of the public. The original Italian document is twelve pages long.

As with any translation, some terminology in Italian has no direct equivalent in English. Explanations have been provided where relevant. Similarly, readers are encouraged to submit any questions about legal or other concepts that may arise as they peruse the report. Our goal is to make the report as clear and as accurate as possible; to this end, it will be amended whenever doing so promotes this goal.

As the report was written and published in Italian, that language prevails in the event of a dispute over interpretation. This English-language version is provided for readers’ convenience only; accordingly, it is a free translation and has no legal authority or status.

This translation may be freely copied or otherwise reproduced and transmitted in the unedited pdf format, provided that the translation or any excerpt therefrom is accompanied by the following attribution: “From the translation prepared by unpaid volunteers from to promote a better understanding of the circumstances surrounding the death of Meredith Kercher and the case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the English-speaking world”.

The compensation claim

Raffaele Sollecito, represented by his attorneys throughout the process, Avvocato Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori, is currently claiming compensation for ‘wrongful imprisonment’ in respect of the four years he served of a sentence of 25 years handed down for the Aggravated Murder of Meredith Kercher, 1 Nov 2007.  The conviction was controversially overturned by the final Italian Supreme Court in March 2015, and its Motivational Report published – some three months late – in September 2015.  It was only then Sollecito was able to commence compensation proceedings, as the Italian Penal Code provides for this, given, its long-winded legal process whereby defendants accused of serious crimes (i.e., one with a sentence of over three years custody) can be held on remand whilst awaiting trial.  In theory, this should only be for up to one year.

The issues with the Marasca ruling

The Marasca verdict is considered controversial because Sollecito and his co-defendant, Amanda Knox had been found guilty at the first instance trial court (merits), which was upheld on appeal.  It is unusual for the Supreme Court to have not remitted the case back to  the Appeal (second instance) court as the Penal Code – as is standard in the UK and the USA – does not allow the Supreme Court to assess facts found at trial.  The correct procedure is to send the disputed evidence back to the court which in the opinion of the Supreme court erred.  Marasca did not rule a Section 530,1 ‘Not Guilty’ acquittal, but a Section 530, 2 ‘Not Guilty’ ‘insufficient evidence’, which some say is similar to Scottish Law, ‘Not Proven’.However, the wording used, proscioglimento indicates a pre-trial ‘charges dropped’, rather than ‘acquittal’ (assoluzione).

Sollecito and Knox made several applications against being held in custody whilst awaiting trial and were turned down at every stage, including appeals and an application for ‘house arrest’ in lieu.

The prosecution opposed the application on the grounds of the seriousness of the crime, and in Knox’ case, the standard ground that she might flee the country, as a foreigner to Italy.  In addition, the prosecution had used special preventative powers to isolate the defendants (Knox, Sollecito and Guede) to prevent tampering with witnesses, a power which had been added to the Penal Code to assist in the fight against mafia gangs who did intimidate witnesses, often through their lawyers.  Therefore the law allowed the prosecutors to deny the defendants an attorney until just before their remand hearings.

Sollecito’s challenges

However, the award of compensation for having (a) been held in remand, and (b) serving a sentence until such time the conviction was overturned, is not automatic.  The applicant has to show that they are factually ‘not guilty’, i.e., cannot possibly have committed the crime, perhaps because the ‘real perpetrator’ has come to light, or ‘new evidence’ presented.  Neither of these scenarios apply in Sollecito’s case.  Whilst a defendant is allowed to ‘lie’ and indeed, does not need to swear an oath in testifying, this only holds true if they are guilty.    Marasca did not find Sollecito or Knox, ‘Not Gulty’ as per Article 530,1, the common or garden ‘Not Guilty’ verdict.

Further, Sollecito refused to testify at his own trial, and made various misrepresentations and lies to the police.  He argues in current tv and radio show rounds – for example, in the recent Victoria Derbyshire BBC morning show – that as he was a ‘collector of knives’ and had always carried a knife around since age thirteen, ‘To carve on tables and trees’, he explains, and thus argues, the police should not have viewed this with suspicion when he attended the questura carrying one in the days after the murder.

Sollecito’s other difficulty is that Marasca, whilst criticising the investigation as ‘flawed’, and this being the main reason for acquittal, it nonetheless cuts Sollecito little slack.

How Marasca cuts Sollecito little slack

From the Marasca Supreme Court Motivational Report, Sept 2015:

It remains anyway strong the suspicion that he [Sollecito] was actually in the Via della Pergola house the night of the murder, in a moment that, however, it was impossible to determine. On the other hand, since the presence of Ms. Knox inside the house is sure, it is hardly credible that he was not with her.

And even following one of the versions released by the woman, that is the one in accord to which, returning home in the morning of November 2. after a night spent at her boyfriend’s place, she reports of having immediately noticed that something strange had happened (open door, blood traces everywhere); or even the other one, that she reports in her memorial, in accord to which she was present in the house at the time of the murder, but in a different room, not the one in which the violent aggression on Ms. Kercher was being committed, it is very strange that she did not call her boyfriend, since there is no record about a phone call from her, based on the phone records within the file.

Even more if we consider that having being in Italy for a short time, she would be presumably uninformed about what to do in such emergency cases, therefore the first and maybe only person whom she could ask for help would have been her boyfriend himself, who lived only a few hundred meters away from her house.

Not doing this signifies Sollecito was with her, unaffected, obviously, the procedural relevance of his mere presence in that house, in the absence of certain proof of his causal contribution to the murderous action.

The defensive argument extending the computer interaction up to the visualization of a cartoon, downloaded from the internet, in a time that they claim compatible with the time of death of Ms. Kercher, is certainly not sufficient to dispel such strong suspicions. In fact, even following the reconstruction claimed by the defence and even if we assume as certain that the interaction was by Mr. Sollecito himself and that he watched the whole clip, still the time of ending of his computer activity wouldn’t be incompatible with his subsequent presence in Ms. Kercher’s house, given the short distance between the two houses, walkable in about ten [sic] minutes.

An element of strong suspicion, also, derives from his confirmation, during spontaneous declarations, the alibi presented by Ms. Knox about the presence of both inside the house of the current appellant the night of the murder, a theory that is denied by the statements of Curatolo, who declared of having witnessed the two together from 21:30 until 24:00 in piazza Grimana; and by Quintavalle on the presence of a young woman, later identified as Ms. Knox, when he opened his store in the morning of November 2.

An umpteenth element of suspicion is the basic failure of the alibi linked to other, claimed human interactions in the computer of his belongings, albeit if we can’t talk about false alibi, since it’s more appropriate to speak about unsuccessful alibi.

Sollecito in his police interview of the 5 Nov 2007, shortly after which he was arrested, withdrew his alibi from Amanda Knox.  During the Nencini appeal phase, he and his advocate, Bongiorno, called a press conference to underline that Sollecito ‘could not vouch for Knox’ whereabouts between 8:45 pm and 1:00 am on the night of the murder.  Sollecito has never once retracted this withdrawal of an alibi for Amanda.  

Further, Marasca states:

The defensive argument extending the computer interaction up to the visualization of a cartoon, downloaded from the internet, in a time that they claim compatible with the time of death of Ms. Kercher, is certainly not sufficient to dispel such strong suspicions.

In fact, even following the reconstruction claimed by the defence and even if we assume as certain that the interaction was by Mr. Sollecito himself and that he watched the whole clip, still the time of ending of his computer activity wouldn’t be incompatible with his subsequent presence in Ms. Kercher’s house, given the short distance between the two houses, walkable in about ten [sic] minutes.

Sollecito had claimed he was surfing the internet until 3:00 am in one statement and claimed to have watched Naruto cartoon until 9:45 pm on the murder night. It winds up:

The technical tests requested by the defence cannot grant any contribution of clarity, not only because a long time has passed, but also because they regard aspects of problematic examination (such as the possibility of selective cleaning) or of manifest irrelevance (technical analysis on Sollecito’s computer) given that is was possible, as said, for him to go to Kercher’s house whatever the length of his interaction with the computer (even if one concedes that such interaction exists), or they are manifestly unnecessary, given that some unexceptionable technical analysis carried out are exhaustive (such are for example the cadaver inspection and the following medico-legal examinations).

Leading to the verdict:

Following the considerations above, it is obvious that a remand [rinvio] would be useless, hence the declaration of annulment without remand, based on art. 620 L) of the procedure code, thus we apply an acquittal [proscioglimento *] formula [see note just below] which a further judge on remand would be anyway compelled to apply, to abide to the principles of law established in this current sentence.

*[Translator’s note: The Italian word for “acquittal” is actually “assoluzione”; while the term “proscioglimento” instead, in the Italian Procedure Code, actually refers only to non-definitive preliminary judgments during investigation phase, and it could be translated as “dropping of charges”. Note: as for investigation phase “proscioglimento” is normally meant as a non-binding decision, not subjected to double jeopardy, since it is not considered a judgment nor a court’s decision.]

The Issues Facing the Florence Appeal Court

Sollecito has clearly passed the first hurdle of being eligible to have a hearing for compensation.  His legal team have asked for the maximum €516,000.  A claimant who can successfully plead ‘wrongful imprisonment’ can claim €500, per diem imprisonment, up to a cap of €516,000.

Sollecito’s legal team have referred to Marasca’s criticism of the investigation as grounds for the full compensation, claiming Sollecito’s “innocence and loss of youthful endeavours” because of the ‘flaws’.  Problem is, the issue of investigative flaws was never pleaded at trial, or at least, not upheld, by either the trial or appeal court judge.  Marasca never really explains in which way this was a proven fact.

The Prosecutor’s Office based at Florence is opposing the application.  I would expect they will be relying on Matteini’s remand hearing and Gemmelli’s written reasons rejecting Sollecito’s appeal against being kept in custody until the hearing.

The three judges who on 27 January 2017 in a hearing listed for five days announced they would issue their verdict ‘within five days’, as of 7 Feb 2017, some seven working days later, have yet to make a decision.  Alternatively, the decision has been made, but the public and press have not yet accessed it.  It could be Sollecito’s legal team have yet to call a press conference, whilst they study the findings.

The panel will decide:

  • is Sollecito entitled to compensation?
  • if so, how much?
  • did he lie to police or mislead them?
  • if so, to what extent was he contributory to his being remanded?
  • to what extent the ‘flawed investigation’ a factor in his ‘wrongful imprisonment’?
  • should Sollecito receive compensation for the one year remand in custody leading up to the trial?
  • should he be compensated for the three further years of a sentence served as a convicted prisoner, six months of it in solitary confinement?
  • should this be for both of the above, either of the above, or neither of them?

Watch this space!


Sollecito has made noises that he plans further legal action against the prosecutor, based on Marasca’s criticisms in its Motivational Report.

Sources: The Murder of Meredith Kercher com  True Justice for Meredith Kercher

TEN FACTS the makers of the Netflix film ‘AMANDA KNOX’ don’t want you to know!

January 1, 2017
 rodandbriRod Blackhurst and Brian McGinn, Directors of ‘Amanda Knox’ netflix film

What they do not tell you in the ‘documentary’ film

Ten damning facts, which give an insight into why Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were originally properly convicted.  They were then acquitted because of ‘other’ extraneous factors.  The fact that the filmakers, Rod Blackhurst and Brian McGinn, conceal the facts found at trial, indicates an elaborate attempt to fool the viewing public.

The pair had ample opportunity to research the original court documents – of which the key ones are translated – so one can surmise the aim was not objectivity.  However, they fail to declare their vested interest, as long-time avid pro-Knox/Sollecito supporters.


For those without access to youtube flashplayer, here’s a plain version:


This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Content by KrissyG1


Basic ’10 facts’ template design: Countess Castiglione @parislover
Danse Macabre by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution licence (

Meredith Kercher

December 28, 2016

RIP You’ll Never Walk Alone


A touching poem from her sister, Stephanie reminds us of how precious she was and how she touches us still.


This video was uploaded by me last year, after a disappointing year for justice, with the alleged perpetrators of her untimely death being controversially acquitted in March 2015, by the Italian Supreme Court in the Fifth Chambers.


28 Dec 1985 – 1 Nov 2007

Today, on what would have been her 31st birthday, we still keep hope in our hearts for justice.


Walk on, with hope in your heart, and you’ll never walk alone.


December 19, 2016


What is the legal situation of Rudy Guede, as set out by the courts?


Rudy Guede appearing on RAI3 Italian tv January 2016 with Franca Leosini

Rudy Guede’s appeal against his conviction continues

UPDATE: 19 Feb 2017 Rudy Guede’s legal team has now lodged an appeal with the Italian Supreme Court, in Rome, against the decision of the Florence Appeal Court to reject his application for a review of his conviction.  In the original appeal, ‘contradictions between verdicts’ was cited, referring to the Marasca-Bruno Supreme Court acquitting Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, but yet stating there were ‘multiple attackers’ at the murder scene.

It could even be that because of the written reasons by Florence in rejecting Raffaele Sollecito’s compensation claim, there are further legal grounds for a review.  The Sollecito Florence Appeal seems to challenge Sollecito being acquitted, as it lists at least five misdemeanours which are the grounds of refusing compensation under Art 314, which allows prisoners wrongly held in custody to apply for an award, but bars those deemed to have contributed to their incarceration.

Rudy Guede is also due out on leave again, this time in Perugia, it is reported.

Rudy Hermann Guede is back in Perugia. It ‘happened last December when, taking advantage of one of the special permits of which have benefited in recent months, was a guest of his elementary school teacher who has never ceased to take care of him. In addition, according to the findings, the boy, the only definitively convicted for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher, will return for another term in Perugia shortly.

The appeal to the Supreme Court Meanwhile, his lawyers Thomas Pietrocarlo and Monica Grossi, after the Court of Appeal of Florence had branded as inadmissible their request filed for a new trial, filed a petition in the Supreme Court. The Supreme court judges may then cancel with the order issued from Florence, or confirm it, putting an end for ever in the judicial history of Rudy Guede who has always said he is innocent.

Rudy Guede at the time of his arrest

I plan to sort out the facts from the fiction and to provide a definitive review of what the legal facts concerning Guede are, as rubber-stamped by the Supreme Court in Guede’s case, and how the Supreme Court verdict in the Knox / Sollecito case impacts on it.  Guede has brought an application for a review of his case, listed 20 Dec 2016, citing ‘internal inconsistencies’ within the Marasca-Bruno reasoning in respect of Knox and Sollecito.

A good starting point might be the recent crimepod broadcast by ex-FBI agent and ex- District Attorney & prosecutor, Jim Clemente, in tandem with Laura Richards, wherein they carry out a ‘behavioural analysis’ of the Guede interview on RAI3an Italiana TV channel earlier this year with interviewer Franca Leosini.  My analysis of their analysis will highlight some of the misconceptions  by Clemente and Richards in this broadcast, which can be accessed here:


Laura Richards and Jim Clemente – True Crime tv Broadcasters

Separating the facts from the spin

There are many theories about Guede’s role in the Kercher murder case with many assertions becoming common currency, as interested parties, such as Knox and Sollecito compete for the hegemony.   I have referred to original source material to get to the actual facts of the matter.  These consist of Guede’s Prison Diary whilst under extradition proceedings in Koblenz, between 21 Nov 2007 and late November 2007, his Skype conversation 19 Nov 2007 with best friend Giacomo Benedetti, whilst on the run from the police and the detailed Micheli report, Perugia, 28 Oct 2008,the finalised legal findings of fact, and as approved by the Cassazione Supreme Court.  Thus, whether one agrees or disagrees with the court findings or of Guede’s exact role in the crime, these remain the legal position today, and these are the grounds on which Guede is bringing his application for a review to the Florence Appeal Court.

To summarise, the main findings of Micheli are :

  • Guede definitively did not wield the murder knife.
  • He had no meaningful prior contact with Meredith.
  • Therefore he was not invited to the cottage or let in by Meredith, nor had any consensual contact.
  • The burglary and rape mise en scene was a second stage of the crime after the murder.
  • It thus follows that Knox let Guede into the murder cottage.
  • The crime was sexually motivated, and not one motivated by theft.
  • There were multiple assailants – as per DNA and luminol testing and the fact of a return to the scene to rearrange it.
  • Guede did not steal the rent money or the phones.
  • He was guilty of aggravated murder because of his complicity in the attack and failure to stop it as soon as knives were produced.
  • Complicity: “Above all if the certain facts include the consequent outline of that supposed ‘unknown’ (the presence of the three at the scene of the crime) they are abundant, and all abundantly proven”. – Micheli

The spotlight is on the following issues:

  1. Is Clemente’s and Richards’ claim – one of Guede being the ‘lone killer’ grounded in any substance?
  2. The timeline of the events from Guede’s point of view.
  3. Could Guede have been the sole killer?
  4. How do Knox and Sollecito fit in with Guede?
  5. The actual legal position with Guede, as laid down at Guede’s trial.
  6. How this differs from the Fifth Chambers (Knox & Sollecito) Supreme Court’s controversial ruling in March 2015, acquitting the pair on the grounds of Article 530 Para II, ‘Not guilty: due to insufficient evidence’.

The claims of Clemente and Richards

These reflect the views of pro-innocence campaigners of Knox & Sollecito, critiquing Franca Leosini’s tv interview.

During the broadcast several ‘behavioral’ observations are made:

  1. ‘The foundation as to why he is in her room and cottage, DNA inside as well as outside – he is finding a plausible excuse for being there.’

My comment:  Guede did not claim to have made sexual advances in Meredith’s room.

  1. ‘Meredith had locked door from the inside – helped self to drink – Meredith went to bedroom – claimed she was mad at Knox for stealing money and being dirty.’
  2. ‘He said he ‘wouldn’t go with her unless she had a condom. Not appropriate time to get going so got dressed.   As if.!  Leosini cracks, ‘You missed the best part of the evening – ‘No Sex Please We’re British’ – inappropriate – she is flirting with him (Leosini).  She purports to get tough with him, but he dances around the question.’
  3. ‘Got dressed, had bad stomach, had to go to bathroom, kernel of truth – poop in toilet. Before Meredith came in. Trapped in there – he if flushed the toilet, she’d know he was there. She tells him to use that bathroom, in kitchen, then went to bedroom.

My comment:  Guede used the large bathroom which was by the front door.  If He was in there when Meredith unexpectedly returned, it was easy to run out of there.


  1. Heard doorbell ring, Meredith opens door, engages in conversation – 101% it is Amanda. Fallacy – Amanda lives there, why would she ring doorbell?  ‘Meredith had locked inside door.’  There is no reason for Amanda to ring doorbell.

My comment:  the courts agree.  The courts uphold that it was Knox who let Guede in.

  1. Becomes very detailed and specific. He saying look, I’m very clean. Poor boy ‘found myself in Germany’.  101% – extending.
  2. Why would Amanda ring, Rudy’s explanation. Identifies someone by voice – despite listening to very loud music.  Hears girls arguing, puts on ear phones to block out- 2.5 songs – 10 minutes.    It’s a lie. The attack on MK took about 10”.  Kernel of truth in the lie.

My comment:  Guede says he put on headphones after hearing initial greetings.  However, Micheli agrees that how come Guede only hear the last scream, form 4-5 metres away, when a nearby resident, witness Mrs Capezelli, heard a series from 70 metres away.

  1. It was Meredith coming home, not Amanda, we ‘know as a fact’ it didn’t happen. His sleeve had the victim’s DNA. He carried a knife consistent with bloody impression on bed.

My comment:  There is no evidence Guede carried a knife.  At the Milan nursery trespass 27 Oct 2007, Guede was found with a knife which belonged to the nursery so had not carried it with him.

  1. Scream louder than his music, runs to Meredith’s room, lights off. So concerned about his image in terms of cleanliness.  He leaves a dying girl alone.  ‘Lights were suddenly not on’ coming out of the bathroom into the hall, but were on in her room.
  2. Can only describe the jacket – guy facing Meredith. Guy turns starts flashing with his scalpel.  Happened so fast, did didn’t know what was in his hand.  He says, ‘I said’, not what happened.  Recount what happened, not ‘when I testified I said this’ – leakage – skips ahead.  ‘This is the story I am sticking to’.  It shows he is trying to keep to the story he testified.
  3. “He turned around and came to me I didn’t see his face”. Quotes self.  Not in the moment any more.  Wildly gesticulating hands – struggling for words.  Cognitive load, wants to get it right.  Story trying to remember.  How do you remember insignia but not face? (The brand logo on the man’s jacket.)

My comment:  The light was described as an abat-jour.  This is Italian for ‘bedside lamp’, and probably refers to the one in the sitting/kitchen area, which leads to Meredith’s and Amanda’s bedrooms and small bathroom.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

‘The hallway is actually a sitting room area, together with the kitchen.  The door at the far end leads to the bedrooms of Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox and to the small bathroom.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

 Guede explains he was busy concentrating on the blade in the man’s hand.  The man’s face would have been back lit.  Good point about Guede reverting back to testimony.

  1. German police found he had a cut on his hand.- ‘you were focused on his hand’ – ‘I said I thought it was a scalpel. It could have been a knife 12” long 7” blade.  So he says, ‘I thought’ but didn’t know.  Mignini argued, ‘There are two knives’.  Rudy and Mignini are ‘perverted accomplished liars’  (Clemente’s view).  ‘Pissed off with Mignini for perverting justice.  Collusion’.  Man fleeing.  RG backed out of way.

My comment: the fact of at least two knives was decided by the courts after expert witness testimony and not up to the prosecutor.

  1. Says he saw Amanda walking away outside. Statement made to Mignini – You must have seen her, you must have seen her! –  I saw her silhouette a long way into the night. –  Voice over music in earphone from bathroom.   Mignini pushing his agenda to ID Amanda.  ‘Man is like – had beret with red band, jacket’ ; called out to other person, let’s run before they catch us; black man found’ odd thing to say .  ‘Great! We just killed Kercher, we’ve got a black man here we can blame!’

My comment:  the courts agree this is Guede being self-serving.  The fact he doesn’t mention the silhouette until later, could be preclusion from reading the press.

  1. Hero, he finds Meredith bleeding – runs out of bedroom to grab towel x 2. Grabs third towel, that didn’t work, so left. Said she was alive. Was able to run into Romanelli’s room – sees Amanda run away with this young man.  Made silhouette ID in time period there is a dying woman on the floor.  More important than helping Meredith is to go to Filomena’s room to ID these people.

My comment:  No DNA on towels due to environmental degradation, but someone did apply them. 

  1. Why, If he is already 101% certain it was Amanda? No reason except to please the prosecutor.  All of a sudden, people saw the three together.  Pressuring others.  Mignini ends up giving Rudy  a fast track trial.  – he wouldn’t have to testify on any subsequent trial.  Takes first amendment against self-incrimination, should have to testify in Amanda and Raffaele’s case – he was not used.

My comment:  Mignini as a prosecutor (district attorney) has no authority to provide legal advice.  Guede would have been advised by his counsel to take the fast track as it offers the incentive of a third off discount from the sentence.  He pleaded, ‘Not Guilty’ therefore, he had the right to decline giving any further self-incriminating testimony, as exercised by Sollecito himself in his trial.  There are mechanisms.  A party can appeal for other documents or transcripts in evidence instead (as Mignini did at one stage) and it is up to the presiding judge whether to accept the application or dismiss it.  It is the Judge’s or the defendant’s decision, not the prosecutor’s.

  1. Why does he want the fast track? – wait. He has to say he stayed in bathroom for that long.  This other person did it, when he left, Rudy was trying to stop the bleeding.  Meredith was saying af – writing on the  wall ‘in her blood’ – there’s a desk right there.  Why didn’t he alert for help?   Has to construct a narrative to make sense.  How does this person get in when door was locked?  What we hear in his narrative is how he is overwhelmed.  He is the victim, everyone feels sympathy for him.

My comment:  In his original claims he says he was in the bathroom between six and ten minutes.  Later Guede changes this to ‘lightning fast’, although he may have meant the supposed fight between him and the mystery man.

  1. He hears scream. The broadcast host, Laura Richards, says she once saw someone run into a room and stab someone.  Stabbing had very little blood.  Saw stab put pressure on it.  Quick in and out – what prisoners do.  Will never forget the guy’s face.  Guy turned ran out, Guede could not remember the guy’s face.  Would he forget?  In the only lit room.  Light is on this guy, why can’t he ID his face? – clearly lying.    Afraid he’d be blamed.  What does he do, he goes out drinking with his friends – he is establishing an alibi.  He ran out of country ‘because he was afraid’ – alibiing himself.

My comment  The issue of the blood spurt is an important one, which I shall deal with further on.

  1. Clever narrative because of kernel of truth. Always wants to be seen as victim.  ‘Why didn’t you call for help?’ a six-year old would ask – he starts to talk over her – the real him.  ‘The investigators didn’t believe your point’.   Sad fact is, that black people do get blamed for crime – he is lumping himself in with them.  OJ?  Exactly same situation – charismatic, wants people to think he’s a victim.  How he left Meredith.  Details of crime scene.
  2. When he left Meredith she was fully dressed. In his story, Amanda had argument with Meredith killed her, then ran away everything was in order except one drawer pulled out.  Filomena’s room undisturbed.
  3. If he saw her, she must have seen him. Raffaele must have told Amanda man there.  Why would Amanda then come back?  Feel bad for anyone who believes this crap.  ‘Judge didn’t believe your version of events’.  Why did someone come back and alter the crime scene?’  He left Meredith fully clothed, with full details of clothes she was wearing but can’t remember the guy’s face. 

My comment:  Guede describes Meredith as wearing a white top.  Robyn Butterworth (friend) testified Meredith was wearing a sky-blue zip up top with sporty arm stripes, with a beige top underneath, and perhaps a second, patterned one.

  1. Franca Leosini says left foot and face showing. Crime scene staged , as a legal fact.   Glass and rock on top of clothes, rock thrown from inside. Glass and rock on top.  Rudy gets specific about Knox and Sollecito; not in dispute they were there.  Judge said Rudy wasn’t the one who had the knife and dealt the blow, not in dispute.  It is now in dispute, they were declared ‘innocent of the crime’.

My comment:  False: there is zero mention Knox and Sollecito were ‘declared innocent’.

  1. Rudy did it in concert with two people – it is a legal point of law and cannot be appealed – certified fact. Once evaluated it was 100% fraudulent, not a mistake.  People would be fired if they did not say what Mignini wanted them to say.  If they disagreed, they weren’t called to testify. (Clemente’s views.)

My comments:  Mignini and later Comodi only get to choose the prosecution witnesses, the defence get to call whomsoever they wish.

  1. Leosini: You fled to Germany. Guede:  I had no idea how I got there, it could have been Russia.  Conversely, they (Knox/Sollecito) did not run.  Rudy trusts the system.  Skyped with his friend Giacomo for four hours.  Threw away clothing. Choosing not to give an account.
  2. Specifically says, ‘Amanda was not there’. Why bring it up at this point?  Friend says Amanda was arrested.  Friend brought her up.  Police direct the conversation.  Says clearly, ‘She was not there’.  Rudy gets it from Mignini.  Mignini gets Rudy to ID Knox – silhouette, knife.  Patrick Lumumba has a proven alibi, so they needed another black man there, which is why Amanda volunteered his name.

My comment:  Knox was not arrested ‘for no reason’.

  1. Accomplished liar. Part 9, Leosini talks through the forensics consensual foreplay.  Palm print, DNA on toilet paper . Interesting leakage about Patrick being there – he gets vociferous there, true self.  Why fast track trial?  He says because of his ‘non-involvement’.  More than one person.  Sentence reduced from 30 to 16 on assumption he did not hold the knife. ‘He went along with others’; someone else’s initiative.
  2. Jan 2016. People are still sticking to their beliefs Sollecito and Knox are still guilty.  Reformed character, artsy, intellectual.  Served sentence because, “I didn’t call for help”.  Lawyers have been very strategic – stylised interview – deliberate choice.  FB and twitter set up.
  3. All evidence points to him being only killer and guilty of murder and sexual assault. He’s charismatic, intelligent, detail-oriented no sign of remorse.  Psychopath; gifted at selling himself. Takes a trained eye to see the holes in his story. Let Meredith die; fled country only after he went drinking with his friends.    Foster father says he is ‘an accomplished liar’.  Multiple perpetrators.
  4. Retrial 20 Dec will be interesting.  Already eligible for parole.  2018  By the time the motivation comes out.  Opens everything up for Kercher family.  This interview may have been the grounds on which the appeal for a review is granted.  Engaging charismatic young man – interview is a strategy to get him out.  “Amanda got away with murder.”  It was because of Mignini.  He used Rudy to get Amanda.  Should be prosecuted.  Recommendation: Amanda wrongfully convicted and then exonerated. JC and LR.

My coment: Mignini was nothing to do with ultimate conviction.  That was solely for the courts to decide.

Timeline of events from Guede’s Perspective

Early life

Born in the Ivory Coast 26 Dec 1987 six months older than Knox and three years younger than Sollecito.  Came to Italy with his father Roger, aged five, rejected by his mother.  Lived with a series of foster families, including a wealthy local family, whom he left as soon as he reached age of majority.  Stayed with an aunt in Lecca.  Took up various short-term jobs, had periods of unemployment, tended to ‘disappear’.  His childhood friend Mancini, the son of Guede’s teacher, Mrs Tiberi tried to keep tabs on him.  His last job he was fired from for sickness without a note, took up bedsit in Perugia in early September 2007 nearby Sollecito and the cottage.  Socialised with the Spanish contingent in his house.  Mrs Tiberi described Guede as always polite and well-behaved.  His childhood friends, Mancini and Benedetti, say they never saw him take drugs or get drunk, although latterly they had not seen him much.  His more short-term acquaintances mentioned witnessing him drunk at various times.

Guede gets into trouble

A witness claimed he had said he wanted to go to Milan for a few days ‘to dance’.  In Milan 27 Oct 2007, just a few days before the murder, he was caught trespassing at a nursery, but was not charged at the time.  He was found in possession of a stolen laptop, a knife found at the nursery, a ladies watch and a small glass-breaking hammer.  His mobile phone was confiscated, thus claimed to have no phone as of the time of the murder.  He was charged post-murder conviction for the laptop possession.

When Rudy met Amanda

Around the time of a friend’s birthday (Owen), ‘12th or 14th October 2007’ he’d been out celebrating with friends, met up with some basketball playing pals outside, which included the boys in the downstairs apartment of the cottage, Knox approached, whom he had seen before at Patrick’s bar, Le Chic, to say ‘Hi, I’m Amanda from Seattle’, the boys made off towards home, together with Guede.  Knox went into her apartment on the upper level whilst the boys went downstairs and lit up a joint.  Knox came down to join them, and then Meredith later.  This was the first time she met Guede.  Guede relates Meredith had just one toke on the joint and then said she was off to bed, Knox followed shortly after.

Rudy and Meredith

The next time Guede saw Meredith was at a pub called ‘The Shamrock’ where the World Cup Rugby Final between England and South Africa was being played.  This took place 20 Oct 2007.  Witnesses confirm that both Meredith and Guede were present, within groups of friends.  Guede claims to have struck up a banter with Meredith, but there are no witnesses to this and Meredith never mentioned it to her friends if it happened.   On Sunday, Guede went by the cottage to watch the Formula One final after seventeen events.  This took place 21 Oct 2007.  If Guede had struck up a friendship with Meredith, he made no attempt to pop his head around the door to say hello.  Laura Mezzetti, one of the roommates upstairs did witness Guede there, when she came down to ‘buy a smoke for €5’.

Guede then claims to have asked Meredith for a date on the night of Halloween on 31 October 2007 at the Domus nightclub, again there were no witnesses to this and Meredith never mentioned it to anyone.  Both were at the packed night spot. He gives this as the reason he approached the cottage the next evening, 1st Nov 2007, claiming Meredith let him in.  He had a drink from the fridge whilst Meredith went to her room.  He claims he heard her cursing Amanda, as her money was missing; she showed him her drawer where she had kept it; he calmed her down; they searched the cottage together and, after chatting about their families; they began canoodling.  They had no condoms so it went no further.

Guede’s version of the murder

As Meredith had not been home when he first arrived circa 20:20 pm, he had gone to see his friend Alex and then went to buy a kebab whilst he waited.  Because of the effects of the kebab, Guede claimed that whilst at the cottage, he had to rush to the bathroom and whilst there, the doorbell rang, Meredith who had been on her way to her room, answered the door and Guede heard Amanda’s voice with Meredith saying, ‘We need to talk’ and Amanda reply, ‘What’s happened?  What is the problem?’

Guede put on his earphones to listen to loud music for ten minutes when he heard a loud scream, ran out, the light was now off, ‘to my astonishment’, saw the figure of a man standing on the threshold of Meredith’s room, who suddenly turned with a knife in his hand.  Guede backed off and grabbed a chair in self-defence, the man said, ‘Black man found, black man guilty’ and then ‘Let’s go!’ and ran off.  Guede administerd three towels to the dying girl before himself running off, because he heard a noise from downstairs that frightened him, he claimed.

He ran home via Plaza Grimana direction, changed and washed his jogging pants, then went out nightclubbing.  Rudy in his formal interview said he left the cottage about 22:30.  He has thus been at the scene for about one and a half hours.

Guede flees

3 Nov 2007 he went to Milan via Modena and Bologna and after midnight he jumped on a random train, to avoid police seen at the station, an ended up in Duesseldorf in Germany.  Between then and 19th he stayed in barges and places along the Rhine.  Sixteen days.  Mancini his childhood friend had contacted him 12/13th November via the internet, unaware he was wanted, accusing him of ‘always running away’ and Guede replied, ‘You know why’, without elaborating.  His other old friend, Benedetti helping police, set up a Skype conversation with Guede, 19 Nov 2007,and persuaded him to return.  In the meantime German police caught him on a train without a ticket and on an Interpol warrant, held him in custody in Koblenz until 1 December 2007, whilst processing an extradition order.

Guede was brought back to Italy and subsequently interviewed by prosecutor Mignini 26 March 2008 and charged with the murder, in complicity with Knox and Sollecito.  Guede opted for a separate, ‘fast-track’ trial, which was closed, although we can discern what took place from the presiding Judge’s reasoning (Micheli) for the ‘guilty of aggravated murder’ verdict and the dismissal of the theft charge of the phones and credit cards.

Could Guede have been the Sole Killer?

The Missing Money:  Who first mentioned it?

It was Guede, and he brags about this fact of being first in his Prison Diary written in Koblenz up to 19 Nov 2007.

Who First Mentioned Knox and Sollecito at the scene?

Whilst Guede does refer to a mystery man holding a knife in the doorway of Meredith’s room in his presence, he does not actually name either Knox or Sollecito until his recorded interview with Mignini, March 2008.  We know he read the papers whilst on the run for he mentions to Benedetti in the Skype conversation he saw that Knox is accused of using the washing machine to clean Meredith’s clothes.

An alternate explanation is that he was applying ‘Prisoners Dilemma’, a situation when there are several perpetrators and each is dependent on the other/s to not ‘grass’ them up. Therefore, it is theorised, the best strategy is to say nothing.  Knox did not name him, he did not name Knox.  Guede himself confirms he did not know Sollecito at all to name him.

Who First Mentioned Sollecito and Knox together at the scene with Guede, and when?

A witness, Kokomani did come forward to say he had seen the three together outside the cottage prior to the murder, and police have corroborated he was in the region because of pings from his phone and his account of seeing a dark car, also seen by a separate car mechanic witness.  However, his testimony was dismissed by Micheli as ‘ravings’.  It appears that what holds the three together is circumstantial evidence as constructed by the forensic police (DNA, luminol, bathmat footprint), the inactivity of Knox & Sollecito’s phones in advance of the crime and for the rest of the night, their false alibis and inability to ‘remember’ what they did that evening, together with the apparent staged scene of the burglary, clean up and repositioned body.

The case against Guede 

When comparing Guede’s original account with his later recorded interview, it is safe to note that much of what he says is:

  • To try to establish justification for being at the cottage at all. To do this, he claims to have made a date with Meredith the night before.  However, when he made a date with a Latvian girl in a similar circumstance, they wanted to swap telephone numbers, with Guede having to memorise hers as he did not have a phone at the time.  He does not say this for Meredith.
  • To try to justify his DNA being on Meredith’s body, he precludes this by claiming the contact was consensual. In his conversation with Benedetti he expresses he knows none of his sperm will be found.  In his Prison Diary he makes no mention at all of Meredith talking about her mother being ill.  Micheli points out that his later claim that Meredith spoke about her mother’s specific condition was already widely reported in the papers since 4 November 2007, by Meredith’s aunt.

Formula 1 and World Cup Rugby

  • He claims in his testimony the Formula 1 final race (21 Oct 2007) was BEFORE the Rugby World Cup (20 Oct 2007) – and Micheli does not pick up on this – to evade the fact he didn’t say hello to Meredith when he visited the cottage to watch the F1 race downstairs.  In his Prison Diary he claims Meredith told him she had ‘someone special’ back home, implying she was free in Italy.  However, we know Meredith was in an exciting new relationship with Silenzi, from downstairs, so would not have made herself easily available.  None of the British girls corroborated Guede’s claim to have made friends with Meredith.
  • Guede in both his original Prison Diary  account and in the Leosini tv interview in Jan 2016, expresses disapproval of Meredith cursing out Knox over the missing rent money.  In the interview he becomes quite agitated.  Thus, Guede takes Knox’ side in this dispute and is not a friend of Meredith’s.
  • To try to justify running away without calling for help for Meredith, despite his claim it was ‘another man’ who did the killing, Guede says he was worried he would be blamed because he was Black and because the man said so, before running off. He claims he was frightened off by ‘a noise downstairs’.
  • Most incriminating of all is the description of the blood. Micheli found as a fact that Meredith was stabbed in the neck and then immediately fell backwards into a supine position because (a) of a bruise on the back of her neck indicating a violent jolt, (b) because there is no spray of blood on the desk where one would expect it to be and (c) it was a logical position by which to carry out the sexual assault by Guede.  Her left hand was restrained.  Dr Arpile an expert witness said this was a characteristic of a sexual attack.
  • In his Prison Diary in Koblenz he recalls the stabbing of Meredith was being like the time he was whacked over the head with a stick by his father and blood spurted out of his head ‘like a fountain’. This suggests he may have witnessed the ‘fountain of blood’ spurting from Meredith?
  • In his Prison Diary Guede makes much of the sheer volume of blood.  He sees blood everywhere, and sees nothing but ‘red’ when he closes his eyes to sleep.  Massei in the later trial of Knox and Sollecito, does not agree with Micheli that she was stabbed whilst standing and then falling onto her back, and rules that Meredith was killed whilst forced into a kneeling position.  Where then, did the spray of blood go, when the knife was pulled out, if there is none to be seen on the furnishings and upholstery?  Garofano in Darkness Descending offers his expert forensic opinion that the blood surge would have gone all over the person who withdrew the knife.
  • Guede by his own account relates that his pants were ‘soaking wet’ and he’d had to cover them up with his sweatshirt as he ran home fleeing the scene.
  • Guede states that on his way out, none of the windows were broken and Meredith was full dressed. The broken window and condition of the body were all widely reported so it could be argued that Guede states everything was intact when he left as a self-serving narrative to preclude himself as the culprit.

Micheli’s Fact Finding

Micheli ruled that Guede’s claim to have struck up a first date with Meredith was proven false and therefore it was not Meredith who let him into the cottage.  As Meredith was in a new relationship and no-one could corroborate any date with Guede, she did not consent to any sexual activity with him.   In addition, Knox would not need to ring the doorbell as she had a key and in any case, had Meredith locked the door from the inside, she would have in effect locked Guede in for the night, not to mention locking out Knox.  Therefore, as the burglary was staged – clothes rummaged first and then window broken, bits of paper from the burglary on top of the duvet on top of the body – then it must have been Knox who let him in.

Micheli directs that it is a legal fact that Guede did not wield the knife based on submissions by the prosecutor and that the crime was in complicity with the others.  This was due to the fact that even if Guede only intended a sexual assault, he became culpable of murder ‘as soon as the knives were produced’.

Micheli legally acquitted  Guede of the theft of the phones as he ruled that they were taken ‘to cause their sudden removal’ and not for lucrative gain.  He ruled that the autocall to Meredith’s bank Abbey National logged at circa 22:11 was due to the phone falling from her person to the floor due to her wanting urgent contact with her sick mother, and indeed, there does appear to be an outline in blood in the shape of a phone.

Micheli ruled that Guede did not go through Meredith’s bag as his DNA (which was scant at the scene) was midway on the clasp at the top of the bag, indicating Guede had gripped it to lift and move it, as there is no DNA or blood stains inside it.  In addition, there were multiple differing footprints of sundry persons at the murder scene, as highlighted by luminol, a forensic instrument to make visible invisible blood which had been cleaned up.

  • Complicity: “Above all if the certain facts include the consequent outline of that supposed ‘unknown’ (the presence of the three at the scene of the crime) they are abundant, and all abundantly proven”. – Micheli


The March 2015 Fifth Chambers Ruling acquitting Knox and Sollecito

This merely stated that the pair were acquitted because of ‘insufficient evidence’, not because they were ‘innocent’.

It confirmed that Knox,certainly, and Sollecito, ‘almost certainly’, were present at the murder scene, Knox did wash off the victim’s blood from her hands and did cover up for Guede.  It stated that the pair told ‘umpteen lies’ and that their behaviour remains ‘highly suspicious’.

So does Guede have a case, based on the final definitive facts, as set out, above?

We shall see.


%d bloggers like this: