This is a list of some of the lies, mistakes, distortions, half-truths, false evidence, suppressed evidence, innuendos, prejudicial stories, smears etc. that were told by the prosecution, police and press (in many cases the police leaked half-truths that were then published by newspapers). The sheer quantity of lies to be disproved must have been a huge burden on the defence, and the many lies probably created a prejudicial atmosphere in the first trial, with unsequestered lay judges. Anyone reading the newspapers in late 2007 must have gained a highly prejudicial impression of the evidence.
To this day the tsunami of lies that were published makes it hard to dispel the prejudice that was created.
Disclaimer: I assembled this list in a fairly short space of time, so obviously I have probably got some things not quite right. The intention is to characterise the sheer quantity of lies and how damaging they were, rather than absolute accuracy.
Note: there is a separate page for physical evidence that was destroyed or suppressed.
Contents
1. Crucial lies/mistakes on which the whole case turns ( 7 items )
2. Other lies / mistakes ( 35 items )
3. Smears / innuendos / half-truths ( 20 items )
1. Crucial lies/mistakes on which the whole case turns
Stomach emptying does not start till the third or fourth hour after eating
This is a very serious mistake in Massei.
The truth: stomach emptying for a solid meal typically starts after 30-80 minutes. ( Note:this is a complex area, see reference )
Reference: Empty-Duodenum
Amount of DNA on the knife blade
Patrizia Stefanoni claimed the amount of DNA on the knife blade was “in the order of some hundreds of picograms”. She claimed quantification had been performed by real-time PCR, which was untrue ( see C-V report – Knife quantification ).
The truth: A test was performed with a Qubit Fluorometer which was negative (no DNA). Two other previous tests for blood were also negative. Cytological tests that should have been performed were not. The test results after PCR (very low RFU), and a failure to perform negative control tests or implement adequate measures to prevent contamination, suggest contamination occurred from previous tests of Meredith’s DNA, that is Meredith’s DNA was not on the knife blade.
Reference: DNA-analysis
Only Meredith and Raffaele’s DNA was on the bra clasp
Patrizia Stefanoni claimed that the DNA on the bra clasp was only from Meredith and Raffaele.
The truth : there were at least 2 other male contributors, strongly suggesting contamination.
Reference: Bra-clasp-results
The footprints were not tested with TMB
Stefanoni claimed that a second blood test on the luminol footprints was not performed. Later, under pressure from defense lawyers, she provided documents showing that a second test was performed, and it was negative for blood in every case.
Reference: Note 1
The footprints detected by luminol might have been blood even though they tested negative to TMB
Another very serious mistake in Massei.
The truth: TMB is very sensitive, and can detect blood from only five red blood cells. Hellmann is particularly scathing about this.
Reference: Note 11
Rudy’s foot was too large to make the impression on the bath mat
Rinaldi overstated one dimension of the size of Guede’s foot creating the false impression that it was too big to have made the print on the mat.
Reference: IIP Hellmann Report ( “In light of the different dimensional evaluation of the latter..” )
Amanda and Raffaele were in Piazza Grimana on the night of the murder
This would disprove their alibi that they were at Raffaele’s all evening.
The truth: Witness Curatolo mistook the day.
Reference: Curatolo
2. Other lies / mistakes
Amanda sent a text to Lumumba saying “ci saremmo visti subito” or “ci vediamo”
According to the 1st and 2nd statements typed by the police and later signed (without reading) by Amanda.
In English, “we would see each other at once” or “see you”.
The truth: The full message was “Certo. Ci vediamo più tardi. Buona serata!”, meaning “Sure. See you later. Good evening!”.
Reference: See you later
Caught on Camera
It was alleged that Amanda was caught on camera at the cottage on the night Meredith was murdered.
The truth: the (very indistinct) figure was probably Meredith herself, not Amanda. See Note 24.
Example: Daily Mail 12 November 2007
Meredith’s phone was at the cottage at 22:13
Another serious mistake in Massei.
The truth: it’s quite unlikely the phone was at the cottage.
Reference: Massei analysis
Amanda was not at Raffaele’s at 20:18
Another mistake in Massei.
The truth: the signal for the call is strong at Raffaele’s house.
Reference: Massei analysis
Stefanoni lied that the investigator changed gloves immediately before handling the bra clasp
Stefanoni stressed that the investigator, immediately before having touched said hooks, changed his protective gloves Note 7.
The truth : the glove was visibly dirty.
Reference: Youtube bra collection ( Note the close-up at 3 minutes showing dirt on the glove )
Amanda’s shoe-print was found on the Meredith’s pillowcase
Rinaldi found this print too small to be Rudy’s ( Note 4 ).
The truth: the footprint was Rudy’s, as shown by Vinci ( Note5 ) and conceded by Massei ( Note 6 ).
A bloody footprint found near the body was Raffaele’s
This was a finding by judge Matteini and the main justification for holding Raffaele.
The truth: the footprint was conclusively shown to be Rudy’s.
Example: Daily Mail 2 November 2007
Reference: Note 3
A bloody footprint was found in Amanda’s bedroom
The truth: no such footprint was found.
Example: Daily Mail 11 January 2008
Raffaele called 112 after the postal police arrived
The truth: this was false (as found by Massei), but the prosecution were still arguing it even during the final stages of the appeal.
Reference: Hellmann report “There has been much discussion on whether the call to 112 happened before or after the arrival of the Police…”
Battistelli lied about the time he arrived at the cottage
In order to support the prosecution case that Raffaele called 112 after he arrived.
The truth: records proved that Battistelli was lying.
Reference: Note 19, and item above “Raffaele called 112 after the postal police arrived”.
Amanda or Raffaele bought bleach on the morning after the murder
and there were receipts that proved this.
The truth: An unnamed police source told Richard Owen of the UK Times that they found receipts showing the purchase of bleach on the morning after the murder, and he went with the story, but no such receipts exist.
References: IIP bleach receipts Times Online 19 November 2007 (google news search)
According to these two articles in the la repubblica the bleach receipts were in (Meredith, svolta sul quarto uomo pronto un altro ordine di arresto) and out (Giallo Perugia, in casa di Sollecito nessuno scontrino del 2 novembre) of the news on November 18th.
Amanda called Rudy Guede
“Investigators say Mr Guede left Perugia on the morning after the murder and went to Milan, where he was stopped by police but not detained. Detectives locked on to his mobile phone signal in Milan as recently as this weekend, but it then went dead. Amanda Knox made at least two calls to his number, one of them at 11am on 2 November, around the time police discovered Kercher’s body.”
The truth: Amanda never called Rudy. She didn’t even know his name, didn’t have his number and Rudy didn’t even have a mobile phone.
Reference: Independent 20 November 2007
Amanda and Raffaele washed their bloody clothes in the washing machine
The truth : Meredith’s clothes were in the machine.
Sources: Perugia shock via IIP IIP Myths
Amanda disposed of her sweatshirt
The truth: it was found clean, in her room on the bed ( amanda_clothes.jpg ).
Source: Perugia shock via IIP
Amanda gave herself away by revealing a murder detail only the killer would know
The truth : she didn’t. She had learnt that Meredith had been stabbed from Raffaele, who in turn had learnt from Luca Altieri. Note 13 and Note 14.
Examples: Daily Mail 23 December 2007 “Amanda Knox, 20, told friends of Miss Kercher that she died slowly from a stab wound to the neck.”
Battistelli lied about not looking under the duvet when Meredith’s door was broken down
The truth: he did look under the duvet as Luca Altieri testified. This lie is related to the one above – the prosecution wanted to show that Amanda shouldn’t have known what had happened, but Luca Altieri, Marco Zaroli and Paula Grande set things straight.
References: Note 20 and Note 21
Amanda’s print was on Meredith’s face
The truth: it wasn’t.
Reference: Telegraph 2 Nov 2007 (google search) “The arrest warrant for Amanda Knox, 20, discloses that her print was discovered on the face of Meredith Kercher, who was found in her bed …”
Amanda’s bloody fingerprint was found on a tap in the bathroom
The truth: no such fingerprint was found. This fingerprint map shows only a single print of Amanda’s was found, on a glass in the kitchen.
Reference: BBC 27 November 2007
Amanda attempted to clean up her finger prints from the crime scene
The truth : there was no evidence of this, according to the prosecutions expert witness, Giuseppe Privitera. Also see map above.
Reference: IIP Myths
Investigators found blood belonging to both Amanda and Meredith mixed together in the bathroom
The truth: traces of blood containing the DNA of Amanda and Meredith were found. This is not surprising as Amanda would naturally leave traces of DNA in her own bathroom ( saliva from brushing teeth, or skin from washing ). Amanda’s DNA could have been added to Meredith’s blood either before or after the murder ( since she cleaned her teeth in the bathroom the morning after the murder ).
Example: CNN 28 Oct 2008
Harry Potter book falsified Amanda’s alibi
Part of Amanda’s alibi was that she read a Harry Potter book (German edition) at Raffaele’s on the night of the murder.
It was reported (by a police leak) that the book was found at the cottage, casting doubt on her story.
The truth: Amanda had bought two copies, one was found at the cottage, the other at Raffaele’s as a police video shows.
Example: Komo news 19 Dec 2007
Reference: Youtube
Raffaele said that Amanda went out on the night of the murder
The truth: he only said that he may not have known if she left and came back because he was asleep.
Reference: The interrogation
Amanda lied repeatedly and kept changing her story
The truth: she was put under pressure and manipulated into trying to recall non-existent memories that she was at the cottage when the murder happened. She always stressed that these were dream-like memories (unrelated images) that didn’t seem real. Leading and loaded questions were used to distort her non-existent memories. The only way in which here story ever changed is that she withdrew the statement that the police manipulated her into signing.
Reference: The interrogation
Amanda was a compulsive liar
The truth: she never told a single lie ( that is a statement she knew to be untrue ).
Reference : Daily Mail 11 Nov 2007
Amanda knew that Patrick was innocent when she implicated him
This is a mistake in Hellmann, needed to justify the callunia charge.
The truth: she had no way to know that Patrick was innocent, and at that moment genuinely thought it possible. She had been confused into doubting her own memory by the police assuring her that she was at the cottage that night. See Note 15 and Note 16. This is part of the complex topic of the interrogation.
Amanda didn’t tell the police when she remembered she was not there
The truth : she told her lawyers, who passed this on to Mignini. See Note 17
Amanda said Raffaele might have killed Meredith
The truth: She stressed that she didn’t believe this. The quote omitted the vital “well, I just highly doubt all of that”. See Myth-Knife .
Reference: Daily Mail 2 Dec 2007 “But I think it’s possible that Raffaele went to Meredith’s house, raped her, then killed her, and then when he got home, while I was sleeping, he put my fingerprints on the knife.”
Amanda said she was at the cottage in a bugged conversation
The truth : she said “I was there”, and was referring to Raffaele’s place, not the cottage.
Reference: See Note 25 and Note 26.
There were no traces of a break-in
The truth: Filomena’s window was broken.
Reference: The Sun 5 Dec 2007 “Kercher family attorney Francesco Maresca called the panel’s explanation “a well-reasoned ruling that puts Amanda in the leading position in the murder. The lawyer, who had a copy of the panel’s explanation, said the judges had reasoned that Kercher was killed by someone she knew since there were no traces of a break-in.”
Raffaele was depressed / unstable
The prosecution tried to show that Raffaele was depressed (and hence mentally unstable) at the time of the murder. An entry from Raffaele’s blog dated 13 October 2006 where he said he had strong emotions about the death of his mother was shown to judge Matteini, but the year was omitted, so Matteini thought it was in the days before the murder.
Reference: Perugia Shock
Amanda was seen with Raffaele and Rudy and threatened a man with knife on October 31st
The truth: Kokomani’s testimony fell apart in court. He claimed to have met Amanda in July 2007, before Amanda ever went to Italy.
Example : Nick Pisa Daily Mail 24 January 2008:
Amanda, Raffaele, Rudy and Meredith were seen coming out of the cottage on October 30th
This was another failed attempt to show Raffaele and Rudy knew each other.
The truth: Fabio Giuffredi’s testimony fell apart in court. Raffaele’s computer showed he was using his computer at the time.
Amanda was at a shop at early in the morning of November 2nd
This would contradict Amanda’s account, and was used by the prosecution to suggest she bought cleaning materials that morning to clean up the crime scene.
The truth: The sighting is not reliable.
Reference: Hellmann report : Quintavalle
Amanda met a secret Argentinian boyfriend and went to the Laundromat to wash a pile of clothes, including a pair of blue Nike sneakers
This appeared in a newspaper article, and caused Raffaele to doubt Amanda.
The truth: she didn’t.
Reference: Honor Bound, Loc 1276
The washing machine was warm when the murder was discovered
Implying that the washing machine had been used to dispose of bloody evidence ( alleged testimony of Filomena ).
The truth: the Italian word for “damp” ( “umido” ) was mis-construed, FIlomena only intended to say the clothes in the machine were damp.
Reference: The Guardian, 8 February 2009 and also Note 30
3. Smears / innuendos / half-truths
Foxy Knoxy
This is an innuendo, intended to smear Amanda’s character. In court, it turned out that this had gone one stage further, with this being translated to “Evil Fox” in Italian in official court documents (Source:Amanda testimony). The truth : this was a nickname for her when she played soccer as a young child, aged 11.
Example: Daily Mail 22 November 2007 “Knox, who styles herself Foxy Knoxy”.
The picture of Amanda behind a machine gun
A crude smear, intended to convey the impression that Amanda was a violent person.
The truth: this was on a visit to a military museum.
The picture of Raffaele with a meat cleaver
A crude smear, intended to suggest that Raffaele was a violent person.
The truth: this was a Halloween costume.
The picture of Raffaele kissing Amanda outside the cottage
This picture was widely used to suggest Amanda and Raffaele were indifferent to the murder.
The truth: Amanda was very shocked and upset, the kiss was to comfort her, and not sexual.
Reference: Youtube : the kiss
Amanda wrote stories about rape
A crude half-truth.
The truth: this was a college assignment. The story was only indirectly about rape, and in fact she failed the assignment because her story was not graphic enough. In addition, the story was mis-represented by John Follain, see Note 23
Example: Telegraph 7 November 2007
Raffaele admired the Monster of Foligno
The truth : Raffaele was obviously being sarcastic. See Note 28 and Note 29.
Amanda is a witch, the murder should have been one day earlier on Halloween but was postponed
The truth: Mignini is crazy.
Reference: Note 12
Amanda had a private jet waiting to fly her home
The truth: Amanda’s family had to re-mortgage their homes to help her defend herself.
Example: Daily Mail 30 September 2011
Amanda bought sexy lingerie the day after the murder
and was overheard looking forward to a night of “wild sex”. Another smear on her character.
The truth: Amanda didn’t have any underwear since the cottage was sealed off, so she needed to buy some. She bought a “Tanga” which is a normal piece of underwear. The shop-keeper (who was paid a large sum of money for the interview) didn’t speak English, so couldn’t have known what was said.
Example: Express 24 November 2007
Amanda had sex on a train with a stranger
The truth: She didn’t. She wrote on her MySpace page “met a guy named frederico on the train to florence from milan, and we ended up hanging out together in florence, where he bought both deanna and i dinner and then, when deanna went to bed, we smoked up together, my first time in italy”. Frederico is not in her list of sexual partners.
Example: Daily Mail 3 December 2007
Amanda was arrested at a wild party
The truth: she was given a fine which her friends helped her pay, but not arrested. The party probably did get a bit wild, it was her party, but she wasn’t involved in the wild behavior ( throwing rocks on the road ), she just took responsibility for it. See Note 27.
Example: Daily Mail 3 December 2007
Amanda cultivated cannabis plants around the apartment
The truth: the cannabis plants were grown downstairs by the young men living there. Meredith’s boyfriend Giacomo asked Meredith to look after the plants while he was away.
Example: Daily Mail 3 December 2007
Reference: Note 2
Amanda and Raffaele were callous to not attend the memorial service for Meredith
This does not seem to have been published in the mainstream press, but it quite often crops up in online comments.
The truth : they were told by the police to keep away from reporters and not to talk to the press ( Note 8). Since the memorial was a vigil on the steps of the cathedral, it would have been hard to avoid reporters. See also Note 9.
Example: maundygregory blog
Amanda and Raffaele were buying sexy lingerie during the memorial service
This is from Barbie Nadeau’s book.
The truth: the memorial was on 5th November, Amanda bought the “Tanga” on then evening of 3rd November.
Reference: Note 10
Manga comics feature extreme violence and rape
Raffaele was interested in Manga and had a collection of comics, so this was used to attack his character.
The truth: some Manga comics are sexually explicit, but this is a crude characterisation. The Manga video “Naruto” that was played the evening of the murder has no sexual content, and is no more violent than a “Superman” comic or a “Tom and Jerry” cartoon.
References: Manga Wiki Telegraph 2 October 2011
Amanda did cartwheels at the police station
The truth: there was no space to do cartwheels. A male police officer asked her if she could do the splits and she complied.
There is still some confusion about what actually happened, but if she did do cartwheels, it was at the suggestion of the police.
References: The interrogation Daily Telegraph 27 February 2009
Amanda took a shower in a bathroom covered in blood
The truth: the pictures show the bathroom after a chemical had been applied to look for traces of blood. The actual amount of blood was tiny, apart from the indistinct shape on the bath mat.
Example: Daily Mail 16 January 2008
Amanda’s sexual partners
This was a smear, designed to prejudice Italians against Amanda. While Amanda was held in jail, she was falsely told she had tested HIV positive. This caused her to write a list of her 7 lifetime sexual partners in her diary ( three from her time in Italy ), which was then leaked to the press.
Patrick Lumumba fired Amanda
Patrick Lumumba claimed he fired Amanda for “hitting on customers”.
The truth: Patrick never fired Amanda, as evidenced by his text asking her not to come in on the night of the murder.
Reference: Daily Mail 25 November 2007
Amanda never apologised to Patrick
This was alleged by Patrick after the verdict ( Daily Mail 11 October 2011 ).
The truth : she apologised in court, see Note 18 and Note 22 .
Post acquittal lies
Even after Amanda and Raffaele were freed, false stories continue to circulate.
Reference: ABC news
Notes
[1] Massei Report, Page 256/257 [274]
<< With respect to the Luminol-positive traces found in Romanelli’s room, in Knox’s room and in the corridor, she [Dr Gino] stated that by analysing the SAL cards “we learn, in contradiction to what was presented in the technical report deposited by the Scientific Police, and also to what was said in Court, that not only was the Luminol test performed on these traces, but also the generic diagnosis for the presence of blood, using tetramethylbenzidine…and this test…gave a negative result on all the items of evidence from which it was possible to obtain a genetic profile >>
[2] Massei Report, Page 37
<< Amy Frost[…] Meredith had reported to her with a certain concern that the boys who were downstairs had asked her to water their cannabis plants and had moreover given her the keys to the apartment; she knew that perhaps she had “smoked on one occasion”.[…]
Sophie Purton[…] She remembered that on the afternoon of October 31 Meredith had sent her an SMS in which she said she was going into the apartment of the boys downstairs to water the cannabis plants. >>
[3] Massei Report, Page 334
<< Given the results of the investigations, the Rinaldi-Boemia report overturned the conclusion of the prior expert witness Ippolito. Where in the course of investigations the shoe sole of Exhibit 5A had been attributed to the footwear of Sollecito (namely the left shoe of the size 9 Nike ‚ “Air Force 1” model used by the accused), the new examination concluded that there was a correspondence of the 5A print with the size 11‚ “NIKE OUTBREAK 2” model that was certainly worn by Rudy Guede, given that in the Ivory Coast national’s [=Guede’s] apartment a box corresponding to said shoe model was found.>>
[4] Massei report, Page 336
<< Rinaldi[…] (Meredith’s pillow) […] Based on the small size of the heel and the reduced dimensions [overall], it was held to be a woman’s shoe print, of a size between 36 and 38. In any case, it is a shoe much smaller than that attributed to Rudy Hermann Guede >>
[5] Massei report, Page 343
<< [Professor] Vinci’s report arrived at a completely different conclusion from that of Forensics. Comparing the sole of the right shoe of Guede’s Nike Outbreak model 2s with the enlargement of the 105 print found on Meredith’s pillow (cf. tables of the technical report), the expert witness reconciles imprint 105 with the pattern on the sole of Guede’s right shoe. >>
See also IIP
[6] Massei report, Page 344
<< It cannot in fact be excluded that Guede alone tread on the cushion lying on the floor.. >>
[7] Massei page 204 [213]
<< Stefanoni [..] Returning to the examination of the piece of bra, she confirmed that the investigator who was shedding light on it had also touched the hooks which were on that piece of bra. She stressed that the investigator, immediately before having touched said hooks, changed his protective gloves ‚both he and I were going in, let’s say, in the room, for the sole purpose, at this stage, to look for the clasp. So we had just changed, and he was looking for where it could be, with the flashlight so he was looking, let’s say, more attentively‛. (Pages 162 and 163, where acknowledgement is made of the agreement by all parties and of the consequent certified provision to acquire Dr. Stefanoni’s deposition given in the preliminary hearing).
She added that one could not see the gloves being changed in the video footage because the purpose of the video was to document the technical activities and not the instrument handling processes such as the changing of gloves. She confirmed, therefore, that before having touched the clasp with those gloves, the gloves had not touched any other objects, since they had just been put on.>>
[8] Amanda’s email 4 Nov 2007 ( 03:24 )
<< [..][ Before I go on, I would like to say that I was strictly told not to speak about this, but I’m speaking with you people who are not involved and who cant do anything bad except talk to journalists, which I hope you wont do. [..] >>
[9] The precise timeline for events on November 5th is hard to determine with certainty, there are conflicting accounts. The memorial service was organised by students on the steps of the cathedral, and in fact appears to have been a “vigil” not a service. It’s not clear when it began or how long it went on for. Nadeau (note 10) says it began at 5pm (but she was confused about the day – so this can hardly be considered reliable). However there were reports that the police called them to the questura because they were eating pizza and not at the vigil, but unless the vigil started much earlier, this is untrue, because they were eating at 3pm. It’s not even clear whether Amanda and Raffaele knew about the memorial service. If the vigil was of extended duration ( which is after all what a vigil means ), then it’s hard to see how Amanda and Raffaele could have fitted it in with their multiple trips to the police station for questioning.
Timeline for Amanda and Raffaele Nov 5 2007:
09:00 Amanda attends her 9am Italian class at the University for Foreigners.
13:00 After class Amanda met Patrick in front of the Universita per Stranieri.
14:00 Rosa Natalia Guman Fernendez de Calle, RS’ cleaning lady, cleans Raffaele’s apartment for the last time. Raffaele and Amanda were there.
15:00 Raffaele picked up ( according to news report wctv news : << Police picked up Raffaele Sollecito for questioning, three days after Kercher’s body was discovered. Police located Sollecito at a cafe. It was three in the afternoon and Sollecito was eating a pizza. But Sollecito wasn’t alone. Amanda Knox was also sharing the pizza >> But in fact, although they were sighted, it seems Raffaele may have been called in a little later.
17:00 (?) “the late afternoon of 5 November when Raffaele and Amanda went to the police station” (Massei 310 [332])
17:00 Sunset in Perugia – students start to gather on steps of cathedral for vigil (?)
“A picture taken on Monday night November, 5 2007 shows a tribute from Meredith Kercher’s friends in Perugia who held held a candlelight vigil on the steps of the town’s cathedral.” M&C news
22:15 Raffaele and Amanda at the questura again.
<< [..] The following excerpt [from “Angel Face”] describes Amanda Knox’s behavior [..] At 5 p.m., Meredith’s friends began gathering in Piazza IV Novembre on the steps of the duomo for a memorial. A giant color poster of her smiling face had been erected, and red votive candles glowed on the church steps, lighting the late afternoon sky. Amanda and Raffaele did not go to the vigil. Instead, they waited until it was over before visiting a boutique near the duomo to buy underwear for Amanda.>>
[11] Hellmann Report
<< The ruling [Massei] thus concluded that the footprints had necessarily been left in Meredith’s blood, trodden on by Knox in the murder room and then transported by her into the other parts of the house.
The belief of the first-level Court has been contested by Knox’s defense and faces insurmountable contradictions, both logical and factual.
First and foremost, the certain, true fact is that the generic blood test gave a negative result. According to the [first] Court this happened because of the scarcity of the available biological material, but the consultant for the defense, Professor Tagliabracci, specified, without being refuted (hearing of July 18 2009, p. 174), that the tetramethylbenzedine (TMB) test is very sensitive, so much as to give a positive result even with only five red blood cells present. Dr. Stefanoni herself, moreover, clarified (preliminary hearing of October 4 2008) that, while a positive test result could be deceptive due to reactivity of the chemical [evidenziatore] with other substances, a negative result gives certainty that no blood is present.
>>
<< Mignini always included witch fear in his murder theory, and only reluctantly relinquished it. As late as October 2008, a year after the murder, he told a court that the murder “was premeditated and was in addition a ‘rite’ celebrated on the occasion of the night of Halloween. A sexual and sacrificial rite [that] in the intention of the organizers … should have occurred 24 hours earlier” — on Halloween itself — “but on account of a dinner at the house of horrors, organized by Meredith and Amanda’s Italian flatmates, it was postponed for one day. >>
[13] John Follain – Death in Perugia (pg. 77/78)
<< Shortly after 3 p.m., Napoleoni asked Meredith’s flatmates and their boyfriends to go to the police station for questioning. She asked Luca to drive Amanda and Raffaele there. As they skirted the city centre, Raffaele asked Luca bluntly: ‘Is she dead?’
‘Yes,’ Luca said. He was surprised that Raffaele hadn’t worked it out for himself. It seemed obvious to him given that the forensic police were there, that no ambulance had come to take anyone away.
‘How did the girl die?’ Raffaele then asked.
‘Well, from what I heard they cut her throat,’ Luca said.
‘But with a knife?’ Raffaele asked again.
Luca, irritated by the question, replied curtly: ‘Yes.’ Luca thought to himself: ‘What did Raffaele think? That Meredith’s throat had been cut with a piece of bread?’ It had to be a sharp weapon, a knife or a sword or something.
He thought that perhaps Raffaele was in shock, and that was why he was asking stupid questions.
Amanda, head bowed, made a brief sound as if she was crying.
They drove the rest of the way in silence. >>
[14] Amanda’s testimony
<< GHIRGA: And you got into the car of Filomena’s two friends, Paola and…?
AK: Yes, it was really really cold. First, Raffaele gave me his jacket, but then the others saw that I was cold, really in shock, so they said come, come, let’s get in the car and get warm. And inside that car, we talked more about…we kept on saying “But what did you see? Who was there?” So in the car, heh, still using
Raffaele a bit like an interpreter, they explained to me that they heard from someone, from someone else, from one of the officers who were talking, that she…
GHIRGA: Meredith
AK: …that Meredith had had her throat slit, and at that point I became a bit…uh [sigh]…I closed myself off a bit inside…I cried a bit because I kept thinking but…how is it possible? No…[slight laugh], it was too much, so [sigh, voice trembling], and then, we went to the Questura. >>
[15] Amanda’s handwritten statement to police on November 6, 2007 (she is still confused)
<< I have been told there is hard evidence saying that I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened. This, I want to confirm, is something that to me, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible. [..] However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I’ve said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked. [..] The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith’s murder. I don’t know what proof they are talking about, but if this is true, it means I am very confused and my dreams must be real. [..]
And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele’s house. >>
[16] Amanda’s testimony <<
MARESCA: In the days spent at the Questura — later we’ll look at them one by one in order — did you ever think that Patrick Lumumba might be guilty?
AK: Before I was interrogated on Nov 5th/6th, I never thought that.
MARESCA: So you thought it for the first time on the 5th and 6th?
AK: Yes, yes.
MARESCA: Then you changed your mind about his guilt.
AK: When? In the sense that on the 5th and 6th —
MARESCA: No, after the 5th and 6th.
AK: After the 5th and 6th —
MARESCA: On the 5th and 6th, you considered him guilty. When did you change?
AK: I imagined that he could be–
MARESCA: I’ll ask you later about imagination. Now tell me when you changed your mind about Patrick Lumumba.
AK: I changed my mind when I realized that my imaginings were not really memories, but just imagination.
MARESCA: When? When?
AK: The more time passed, the more I felt sure. But definitely, when I was in prison and alone in my cell, I had so much time to rethink about all the facts I remembered, and about the fact that I remembered not having been with him on that night. The more I thought, mamma mia, he’s probably innocent.
MARESCA: How many days later?
AK: How many days?
MARESCA: Weeks, days, hours, I don’t know. The question is: when?
AK: I already had a doubt when I was in the Questura. But I became completely sure when — at least I was completely sure that I had never been with him, so what everyone was thinking, that it was him, was only because I myself had said something, and that convinced me that he was innocent. But in the end, I just couldn’t know for sure. I could only know that what I myself had said was not the truth.
MARESCA: And when did this happen?
AK: When I was in prison, I guess, but I already had doubts–
MARESCA: But when in prison?
AK: –while I was in the Questura…
MARESCA: But when? Can you tell me? A few days later? A few weeks later?
AK: No, but even this feeling of doubt starting getting stronger, already on the very next day. As soon as I had time to get paper and try to remember things–
THE COURT: Okay, okay! Go ahead, avvocato.
[..]
PACELLI: On the 7th you wrote “I didn’t lie when I said the murderer might be Patrick.” Why did you write that in your memorandum of the 7th?
AK: Honestly, I thought, like the police had told me — the police had told me they had already found the guilty person. And they had suggested Patrick so much that I thought maybe it really was him. But apart from that, in that memorandum that I wrote in prison, the important thing for me was to tell what I knew, and what I knew was where I was on that evening.
>>
[17] Amanda trial testimony <<
MARESCA: And who did you talk with about this when you understood that it was a mistake?
AK: I wrote, and then when I could, I talked to my mom, and to my lawyers.
MARESCA: And why didn’t you ask your lawyers to tell the “Procura” or the pubblico ministero that it was a mistake?
AK: I told them about it, because I gave everything legal to them. I didn’t think of taking further legal steps by myself. My way of sending out into the world the things that I knew went through my lawyers. So I confided in them and gave them all the information that I could to help them. First I had tried doing that with the police, but they had put me in prison and didn’t trust me any more. So I talked to my lawyers and people who believed me.
>>
[18] Amanda statement Dec 11, 2010
<< Patrick? I don’t see you. But I’m sorry. I’m sorry because I didn’t mean to do wrong to do you. I was very naïve and not courageous at all; I should have been able to withstand the pressures that caused me to do harm to you. I didn’t mean to contribute to what you have suffered. You know what it means to have unjust accusations imposed on your skin. You didn’t deserve what you experienced and I hope you will be able to find peace. >>
[19] Massei, Page 27 [14].
<< Twice, Battistelli had had to get out of the car and walk along before finding the house, where he arrived with Assistant Marzi at a little after 12:30 pm, or so it seemed to the two policemen. >>
“Or so it seemed” is to try and smooth over the false testimony.
[20] Massei , Page 33 [20]
<< Inspector Battistelli has also ruled out having entered this room. On this point, Luca Altieri’s version differed: he declared that he had seen Battistelli going in there, right along the wall. >>
[21] From Injustice in Perugia: A Book Detailing the Wrongful Conviction of Amanda Knox
Luca Altieri testified he had seen Battistelli bend down to lift a duvet that was covering Meredith’s body.
Marco Zaroli also testified that Battistelli entered Meredith’s room,
Paula Grande did not see Battistelli enter, but testified that she witnessed the others talking about the officers actions. This was how everyone present knew that Meredith’s throat had been cut.
[22] Perugia Shock Friday, November 30, 2007 “Amanda e Raffaele Oggi in Centro”
<< Amanda si è presentata con i capelli raccolti in una treccia dietro la testa, proprio da educanda. Si è proclamata innocente e, per convincere il giudice del riesame, ha usato l’arma del talento, le lacrime. Ha sostenuto di essere stata, quella sera, a casa di Raffaele. Si è anche scusata con Patrick. La scena è stata bella ma non ha strappato l’applauso. Le hanno fatto problemi. Forse i giudici avevano ancora negli occhi l’altra scena, quella dell'”educanda” che seduceva il cocco di papà nel negozio di biancheria intima, qualche metro più in là. >>
English Translation: <<
Amanda showed up [at the hearing] with her hair gathered in a braid behind the head, really like a convent school girl. She declared herself innocent and, to convince the re-examination judge [a judge to appeal to after the GIP], has used the weapon of talent, the tears. She claimed she was, that evening, at Sollecito’s. She also apologized with Patrick. The scene was beautiful but didn’t elicit an applause. They made her problems. Maybe the judges had still in the eyes the other scene, the one of the “convent school girl” seducing the daddy boy in the lingerie shop, a few meters away. [The lingerie shop was in the centre of Perugia, physically near to the tribunal] >>
[23] John Follain, The Sunday Times June 15, 2008
Follain misrepresented the story, suggesting that it glorifies rape. In fact, the story is about the relationship between two brothers, one of whom accuses the other of drugging and raping a girl. This leads to a physical altercation between the brothers, described as follows: “Edgar dropped to the floor and tasted the blood in his mouth and swallowed it. He couldn’t move his jaw and it felt like someone was jabbing a razor into the left side of his face.”
Follain wrote: “She fell on the floor, she felt the blood on her mouth and swallowed it. She couldn’t move her jaw and felt as if someone was moving a razor on the left side of her face.”
The full story is available from e.g. http://patrishka.wordpress.com/2009/12/18/amanda-knox/.
[24] This is the image : Meredith-Garage-Camera.jpg (the figure is in the top right corner). Note the timestamp which is 20:51:36. The garage camera was slow by 10-12 minutes, which means this picture was actually taken at about 21:01 – 21:03 (and this fits perfectly with Meredith’s 7-8 minute walk after leaving Sophie at 20:55). For a long time the prosecution claimed the camera was fast ( which relates to the claims about the 112 call, but this was conclusively shown to be wrong ). Of course if the camera were fast, it still couldn’t be Amanda, because she has a rock-solid alibi for this time. See also IIP garage camera myths and this powerpoint meredith_arriving_home.ppt ( in Italian, but with more images ).
[25] Daily Mail 2 Dec 2007 << In one, revealed at her unsuccessful bail hearing on Friday, she said: “It’s stupid. I can’t say anything else. I was [at the flat]. I can’t say anything else, there is no reason to. >>
[26] Amanda testimony: <<
GHIRGA: All right, now I’ll pass to another subject, the recorded conversations of the 10th and the 17th of November. The dates aren’t important but it’s about two conversations in prison, the first one with your mother on Nov 10, we talked about it before, and the second on the 17th with your mother and your father, both. They were transcribed, they must be in the dossier of the GUP. In these conversations, on the 10th with your mother, on the 17th with your mother and your father, there is a sentence… [long pause, flipping pages]here it is: it’s the famous sentence “I was there. I can’t lie about this. I’m not scared of the truth.” Here it is, page 8, Presidente, of the transcription Nov 17. I repeat, she’s speaking with her parents, and she says: “It would be stupid to lie about this because I know I was there.” Do you remember that conversation?
AK: Of course.
GHIRGA: What did you mean by “I was there”.
AK: I was in Raffaele’s apartment and I wasn’t afraid [laughing] to say it.
GHIRGA: Excuse me, you should speak to the Presidente.
AK: Oh, I’m sorry. When I said “there”, I meant in Raffaele’s apartment.
GHIRGA: So when you said “there”, you meant “in Raffaele’s house”.
AK: Yes.>>
[27] Seattle police officer’s report AmandaTicket.pdf
<< I was on uniformed patrol in a marked unit as 3U5. At approximately 0028 hours, I responded to the report of a loud party at the listed location. The complainant relayed to dispatch that participants from the party were throwing rocks at his house and at passing cars. The complainant requested Officer not contact him. Upon arrival, I noted loud amplified music coming from the listed address. The music could be heard from a distance greater than 75 ft from the source. I also noted several rocks in the street. I did not locate any damage at that time. I contacted a party participant and had them retrieve a resident.
S1/Knox contacted me (in front of the house). She stated that she was one of the current residents. She stated that she was the one who was hosting the party (as she was moving out). She stated that she was not aware of any rock throwers at the gathering.
I issued S1/Knox this infraction for the noise violation and a warning for the rock throwing. I explained how dangerous and juvenile that action was.
See Cad event 264012 for further.
No further action taken at this time. >>
[28] Kate Mansey Sunday Mirror 27 January 2008
<<
Meredith suspect idolised serial killer
A prime suspect in the killing of British student Meredith Kercher bragged about idolising a notorious serial killer just days before her murder.
Italian Raffaele Sollecito used his online diary to praise the “Monster of Foligno”, a convict serving a life sentence for the murders of two young children.
The shocking discovery came as police this week scoured Sollecito’s computer for clues.
The 23-year-old student and his American girlfriend Amanda Knox are being held on suspicion of murdering and sexually assaulting Meredith, a fellow student in Perugia. He read about Luigi Chiatti when he found out he had also studied at the town’s ONAOSI college years before.
On October 13 – less than three weeks before Meredith was murdered – Sollecito wrote on his blog about previous students at the college.
“The one I admire the most is the Monster of Foligno,” he said. “I know there have been all sorts of salacious goings-on at the college but the one common denominator is depression.”
The IT student also wrote of his interest in “extreme experiences” and hinted at his depression, saying he felt he was “entering a dark tunnel without an exit”.
Chillingly, he also posted images of himself posing as a murderous butcher, clutching a bottle of bleach.
Sollecito’s solicitors took the site down after his arrest but police now think the computer could offer invaluable clues.
The Italian appeared in court on Monday to give prosecutors the password to his computer so they could gain access to its contents.
Sollecito, 20-year-old Knox and Rudy Hermann Guede, 20, from the Ivory Coast, are being held in Italy awaiting charges over the murder of Meredith on November 1 last year.
The 21-year-old exchange-year student, from Coulsdon, Surrey, was found in her bed with her throat cut after police believe she was raped.
- Luigi Chiatti became known as the Monster of Foligno after killing two young children in the town near Perugia.
After his arrest for the murder of Lorenzo Paolucci, 13, in 1993, he confessed to killing four-year-old Simone Allegretti a year before. Chiatti, 39, is serving a life sentence.
>>
[29] From a translation of the blog ( dated October 2006 not 2007, so actually over a year before the murder ), from PMF.org
<<
Indeed, once you start to study and follow ((attend)) lessons ((classes)), what else do you have to worry about?
Answer: the RECTOR! Damned ball-breakers ((as in testicles)), the rectors who rotate through college are thorns in your nuts. Yes, I am letting off steam, but it’s the truth …
They’re always telling you: Move your car, you can’t park here! You can’t have so much stuff in your room! You haven’t signed out before leaving, etc. This is obviously due to the difficulties of administration, but it creates an atmosphere of intolerance which leads to perpetual and conscious hatred. Every time the secretary tells you “move your car!”, or “your friend must present a document in order to enter the study rooms” and so many other examples, your chest swells up to curse, like a hot air balloon, and when you are barely out of range of the porter in reception, you let it rip, singing a long prayer about the catastrophes and apocalypses that will befall all the employees, the rector and other bosses, and their respective antecessors who shuffle by ((or some other movement verb – can’t find a translation for scandere / scandendoli)) one by one in descending order in relation to the time it takes to achieve the Holy Roman Empire … ((I didn’t quite get this, some Italian blogger smiled at RS’s irony in this line. Lost on me)). After you’ll surely be let-down a bit, but not completely …
All this atmosphere of calm constructiveness has actually produced some famous persons. Well, yes, a Zelig ((Italian TV show)) comic whose name I don’t remember was an Onaosino ((ex-student of a Onaosi college)), and also a Ferrari mechanical engineer was an Onaosino. But whom I proudly hold in most esteem of all of them is the Number 1 Onaosino … The Monster of Foligno! ((Luigi Chiatti, convicted serial killer)) He was an Onaosino too!
At this point I can only think that in that college, dogs and pigs coincided, and all with a common factor: “depression”. In fact, of these three characters, I met one (the engineer) and he lacked a woman (now I don’t know how he let it happen, but I don’t think being a Ferrari engineer is all that bad), while two guys ((couldn’t translate “conticini”)) found out that the comic was obsessed by relationships with the other sex, and as for the Monster of Foligno … well I don’t know, but I certainly wouldn’t consider him a normal person …
>>
Raffaele is letting off steam about the Onaosi college, using irony to have a go at them by pointing out that they produced some “famous” people – but they were not so wonderful!
[30] From Perugia Shock, Feb 25 2009
<<
Perfect, Too Perfect
The washing machine and other nailing elements
At the beginning of the investigation, among several news, there was the one that the washing machine was still spinning, or still hot, when the postal police arrived on the crime scene of viale S.Antonio, in the morning of November 2. This element was perfect to corroborate the PM’s intuition that wanted Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to have done the clean-up all night long, especially in consideration that –as the news continued– the washing machine contained stuff belonging to Meredith and Amanda.
But the reality, in reality, is unpredictable and when we think we have found just what we are expecting, that’s exactly when, instead, we should doubt. That’s when there’s the possibility that not the Reason but the Suspicion, the Bias is leading us. On the same ground I doubt many other perfect elements of this case, for instance the perfect testimonies that, at the moment, effectively nail Amanda and Raffaele. A guy saw them together with Meredith and Rudy in October, another one saw them together with Rudy preparing the crime, another one saw them checking the house after the crime, a genius remembers Amanda to have come to buy the crime-scene-cleaning-kit next morning. Too perfect, nothing unpredictable, nothing that we couldn’t expect while believing the accusation theory that we can read everyday on the faithful newspapers. Judge Micheli –who believed in Knox and Sollecito’s guiltiness– could meet only one of those witnesses and he dismissed him. I met the others too, and I reached the same result for the all of them.
The reason for which this website has never considered the perfect element of the washing machine is very simple, because I doubted of it as soon as it came out and I’ve been looking for confirmations. [highlight]A very reliable and very inside source, at that time –pressed about that– finally admitted that it wasn’t spinning, it wasn’t warm, just the stuff inside was wet.[/highlight] I relied on that admission and I left this and other legends to those specialized in mythology and false information about the case. Being in good company, though, since no judge has inserted this element in their review (while the shooters’ blogs elected the washing machine even to being an icon of Amanda’s guiltiness). Only recently, with the rumor of the washing machine resurrected (certainly not from my side), I made readers happy and I sent also that question to Amanda (she confirmed she never used it).
[highlight]And so I was kind of surprised when the witnesses of November 2 were heard, at the trial, and the prosecutor would ask the all of them if the washing machine was working or warm. The prosecutor didn’t forget anyone, he asked the postal police, Romanelli, Altieri, Zaroli, Grande… But there was nothing to do, under oath none of them could remember the washing machine spinning or hot. The guests didn’t even know of its existence and Filomena had other to think about when she got to the house.[/highlight]
Romanelli referred to having been brought by the police, together with Laura Mezzetti, 5 days later into the house. In the bathroom there was a big knife and the washing machine still full. The two women explained that the knife was for breaking the salt they were using for the bath and the load in the washing machine wasn’t their stuff, for the simple reason that they didn’t put it there. Later, indeed, the load will be taken to the police station where it will be shown to them. They will recognize almost everything as Meredith’s. The little stuff remaining we can imagine that was Meredith’s too, just they wouldn’t know.
Once again the bad girl’s version gets confirmed since not only in the interrogations, even in her email she remembered, unsolicited and before being accused, that on November 1, before going to meet her girlfriends, Meredith came out of the shower and grabbed some laundry or put some laundry in.
The genuineness of this document, a VERY spontaneous statement written, as we can see , in the rush and without thinking, tells us so much about why a misunderstanding could have been created in regards to her. A biased and aggressive investigation, indeed, may lead the suspect to say what they want him to say. If the bias takes possession even of translators and scientists, then, we understand that the trouble is done. But there will be other occasions for talking about the interrogations that led to Amanda’s confession thanks to that new technique in which the police were so confident.
If we don’t want to believe Amanda about the fact that Meredith may have loaded the washing machine we should see what motive the murderer or his accomplices may have in washing Meredith’s stuff (which she wasn’t wearing that evening). And, as far, that motive didn’t emerge.
That’s why it must be as Amanda suggested. Meredith must have loaded the washing machine before going out. When she returned she didn’t have the time to take the laundry out for the simple reason that someone will kill her.
Actually the washing machine, in one particular hypotesys, may even have played a role in the dynamic. Because when Meredith came back home Rudy may have been in the bathroom. At one point she may have gone to the same bathroom to unload the washing machine and may have surprised him there. When realized that his intentions could be unfriendly she may have run to seek refuge in her room but she would be reached on the door, where the signs tell us that she was first injured. Just another hypothesis on the dynamic, because we still don’t know exactly what happened.
The prosecutor knows, he always knew. But his precise reconstruction, that all the world bought so easily, was always doubted by this website and was defined by Micheli only fantasies. Just after the witnesses will be heard we will probably be able to figure out things better.
Anyways, as we have seen, now that we know exactly what was in the washing machine we don’t need a testimony about that. The reason tells us that the washing machine wasn’t spinning because it wasn’t anyone else interest to wash Meredith’s stuff the day after the crime. Indeed no witness has seen the washing machine running or warm and, when the postal police arrived, Amanda and Raffaele where sitting in the sun. Yes, sitting in the sun. And which murderer, we should think, wouldn’t take a break in the crime scene clean-up for taking care of the tan?…
Anyways, now only the prosecutors’ faithful soldiers remain as witnesses of that morning, since they are the ones who arrived third to the house. Just, if at next hearings they should remember that the washing machine was running or warm I’ll know what conclusions to take.
>>
Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito 
