Amanda Knox - Is she guilty or innocent of murder in Italy?

[Winston]

True Crime author Nick Van Der Leek bashes Amanda Knox's latest tweet and craving for attention.

Amanda Knox Tweet = "Craves Constant Attention" = Relevant to her Relationship with Meredith Kercher

[Winston]

Here are two short videos that give a good summary of the case for Amanda Knox's guilt, and the list of evidences and facts that are very hard to explain away, so you can get a rough idea of the prosecution case.

[Winston]

I don't get something. why did Amanda and Raffaele turn off their phones that night? That looks suspicious like they are trying to cover up their whereabouts and prevent tracking of them. Why not just leave their phones on and leave them at Raffael's apartment? That way it will look like they are there while they are committing the murder or sex game or whatever. And would have been evidence in favor of their innocence. Why carry your phone with you if it's off, especially since that will be used against you? They obviously aren't very bright or logical and didn't think this through.

[Winston]

Evidence lists I put together of the case against Amanda Knox collected from various true crime buffs:

https://blog.happierabroad.com/2020/12/ ... urder.html

[Winston]

Amanda Knox's devious mischievous smile during trial.



These two articles contain very incriminating evidence against Amanda Knox.

https://www.salon.com/2015/03/27/amanda ... _is_wrong/

“There’s no evidence”

The claim that there is no evidence is baffling. Among the 10,000 pages of evidence presented is, of course, the DNA evidence." Knox’s DNA was found on the handle of the murder weapon – a knife belonging to Sollecito – and Kercher’s was found on the blade. Whether it’s really Kercher’s DNA is hotly contested by Knox supporters, but contamination was ruled out at the latest appeal. The probability that the DNA on the blade did not come from Kercher was found to be one in 300 million billion.

It’s worth noting that Sollecito, to whom the knife belonged, had no trouble accepting it was Kercher’s DNA on his blade: “The fact there is Meredith's DNA on the kitchen knife is because once when we were all cooking together I accidentally pricked her hand,” he wrote in his prison diary. “I apologized immediately and she said it was not a problem.”

Sollecito later admitted this was a fabrication and Kercher had never been to his house. His diary contains several more intriguing comments that highlight his trust that it was indeed Kercher’s DNA on his knife: “I was in a total panic because I thought Amanda killed Meredith or maybe helped someone kill her… Amanda may have stitched me up by taking the knife and giving it to the son of a bitch who killed Meredith.”

Sollecito’s DNA was also found on Kercher’s bra clasp. Because his genetic profile is fully represented at 15 loci (only 10 loci is necessary in most countries), the chance it came from contamination is next to nil."

But then there is also the circumstantial and behavioral evidence that has gone largely unreported. Why did Sollecito admit to police in 2007 that, “In my previous statement I told a load of rubbish because Amanda had convinced me of her version of the facts and I didn’t think about the inconsistencies”?

Why did Knox and Sollecito insist that they slept soundly through the night of the murder until 10 a.m. when there is undisputed human interaction on Sollecito’s computer at 5:30 a.m., where someone listened to music for around 30 minutes? How could they be asleep if Sollecito’s phone was turned on at 6:02 a.m.? (Sollecito’s lawyer tried to blame his cat for switching on the phone.)

Why did Knox say she never left Sollecito’s apartment that night when her phone records clearly show that she did – a fact Sollecito admitted when he withdrew his alibi for her last year?

Why did Knox, apparently frantic with worry at not being able to locate Kercher and desperately calling, only let her phone ring for mere seconds before hanging up?

Is Knox’s story about using the blood-stained bathmat to slide back to her bedroom on credible – or is it simply a way to explain why her DNA was found mingled with Kercher’s blood in footprints in the hallway? The full evidence list in this case is extensive and, as Dershowitz commented, “there are thousands of Americans in jail today on the basis of far less evidence than there is against Amanda Knox."

“Knox was tortured into false confession”

Knox accusing her innocent employer of rape and murder is well-documented. According to her supporters, Knox only accused Patrick Lumumba after a torturous, lengthy interrogation in which she was slapped, screamed at, refused an interpreter and denied food and water. This is information that even Knox’s defense now refutes.

An interpreter, Anna Domino, was present throughout the interview and Knox testified in court that she was given food and drink. Her lawyer Luciano Ghirga rejected the claims that she was ever hit by police back in 2008, stating, “We never said she was hit,” and just last week the Italian courts ruled that Knox must face trial for further aggravated calumny for repeating these charges in her book and on TV.

Despite claims that the interview lasted around 40 hours, it was at most two hours long. As soon as Knox learned that Sollecito had withdrawn her alibi, she accused Lumumba of murdering Kercher and placed herself at scene. Knox never retracted her claim and Lumumba spent weeks in prison before being released. The only admission that she had made the whole thing up was to her mother while she was in jail. Her mother decided not to pass on that information to the police.


http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/crim ... cle/415955

Judge Alessandro Nencini upheld Knox’s guilty conviction this year, and his 350-page official report analyses the evidence, court testimony and legal arguments that led to his verdict. An English translation of the report was published last month, so what does it tell us? Despite the claims of “no evidence”, a cursory glance through the Nencini report informs us this is not the case. But is the evidence enough to prove guilt? Decide for yourself:

The staged burglary

At the very heart of this case lies the staged burglary. The prosecution have always claimed the break-in was simulated to point the finger elsewhere; staged break-ins are often attempts to divert attention from individuals who have access to the property concerned.

Aside from highlighting the near-impossible window entry point and the fact that nothing of any value was taken, one thing that is very striking about Nencini’s report is the placement of the broken glass. Four eyewitnesses stated that the glass was in fact ON TOP of the clothes and items within the ransacked “break-in” room.

“Picking up the computer I noticed that I lifted some glass, in the sense that the glass was on top of things. I remember very well [the glass] on top of the computer bag because I was careful as it was all covered with glass. We mentioned this, saying, the burglar was an idiot, he did not take anything… the jewelry is here, the computer is here…and in addition to the fact that he didn’t take anything, the pieces of glass are all on top of the things.” – Filomena Romanelli, Amanda Knox’s roommate

“The fact that the glass fragments from the window wound up on top of the strewn clothing and objects… is surely incompatible with a breaking of the glass in a phase preceding the ransacking inside the room of the apartment. The window glass evidently was broken after entry into the cottage, by someone who was already inside and had already arranged the disorder that was then seen by the witnesses.” – Judge Nencini

In addition to the many other red flags that have previously been raised with respect to the apparent burglary, as well as the fact that Knox’s boyfriend knew “nothing had been taken” before the roommates had even checked their possessions, this is surely definitive proof that the “break-in” was staged. So the real question is: who staged it?

The phone and computer records

The Nencini report places considerable weight on the circumstantial evidence, in particular the phone and computer records that prove Knox was, at the very least, untruthful. Despite Knox and Sollecito stating they slept through the night and didn’t wake until 10 am, this is not the case:

"What the Court finds proved is that at 6:02:59 am on 2 November 2007 they were not in fact asleep, as the defendants claim, but rather the occupants were well awake. At 5:32 am on 2 November 2007 the computer connected to a site for listening to music, remaining connected for around half an hour. Therefore, at 5:32 am someone in the house occupied by Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito sat in front of the computer and listened to music for around half an hour and then, at 6:02:59 am, switched on Raffaele Sollecito’s mobile phone…"

According to Knox, after discovering the “break-in” the very first person she called was her roommate Romanelli, who urged her to call Kercher. Yet, Knox never mentioned the fact that just one minute before she called Romanelli she had already made a call to Kercher’s English phone.

“I rang Filomena. She was worried so after her I rang Meredith three times. Once on her English cell telephone, once on her Italian cell telephone, once again on her English number. I didn’t get a reply.” – Amanda Knox, November 9th 2007

What is most conspicuous about the phone records is that they show Knox, apparently frantic with worry at not being able to reach her friend, only let Kercher’s phone ring for mere seconds. This is troubling and hard to find a reasonable innocent explanation for, as Judge Nencini explains:

“The telephone call made [by Knox] at 12:11:54 pm to the English service of the victim lasted 4 seconds. Perhaps not even the time to repeat the first ring.
Knox should have been affected by a certain anxiety in calling Kercher’s telephone services. Filomena Romanelli let the defendant’s telephone ring for 36 seconds the first time, and the second for a good 65 seconds; an insistence which appears normal. But that did not happen when Knox called… these are two calls that barely registered [and this] has only one plausible explanation:

There was no concern at all in the mind of Amanda Knox when she made the two calls to the young English woman, simply because she knew very well that Meredith Kercher could not have answered the calls; calls which had to be made because Filomena Romanelli insisted, but which the defendant knew were useless. Nobody would have been able to answer those calls; let alone poor Meredith Kercher whom the accused knew was lifeless, locked in her own bedroom.”

The other untruths

Why did Sollecito claim the reason Kercher’s DNA was on his knife was because “once when we were all cooking together I accidentally pricked her hand,”– only to later admit this was an utter fabrication and Kercher had never been to his house? Why did Knox lie about Kercher always locking her bedroom door? Why does Knox’s account of the morning of November 2nd make so little sense?

Why did Knox accuse her employer of Kercher’s rape and murder after only two hours of interview? Despite the idea of a long, torturous interrogation that many seem to entertain, this just simply isn’t the case; as soon as Knox learnt that Sollecito had withdrawn her alibi, she pointed the finger at a man she knew to be innocent, even voluntarily writing her account down. This was not something blurted out on impulse under duress and later retracted, as Nencini highlights:

"Amanda Knox repeated the allegations in front of the magistrate, allegations which she never retracted in all the following days, even when finally freed from the clutches of the police and the prosecuting magistrate, [with] the opportunity to talk with her lawyers and family. To make such a very damaging denunciation meant causing the detention for numerous days of a person she knew to be innocent, completely indifferent to the human suffering she caused him."

In her phone call to Romanelli, in addition to giving the impression that she had not yet called Kercher, Knox also lied about her whereabouts:

“In the first telephone call the defendant made to Filomena Romanelli, she clearly said that she would go back to Raffaele’s place to tell him about the strange things discovered in the apartment, and then return with him to check the situation. This circumstance is clearly false, since when Amanda Knox made the first call to Romanelli at 12:08:44 pm on 2 November 2007 she was at already Raffaele Sollecito’s apartment and not at 7 Via Della Pergola.”

The forensic evidence

The knife, with Kercher’s DNA on the blade and Knox’s on the handle, and the bra clasp containing Sollecito’s DNA, are strongly disputed by the defense as “contaminated”. Nencini says otherwise, pointing out that DNA traces on the knife were analyzed six days after last handling Kercher's DNA, ruling out lab contamination. Because Kercher had never even set foot in Sollecito’s apartment, transfer contamination can also be ruled out.

The bra clasp: "By the quantity of DNA analyzed and the analysis at 17 loci with unambiguous results, not to mention the fact that the results of the analysis were confirmed by the attribution of the Y haplotype to the defendant, it is possible to say that it has been judicially ascertained that Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was present on the exhibit.”

The knife: “...the consultant also did a statistical calculation with the purpose of determining the probability that the profile could belong to someone other than the victim Meredith Kercher. The calculation of the Random Match Probability came to one chance in 300 million billion.”

Moving on from the infamous knife and bra, what does the other physical evidence comprise of? What’s most revealing about Nencini’s findings is that in the bedroom of Filomena Romanelli – the “break-in” room – there’s not a single trace of Rudy Guede, whom the defense claim shimmied up the wall, smashed the window, pulled himself through and ransacked the room. There is, however, the mixed DNA of Knox and Kercher in a luminol-revealed bloodstain on the floor and in the corridor:

“The analyses attributed the biological trace to a Knox–Kercher mix. The finding is of unquestionable importance in this trial, considering that the mixed trace of the victim and the defendant was found inside the room of Filomena Romanelli, in a place where – unlike the bathroom – there was no regular presence on the part either of Knox or Kercher. This room, furthermore, was the site of the simulated entry set up by the perpetrators of the murder in order to lead the investigations astray.”

The mixed DNA of Kercher and Knox was also found in three blood stains in the bathroom: on the bidet, in the sink and on a cotton swab container. Knox’s own blood (that she testified was not there the day before the murder) was found on the faucet. There was no trace of Guede in the bathroom.

Luminol-revealed footprints were found in the corridor: one of these was compatible with Sollecito’s right foot, two others matched Knox’s right foot. None were compatible with Guede, whose footprints led straight out of Kercher’s bedroom and out of the cottage. Based on this evidence alone, it would have been impossible for Guede to have tracked Kercher’s blood into Romanelli’s room during the scene-staging later on – or to have left the blood-stained bare footprint in the bathroom, which incidentally matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito's foot.

As Judge Nencini says, the evidence has to be considered wholly. There is no smoking gun in this complex case; rather, there is a lengthy trail of untruths, unanswered questions and incriminatory evidence that, once put together, makes it difficult to come to a plausible explanation that doesn’t involve the guilt of all three defendants: Rudy Guede, Raffaele Sollecito, and Amanda Knox. The truth may, finally, be coming to light.


The famed Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz explains why the preponderance of evidence points to Amanda Knox's guilt.

https://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/alan ... id/550244/

Dershowitz: I Wouldn't Want My Son Going Out With Amanda Knox

"I would say that there are thousands of Americans in jail today on the basis of far less evidence than there is against Amanda Knox," Dershowitz, a Harvard Law professor, said.

"One, she first admitted she was at the crime scene and then denied it. Second, she falsely accused somebody who was totally innocent of committing the murder. Third, she turned off her cell phone during the relative period of time. Fourth, there was DNA found underneath the bra strap and on the knife.

"It wasn't enough to establish conclusively that it was hers, but it certainly pointed in that direction. There was a pool of blood with a footprint and the man who was convicted of the murder blamed it on her, testified against her, the court found that it couldn't have been done by one person, it had to be done by at least two people."

But whether Italy can compel Knox — dubbed "Foxy Knoxy" by the press — to return is up in the air, according to Dershowitz.

"Legally, she should be required if her conviction is affirmed, but she has been conducting an incredibly successful media campaign," he said.

"I have to tell you, in 50 years of practicing law, I had never seen a more one-sided presentation by the media in the United States of the case. Everybody is saying there's no evidence against her and she's totally innocent. It's just not true."

In America, everybody's ignoring the victim, everybody is pretending as if the Italian court system is the Iranian court system, and as if they made up all of the evidence against her."

As to why he believes that is so, Dershowitz said:

"One word: she's pretty and she doesn't look like she did it and Americans care about what people look like. She's the all-American young woman and we don't care about the evidence."

"If I were the family of the victim here, I would be outraged at the way the American media is treating this case.''

Likewise, Dershowitz added, Knox should be outraged by the coverage of the case in Italy.

"They're treating this case as if she's Al Capone, as if there's no question about her innocence or guilt. It's become black and white. [In] Italy, she's guilty beyond any doubt. In America, she's innocent beyond any doubt," he said.

"The truth is it's a very close case. There's a lot of evidence of guilt, there's some evidence of innocence. On balance, it's more likely than not that she did, but there's not enough evidence to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt."

After the new verdict was delivered, Knox said in a statement:

"I am frightened and saddened by this unjust verdict … Having been found innocent before, I expected better from the Italian justice system. The evidence and accusatory theory do not justify a verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."

[Winston]

Great new case analysis of the Amanda Knox case that examines arguments on both sides. By a true crime podcast sleuth.

AMANDA KNOX (MINDSHOCK TRUE CRIME PODCAST)

Examining the Amanda Knox case - is Amanda Knox guilty or innocent? Was this really a sex game gone wrong or the sole act of Rudy Guede in a robbery turned murder? The Murder of Meredith Kercher examined.

[Winston]

Someone on YouTube gave me a list of reasons why Rudy Guede alone killed Meredith Kercher, and Knox and Sollecito were innocent. I think he copied and pasted this from somewhere. What do you guys think? Does this indicate that Rudy acted alone?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFMKkYEn4_k

You said " I don't understand why Rudy would put glass on top of things he planned to steal....."

The case against Rudy Guede:

(1) Rudy Guede is the only one convicted linked to the Murder of Meredith. He is convicted of only being an accomplice to murder; however the Italian Supreme Court make it clear that no one else was involved. Multiple forensic traces identifying him were found in the room where Meredith was killed, while there was absolutely none for Amanda and Raffaele, nor anyone else for that matter (see Marasca-Bruno motivation report). Rudy alone killed Meredith Kercher.

(2) Earlier in the year 2007 Rudy's adoptive family (Caporalli) kicked him out because he couldn't do a day's work and was a persistent liar. He was given another chance to work for the family as gardener but he couldn't do that either. Eventually he disappeared.

(3) Christian Tramontano, whose brief deposition the subject of July 1, 2008 was acquired at the hearing of June 6, 2009, testified about an [attempted] robbery in his home, carried out by a young man who, seeing that he had been observed, tried to exit the house and, finding the door locked, pulled out a jackknife with which he threatened Tramontano, who was following him to make him leave the house. Tramontano declared that he believed he recognised that the thief was Rudy when he saw his picture published in the newspapers. (Massei report pg 46)

(4) On October 17 2007 Rudy broke into the law premises of partners Brocchi and Palazzoli. He had disabled the alarm which would have taken some expertise, used the photocopier, then left files strewn all over the office. One of the partners Palazzoli noted that reams of paper were missing. Rudy used the same methodology while burgling the upper flat at VDP where Meredith lived.

(5) On 27th October 2007 Rudy was found having illegally entered a children's nursery in Milan run by Maria del Prato, he had stolen petty cash and a kitchen knife from the premises. On his possession he had items from previous burglaries including a small hammer for breaking toughened glass, and a laptop that had been stolen from the Palazzoli-Brocchi law office in Perugia.

(6) Rudy clammed up after being detained in Milan by police for illegally entering the nursery. A decision was taken at the Questura in Perugia advising the police in Milan to release Rudy and send him back to Perugia where no further action was taken against him. It has never been ascertained who made the decision.

(7) The break-in at the cottage that Meredith and Amanda shared with two other students shared the same characteristics as the break-in at the Palazzoli-Brocchi office. On November 1st, the burglar (Rudy Guede), had climbed up using the protective grille that covered the downstairs window to gain access through the window above after using a rock to break the window. Both break-ins shared the same alleged anomaly of glass on top of clothing (see Massei report page 47).

(8) Mari del Prato referred to a previous burglary that happened 2 weeks before at the nursery when she testified in court that 2 thousand euros in cash had been stolen, she also went on to say that she believed the crime had shown signs of being "staged":

"Sincerely I believed it had been staged to make out a tramp or a gypsy had come in because some food had been cooked in the kitchen and a cot had been put in one of the rooms as if a baby had slept in the cot with a bowl with food but it seemed unlikely to me."

(9) An approximate timeline and narrative of events:

8.15 - 8.20 Rudy is in the vicinity of VDP. His intention is to burgle the upper flat. Rudy has knocked at the doors of both the upper and lower flats to no response.
8.20 Rudy climbs up to Filomena's window and opens the shutter. He then pitches a rock through the window from the car-park area.
8.25 Rudy goes to get a kebab to give him an alibi for breaking the window.
8.40 Rudy returns and climbs up to the window, removes shards of glass from the frame and enters through the window.
8.45 - 8.55 Rudy is ransacking Filomena's room for money. He is nervous and needs to use the toilet urgently, he goes to the toilet used by Filomena and Laura.
9.01 Meredith arrives home to VDP from her friends house, locking the door behind her. Rudy is still in the toilet and hears her come in. He can't flush the toilet since it would alert Meredith.
9.03 Rudy might have tried to get out of the flat by stealth but finds that the front door is locked and need a key to open it.
9.05 Confronting Meredith is unavoidable now. Rudy confronts Meredith in her room. She is immediately shocked and scared at his presence.
9.10 Rudy is now trapped, angry and sexually frustrated. He loses control and attacks Meredith with a knife demanding compliance.
9.15 Rudy grabs Meredith from behind and holds his knife at her throat stabbing her as she struggles. Rudy is now infuriated and delivers the fatal wound.
9.20 Meredith collapses on her knees and begins to lose consciousness through loss of blood.
9.25 Rudy has made attempts to stop the bleeding by using towels form the small bathroom and rinsing them.
9.30 Rudy is sexually frustrated and repositions Meredith's body for a sexual assault. He then sexually abuses the dying Meredith.
9.35 Rudy robs Meredith of her phones rent money and keys.
9.40 Rudy unlocks the door and leaves the flat.
9.40-10.13 Rudy discards Meredith's phones in the garden area of Elizabetta Lanna.

At 10.13 an incoming text message on Meredith's phones connects with a cell receiver that serves the area where the phones were discarded but very rarely serves Via della Pergola.

(10) The forensic evidence Against Rudy:

Rudy’s DNA was found inside Meredith’s vagina;
Rudy’s DNA was found on Meredith’s jacket and bra;
Rudy’s DNA along with Meredith’s blood was found on Meredith’s purse;
Rudy’s palm print in Meredith’s blood was found on the pillow case underneath her body;
Rudy’s shoe prints, set in Meredith’s blood, were found in the murder room and hallway;
Rudy’s excrement was found in the toilet and his DNA on the toilet paper;
A fragment of glass from Filomena's broken window was found in Meredith's room next to a bloody footprint made by Rudy.

There were zero traces of K&S in the murder room of any kind except the bra-clasp which is ruled out since due to visible contamination and failure to adhere to scientific protocols according to M/B.

(11) Independent confirmation from DNA expert Peter Gill who pioneered DNA profiling. His opinion is second to none.

"The key consideration was the distribution of DNA profiles of Guede vs Knox and Sollecito. Multiple profiles from multiple evidential items are much less likely to all be contamination incidents, whereas weak (one-off) results are more likely to be contaminants—this was always a recognized difficulty for the prosecution who invented the selective cleaning hypothesis to explain away inconvenient results."

(12) The Office of the Prosecuting Magistrate is responsible for the prosecution of crimes, he would be the one who ultimately decides whether detainees should be prosecuted or not. If Rudy had been arrested and charged in Perugia for his previous burglaries and taken off the streets, it is very likely that Meredith Kercher would be alive today.

(13) With the worlds attention focused on the case it is clear that the Prosecuting magistrate as well as the police were in the crucible. Their protection of Rudy had now become a toxic liability to them. That protection would later be foisted onto Amanda as her responsibility. If it came to light that Rudy Guede was the assassin and that he had acted alone it would have resulted in international scandal and national disgrace for Italy with careers and reputations ruined. Amanda Knox and Raffaele were framed to cover-up for the criminal activities of the prosecuting Magistrate and police who had failed in their duty.

(15) Rudy flees to Germany.

-----------------------------------------------------------

There's no doubt that Rudy broke into the Brocchi-Palazolli law office 2 and a half weeks before Meredith was killed. On page 47 of the Massei report it is stated that there was glass on top of clothing at their premises too. If that's the case, who staged the break-in at their office?

But the alleged staged break-in at VDP wasn't actually staged was it? It's virtually a carbon-copy of the break-in at the Palazzoli-Brocchi lawyers office a couple of weeks earlier. Glass on top of clothing isn't an excuse since the Massei report (page 47) refers to "glass was found on clothes" at the Palazzoli-Brocchi office.

"Objects were taken from the law office, glass was found on clothes and the first-aid box was ransacked (a circumstance which indicates a wound and related needs); at the nursery school in Milan, Guede was found with objects of illicit origin (like the computer) and with a knife taken from the kitchen of the school itself."

Maria Del Prato also testified in court that Rudy had stolen "a meat knife" from the nursery kitchen and had stolen petty cash. If Rudy had keys (as he claims) to the nursery then it ties him to the break-in that happened 2 weeks before at the nursery when Maria Del Prato testified that 2 thousand euros in cash had been stolen she also went on to say that she believed the crime had been "staged":

"Sincerely I believed it had been staged to make out a tramp or a gypsy had come in because some food had been cooked in the kitchen and a cot had been put in one of the rooms as if a baby had slept in the cot with a bowl with food but it seemed unlikely to me."

So we have 3 break-ins that all had the peculiar appearance of being "staged". It doesn't take rocket science to work it out. M/B acquits K&S of charge E (simulated break-in) "of the rubric because the appellants did not commit the act."

-----------------------------------------------------------

You said "there were traces. amanda's blood was mixed with meredith's in two places, in the bathroom and in Filomena's room. That's impossible to explain if Amanda was not involved. You miss that."

There is no evidence of mixed blood.

It's clear that Stefanoni's view had been further clarified by the time she makes her testimony on pages 176-177 of the May 23rd 2009 transcript. Where she says:

"they certainly contain blood, because a specific test was done, but they were probably more water than blood and it can’t be determined when the DNA was left, and it can’t be ascertained whether it’s blood + blood, blood + saliva, blood + exfoliated cells, etc, and the DNA from the two traces could have been left at different times."

Her consideration are further referenced from the Massei report page 278:

"It should then be highlighted that in that same bathroom various [300] trace specimens were found, of a mixed nature and testing positively for blood. It is true that, according to what was asserted and explained, it is not possible with a mixed trace specimen that tested positive for human blood to determine which of the trace’s contributors the blood belongs to. In this case, however, non-mixed traces were also found, which were shown to be of a haematological nature [i.e. blood] and turn out to have the biological profile of the victim."

There is no mention of mixed blood in the motivation reports. Only mixed traces.

[Winston]

@Contrarian Expatriate

If you're still lurking, I noticed that every black guy (including you of course) considers Amanda Knox to be guilty. Because she falsely accused a black man and that's a major pet peeve to them. lol.

I mentioned this on YouTube to a staunch Knox defender and he replied this below. What do you think? Does he have a point?

Look into the case of Riley Fox, a little girl taken from her home and murdered. The police focused on her father, Kevin. Brought him in for questioning and coerced him into confessing he murdered his daughter. Of course, he hadn't murdered her... the police failed to evaluate a ton of evidence pointing directly at the real killer. They were blinded by their belief in the father's guilt. Clearly you know little of police coercion tactics and the results they get. Sadly, there are thousands of people who have been coerced into signed confessions by police.. you need to do a little research in this area.

Amanda has NO control over what the police did with Lumumba. Amanda wrote two letters immediately after being arrested and in them she makes it clear she was pressured into signing the statements, that she doesn't believe their veracity, and specifically that no one should be implicated by what she has said. Why don't you direct your outrage at the police, who had absolutely nothing on Lumumba other than a signed statement from someone they already considered a liar. And maybe you need to ask yourself why the police kept his bar closed for two months when he was cleared six weeks earlier.

You see, it's obvious you've been reading at the fake wiki and they've duped you into thinking this way. The truth is Amanda did retract the statement, and if you think about it, why would she ever implicate Lumumba when she had to assume he'd have numerous witnesses placing him at the bar she knew he was at? Then you might want to look into how Lumumba's name first came up - it was the police who mistakenly took Amanda's 'see you later' sign-off to Lumumba as plans to meet that night. It was the police who jumped to the conclusion Lumumba was involved and then pressured Amanda into signing off on it.

Richard Dwyer is an obsessive anti-Knox blogger.. his videos are useless.

A rather gross exaggeration on your part. I know several black people who have researched the case and understand exactly how and why Lumumba got implicated and what the role of the police was in making it happen. If all you do is superficially see a white girl pointing a finger at an innocent black man then sure, you might feel that way. But learn the facts and a very different picture emerges. But people like you, who got your case education from a bogus wiki hate site rarely see things as they are.

I'd love to see him produce even one true crime buff or online sleuth who is a black man who thinks Amanda Knox is innocent. I'll bet he probably can't find any on YouTube. lol

[Winston]

I've been listening to the audiobook version of Amanda Knox's book "Waiting to Be Heard". If anyone is interested in this case, I recommend it, because it gives Amanda's version of events in her own voice. Here's the link to download it on torrent for free.

https://thepiratebay.org/description.php?id=12783392

Skip the first 5 chapters though. She blabs about her sex life in them and gets annoying. The relevant stuff starts in Chapter 6.

While listening to it, I do not get the impression that she is guilty. She sounds very sincere and innocent, not like a guilty person at all. I know anyone can lie, but she does not sound like a liar at all. I've met liars and sociopaths and can sense them out with my instinct and intuition usually. Knox just doesn't seem like that at all. She sounds like someone genuinely innocent, not because she says so, there's just something about her that tells me she's not a violent killer type at all. My gut instinct is usually very accurate on these matters. I can sense when someone is lying or covering up something. There's a certain vibe. I don't get that from Knox at all.

However, she is definitely a spoiled brat and a bit narcissistic and selfish, and to be honest, I don't like her personality much. She's not very likable or charismatic or charming or even that good looking, just plain and average. So I am not biased in her favor. But she is very articulate in her writing and voice and it comes across in her audiobook. Even though I don't find her very likable, I don't get the sense that she is a killer or the type that is, and has no history of it either. So I agree with Alex on that. She was also very stupid and made a lot of stupid critical errors in the days after the murder, which cost her dearly, which she admits, but chalks it up to her naivete. However, according to her the Italian police investigators had it out for her from day one and seemed determined to make her a suspect, so maybe her mistakes may not have made much difference in the long run even if she hadn't made them.

It's also terrible what the Italian police did to her. I know its her word against theirs, but clearly they did some bad stuff to implicate her, which is described in detail in her book, some of which is factual, such as them lying to her about having AIDS just to get her to reveal her sexual history so the media could use it against her. That was pure evil and indefensible. So the Italian police and media obviously are super corrupt and have no morals and therefore is no angel either. Alex aka @halnovemila can attest to this and has countless stories of Italian corruption he can share.

So my position now is that she is probably innocent of the crime, though she may be hiding details about her involvement, which Alex also admits is a possibility. Because her details about where she was the night of the murder are still sketchy and has changed several times. Her timeline of the events of that night is also sketchy and unclear, and in her book she glosses over it.

Anyway, if any of you are interested in the case you should listen to her audiobook and hear her side of it. It may change your mind about the case as it did mine. And you may understand what I am talking about if you are a good judge of character and have a good sense of intuition and empathy and read vibes well. @Contrarian Expatriate who is sure Knox is guilty, ought to hear her audiobook too. But I'm not sure if he's a good judge of character or not.

@publicduende what do you and your friends/acquaintances in Italy think of this case?

[MrMan]

I didn't follow the case. I saw a Diane Sawyer interview where she shared her side of the story and it makes her sound innocent of the crime.

I see what you are saying about her personality. Maybe she matured a bit out of that. She could have been more emphathetic after a murder, but how many people that young experience such things and no how to react to them. I think she was about a seven in the interviews for looks, better than average just for looks.

There is a video online that is more applicable to the US system of law, but it says never talk to the police. Let's say you get into a discussion with the police and they think you are a suspect, and you say, "I didn't like the guy, but I didn't kill them.' The prosecutor quotes, "I did not like the guy. I did not like the guy... Hmmm.' They can take innocent stuff you say and spin it to tell their story.

Another example is if the interview about a murder and you tell them you went out of town someplace, but someone, innocently, but mistakenly, gets his weekends mixed up and places you a block from the crime scene. So now they make it look like you are lying by saying you are out of town when someone places you a block away. If you said nothing, all they have is you being a block from the murder. If you talked to them, they have evidence to convince a jury that you lied about where you were and it looks bad.

If you get a lawyer, the lawyer tells you not to talk.

[Winston]

I didn't follow the case. I saw a Diane Sawyer interview where she shared her side of the story and it makes her sound innocent of the crime.

I see what you are saying about her personality. Maybe she matured a bit out of that. She could have been more emphathetic after a murder, but how many people that young experience such things and no how to react to them. I think she was about a seven in the interviews for looks, better than average just for looks.

There is a video online that is more applicable to the US system of law, but it says never talk to the police. Let's say you get into a discussion with the police and they think you are a suspect, and you say, "I didn't like the guy, but I didn't kill them.' The prosecutor quotes, "I did not like the guy. I did not like the guy... Hmmm.' They can take innocent stuff you say and spin it to tell their story.

Another example is if the interview about a murder and you tell them you went out of town someplace, but someone, innocently, but mistakenly, gets his weekends mixed up and places you a block from the crime scene. So now they make it look like you are lying by saying you are out of town when someone places you a block away. If you said nothing, all they have is you being a block from the murder. If you talked to them, they have evidence to convince a jury that you lied about where you were and it looks bad.

If you get a lawyer, the lawyer tells you not to talk.

Good points. Fortunately we've never been in that situation. However, the police sort of deceived Knox. She did not know she was a suspect until later. At first she thought she was just a witness and trying to be helpful. So she didn't ask for a lawyer. By the time she realized she was a suspect, it was too late. It was very shady. So yes she made a lot of mistakes, but the police deceived her in many ways too. Neither side were angels. Both are at fault it seems.

Also the police seemed to force her to talk. If she had kept silent and pleaded the 5th, it might not have been acceptable. If she had insisted on being silent, maybe the outcome would have been different? They can't force her to talk right?

Do you think she's guilty or innocent MrMan? She certainly seems to believe she is innocent and I don't get the sense she is a violent killer type at all. She doesn't have that dark chilling cold eyes that psychopaths usually have. And she comes across as innocent and a victim. However, she isn't an angel and may be hiding incriminating details since her account of the night of the murder has always been sketchy and changing. So she might have been involved at some level. That's my take on it.

[MrMan]

I didn't follow the case. I saw a Diane Sawyer interview where she shared her side of the story and it makes her sound innocent of the crime.

I see what you are saying about her personality. Maybe she matured a bit out of that. She could have been more emphathetic after a murder, but how many people that young experience such things and no how to react to them. I think she was about a seven in the interviews for looks, better than average just for looks.

There is a video online that is more applicable to the US system of law, but it says never talk to the police. Let's say you get into a discussion with the police and they think you are a suspect, and you say, "I didn't like the guy, but I didn't kill them.' The prosecutor quotes, "I did not like the guy. I did not like the guy... Hmmm.' They can take innocent stuff you say and spin it to tell their story.

Another example is if the interview about a murder and you tell them you went out of town someplace, but someone, innocently, but mistakenly, gets his weekends mixed up and places you a block from the crime scene. So now they make it look like you are lying by saying you are out of town when someone places you a block away. If you said nothing, all they have is you being a block from the murder. If you talked to them, they have evidence to convince a jury that you lied about where you were and it looks bad.

If you get a lawyer, the lawyer tells you not to talk.

Good points. Fortunately we've never been in that situation. However, the police sort of deceived Knox. She did not know she was a suspect until later. At first she thought she was just a witness and trying to be helpful. So she didn't ask for a lawyer. By the time she realized she was a suspect, it was too late. It was very shady. So yes she made a lot of mistakes, but the police deceived her in many ways too. Neither side were angels. Both are at fault it seems.

Also the police seemed to force her to talk. If she had kept silent and pleaded the 5th, it might not have been acceptable. If she had insisted on being silent, maybe the outcome would have been different? They can't force her to talk right?

Do you think she's guilty or innocent MrMan? She certainly seems to believe she is innocent and I don't get the sense she is a violent killer type at all. She doesn't have that dark chilling cold eyes that psychopaths usually have. And she comes across as innocent and a victim. However, she isn't an angel and may be hiding incriminating details since her account of the night of the murder has always been sketchy and changing. So she might have been involved at some level. That's my take on it.

I haven't followed the case. I heard her side. She sounds innocent of the murder to me, but I don't know much about it.

I don't know if Italy has 'the 5th.' They wouldn't call it that. I don't know how Italy handles the issue of a right not the self-incriminate.

[Winston]

I haven't followed the case. I heard her side. She sounds innocent of the murder to me, but I don't know much about it.

I don't know if Italy has 'the 5th.' They wouldn't call it that. I don't know how Italy handles the issue of a right not the self-incriminate.

Yes she does. But many believe she is lying, including @Contrarian Expatriate. However, her book is more indepth and her audiobook is in her own voice. If you listen to that, you get more of a sense of her deeper personality and how she thinks. Then you can see she genuinely does believe she was innocent, and she isn't a violent person at all. So she is unlikely the killer of Meredith Kercher. Her audiobook gives you a lot more insight into her personality. She's not very likable though, as she is selfish and kind of foolish. She is more a typical liberal type. No inner virtue. But not a violent woman either. However, it could be that she is hiding some incriminating details, which is why her account of what she was doing the night of the murder is sketchy and always has been. That is always possible.

It could also be, like @publicduende suggested, that a third party killed Kercher, and Amanda, her boyfriend and Guede were framed as patsies. If so, that would explain a lot, such as why the evidence in this case doesn't stack up. If so, then this killer must have had connections in high places. That's why the "Monster of Florence" was never caught either. Very disturbing. It means there is a dark underground world after all.

Also you can find a video of Rudy Guede on the internet where he says "I am Dracula" as though he were in a trance or sleepwalking. This could indicate that he was very susceptible to being hypnotized or mind controlled, and may have been hypnotized to kill Kercher or touch her in a way that leaves his fingerprints and DNA on the crime scene, to implicate him. If you see that video, you will know what I mean. It's very suggestive.

Even if Italy doesn't have the 5th, if you stay silent and say nothing, they can't do anything about it right? They cannot torture you obviously.

Remember that scumbag douchebag guy who killed Natalee Holloway? He never said anything when arrested either. When later he was arrested in Latin America after killing another girl, he said nothing either. When Holloway's mom confronted him, he said nothing either. They did not torture him even in Latin America. So he was able to get away with saying nothing.

Why couldn't Amanda have done the same? Would it have made a difference?

[publicduende]

It could also be, like @publicduende suggested, that a third party killed Kercher, and Amanda, her boyfriend and Guede were framed as patsies. If so, that would explain a lot, such as why the evidence in this case doesn't stack up. If so, then this killer must have had connections in high places. That's why the "Monster of Florence" was never caught either. Very disturbing. It means there is a dark underground world after all.

Also you can find a video of Rudy Guede on the internet where he says "I am Dracula" as though he were in a trance or sleepwalking. This could indicate that he was very susceptible to being hypnotized or mind controlled, and may have been hypnotized to kill Kercher or touch her in a way that leaves his fingerprints and DNA on the crime scene, to implicate him. If you see that video, you will know what I mean. It's very suggestive.

Even if Italy doesn't have the 5th, if you stay silent and say nothing, they can't do anything about it right? They cannot torture you obviously.

Remember that scumbag douchebag guy who killed Natalee Holloway? He never said anything when arrested either. When later he was arrested in Latin America after killing another girl, he said nothing either. When Holloway's mom confronted him, he said nothing either. They did not torture him even in Latin America. So he was able to get away with saying nothing.

Why couldn't Amanda have done the same? Would it have made a difference?

The "ritual murder" theory about the Meredith Kercher case is one of the most controversial ones, but only for those who are not familiar with the several other cases happened in Italy in years prior. You rightly mention the Monster of Florence, another notorious case that followed an almost identical pattern: one or a series of brutal murders, a folk devil almost immediately found and convicted, a sticky, obsessive, almost manic, attention from mainstream media. And, most importantly, a conclusion that is fraught with way more inconsistencies and unaswered questions than any other similar case solved by standard judicial process.

These murders are always, and I mean always, commissioned by high-ranking members of the Italian or European occult elites and designed and perpetrated by lower-ranking members of the same elites: Freemasons, Rosicrucians, Order of the Red Rose, you name them.

The instigators are impossible to track. The executors are usually totally unsuspecting people, often highly-respected members of the local community. In case of the Monster of Florence, the most plausible "hidden" suspects are Francesco Calamandrei, a retired pharmacist and Pier Luigi Vigna, a well-known judge in Florence.

In case of the Kercher murder, it's impossible to tell whether Amanda, Raffaele and Rudy were directly involved in the murder, whether they were lucid when it happened, and who ultimately should be held responsible and pay jail time. By what I remember by reading about this "system" of ritual murders, both Amanda and Raffaele might have been recruited to contribute to a specific ritual involving Meredith Kercher, whether or not she was aware of it or willing to participate.

The Foreigners' University in Perugia, where Amanda was studying Italian, and the University of Perugia, where Raffaele was studying Computer Science, are well-known recruiting grounds for the Italian occult elites.

It's possible that neither Amanda, nor Raffaele, nor Rudy Guede were aware that the ritual would end with Meredith's death. Since the murder weapon was never officially found, it's possible that the actual act was performed by someone else, perhaps someone with far more intent and skills than those kids.

What is quite certain is that Meredith's father was a Rite of York Freemason and what he did after her daughter's death - drop a red rose on the front staircase of the Duomo, Perugia's cathedral, in public and in full daylight - had a clear esoteric meaning. The red rose is associated to the Scottish Rite, while the York rite is symbolised by the white rose. Perhaps he was paying homage to the Scottish Rite who had "won this round"?

Coincidentally, Meredith's father died last year, in mysterious circumstances: he was found dead, with multiple head and body fractures, meters away from his south London home.

If you guys want to try your luck with Google Translate, this is one the best knowledge bases about ritual murders as they relate to secret societies, in Italy and beyond. Its author, Paolo Franceschetti, is a practicing lawyer and probably the only law practitioner in Italy who bothered trying to use the esoteric key to unlock these cases.

https://petalidiloto-com.translate.goog ... tr_pto=nui

[gsjackson]

Very interesting, PD. Since you have some knowledge of these occult societies, any thoughts on who's ultimately behind the scamdemic? Who are Fauci, Gates, etc. working for?

Edit: Reading up on Franceschetti, it looks like he fingers the usual suspects. It says he identifies recurring themes of Judaism in the ritual murders. Who could have guessed? Also up your alley -- as a City of London vet.