Sunday, June 12, 2011

Amanda Knox and the serial killer

I haven't blogged much (or ever?) about the Amanda Knox case. But not because I haven't followed it or formed opinions about it. I have. (I've always thought the prosecution's theory was ludicrous and that the crime itself is most compatible with a lone-killer theory, which is what the evidence supports.) I just didn't really have much to add to the discussion, if there even is much discussion here in the U.S. Until this week when my college roommate gave me a book to read on the plane ride home. She, like me, is a prolific reader. But unlike me, she does not like to keep physical books lying around her house. (Our roommate relationship worked well because she didn't mind my clutter as long as it stayed on my side of the room. Her side was neat, mine wasn't, and there was never any discussion or nagging about it. I don't respond well to nagging.)

The book she gave me was about a serial killer. Naturally, I wanted to read it. (Apparently, it's said that I spend too much time thinking about criminal law and cases, but really, what the hell else have I got to do?) So when I got to the airport ridiculously early for my flight because that's what I do, I started to read The Monster of Florence by Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi. (And in case you were wondering, I scored a window seat for my return flight, too.) I couldn't put the book down and finished it Thursday night. (The stuff I had to do just had to wait.)

Now you might think that a book about the only serial killer Florence, Italy has ever known (at least in modern times) has nothing to do with Amanda Knox's case, but you'd be wrong. The murders themselves, to any rational observer, clearly have nothing to do with each other. But based on what I learned from this book and other sources, I've concluded there isn't much that's rational about the Italian criminal justice system. I challenge anyone who thinks it's even possible that Amanda Knox is guilty to read this book and come away with anything but the overwhelming sense that there's just no reason to think she did anything.

Starting from the beginning. In 1981, Florence realized it had a serial killer on its hands. Between 1981 and 1985, someone was killing young couples who were getting to know each other all the way in their cars in the hills above Florence. Soon, officers realized this killer had also killed a couple in 1974. Eventually, the killer, dubbed the Monster of Florence, killed 7 couples total. The gun from those murders had also been used in a 1968 murder. The gun had left one very unique characteristic on all its shells. So the clear, logical solution is that someone with access to the gun used in that '68 killing became a serial killer. Preston and Spezi, who have studied the case for years, have a clear suspect in mind and it's the same person I had in mind before they identified him.

But that seemingly obvious suspect has apparently never been seriously investigated by police or prosecutors in Italy. Why believe that only one person is behind a series of gruesome murders when you can create a conspiracy involving hundreds? Occam's razor is not a preferred principle in Italy.

Instead of accepting the idea that they had a lone-acting serial killer (so prosaic, so American), they decided there just had to be more to it. Not because there was physical evidence to show there was more than one killer. But just because. They managed to convict 3 people of the murders, even though those people clearly lacked the mental faculties to plan such murders and conceal their guilt. One guy even confessed, but apparently it's a big thing to be "in the know" in Italy. So it seems this guy would rather be in the know and in prison for murder than not be part of the action. His story just doesn't match the physical evidence at all. For his story to be true, one of the couples had to have been murdered on the Sunday night before they were discovered on Monday. But another, far more credible witness, provided testimony that meant the murders happened on Saturday. And the scientific evidence also makes it impossible the couple only died 12 hours before being discovered. (I will spare you the details.)

But instead of accepting the testimony of the credible witness and the expert on decomposition, the prosecutors doggedly stuck to their theory. They also dredged up some unrelated 1985 suicide, decided it was really a homicide, and created an elaborate story about how the body had been switched in 1985 and then switched again 17 years later when the body was exhumed. I'm a little fuzzy on why the body-swap was supposed to have happened, but, sure, that's what happened. And then, in 2006, the prosecutor charged Spezi, accusing him of being part of the grand conspiracy behind the murders who was now trying to throw off the investigation by finding that expert and generally questioning the course of the investigation over the past 20 years. Who other than someone deeply involved in the murders, after all, would be so interested in steering the investigation away from the conspiracy theory?

Happily, reason ultimately carried the day and the charges against Spezi were dropped. Largely because the prosecutors also targeted the American writer, a best-seller, who mobilized the global journalism community to raise holy hell about it. Not only was Spezi released, but the prosecutor and chief investigator pushing the insane conspiracy theory were both found to have abused their offices and committed all kinds of misconduct. The prosecutor was actually sentenced to 2 years, but that sentence was suspended.

So, what does all of this have to do with Amanda Knox? Well, the disgraced prosecutor behind the arrest of Spezi and the nutty conspiracy theory about the Monster of Florence case is the very prosecutor who handled Meredith Kercher's murder and came up with the notion that it was a sex game gone wrong. Once again, Occam's razor would suggest that the likeliest explanation for Kercher's murder really is that the guy whose DNA is all over the murder scene, whose bloody handprint was on the wall of the room, and whose hair was clutched in the victim's hand is the guilty party. But the prosecutor just didn't like that Amanda; he had a bad feeling about her. I mean, she was buying lingerie in the days after her roommate's murder! (Never mind that she was barred from entering her home, the crime scene, so had to buy new underwear.) And she was making out with her boyfriend and smiling! (If they're talking about the video clip I've seen, I see two sweet, subdued, stunned kids finding a little comfort in each other. But I'm just a silly, prosaic American.) So he decided she did it (and the boyfriend, too), evidence be damned.

In one last interesting twist, there's a prolific blogger in Italy who lives for conspiracy theories. I'm afraid to use her name because I fear she might be one of those who would look up every webpage that has her name on it and I really don't want this crazy lady e-mailing me. But here goes. Her name is Gabriella Carlizzi. I do not know the name of her website. She is really one of the architects of the Monster conspiracy theory. She thinks it's all related to this mysterious Order of the Red Rose, some super-secret order dating back to Florence's heyday in the Renaissance. In her mind, the red rose guys are the cream of the crop in Florence society and engage in all sorts of perverse and satanic activities when no one's looking. They got all those simpletons to commit the monster murders and take body parts of the female victims so they could use those body parts in their rituals. And, no, of course there is no physical evidence to support any of this at all. Well, except for the hexagonal stone piece found at one of the crime scenes that is clearly a conduit between this world and the underworld. Or a standard Tuscan doorstop. Depending on how you look at it. (At one point, they finally thought they'd found the lair used by this sect. There were skulls and bones there! The search revealed Halloween decorations...) So clearly Carlizzi never met a conspiracy nutty enough to find unbelievable.

Perhaps you're already seeing where she took this? If you guessed that in the days after Kercher's murder, Carlizzi suggested on her blog that it was connected to the Monster of Florence conspiracy, you're a winner! Apparently those red rose folks were getting itchy to get back to the killing and satanic rituals, so they decided to try a different kind of murder. Or something. And that Amanda Knox was involved. It was the very next day that the prosecutor charged Knox and her boyfriend. In the book, Preston and Spezi write of Carlizzi having a Rasputin-like hold over this prosecutor. In his case against Spezi, the prosecutor used quote after quote after quote from her blog to the court. Spezi apparently had some fun pointing that out in his rebuttal.

This woman has no credibility. A prosecution based on a fantastical theory she came up with has no credibility. A prosecutor who would be guided by her (and has already been found to have abused his office, etc.) has no credibility. And yet Amanda Knox was prosecuted by this man spouting a fantastical theory originally thought up by this woman. How could anyone think her conviction has any credibility?

So, no, I don't think Amanda Knox is guilty. I don't even think it's possible. I don't think there is any rational reason for any person to believe otherwise. All the stuff against her is hysteria, sound and fury signifying nothing. The physical evidence points to Rudy Guede. All of it. But, Sarah, you say, what about the knife with Amanda's DNA on the handle and Meredith's DNA on the blade? Oh, you mean the knife that isn't the freakin' murder weapon?? Of course a knife that Amanda used to cook could have her DNA on it and the miniscule amount of Meredith's DNA on it is much more consistent with either transfer (some of her skin transferred onto Amanda who then carried it to the boyfriend's house and got it on the knife) or contamination at the lab. Either way, it really doesn't matter because that knife wasn't the one that killed Kercher!

The prosecution's theory simply defies all logic, ignores the actual physical evidence, and refuses to accept the likeliest explanation. Having now seen that this is just what prosecutors do in this region of Italy (especially this prosecutor), spin out crazy huge conspiracy theories and get innocent people convicted of murder, I have no doubt that Amanda Knox has no business being in prison. And I seriously question whether I will ever return to Italy. Which is a shame because I really did love Florence. But you never know where or when a dead body might turn up and how far the conspiracy behind that body might reach.


«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 278 of 278
Anonymous said...

OK, RD, so all the posts about Amanda Knox on the worldwide web which you don't like are written by one person who is in the pay of an Italian prosecutor.Glad you've sorted that one out..I bet Knox is delighted to have clever conspiracy theorists like you on her side.

Anonymous said...

Of coure, RD - there's only one person in the whole wide world posting comments about Knox which you don't like, and he or she is in the pay of an Italian prosecutor... I doubt you were the cleverest kid at school, but - my oh my - your 'opinions' sure mark you out as someone special.

BellsforStacy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
BellsforStacy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
S said...

Stacy, I feel like we're really bonding over this and it warms my heart. I don't believe I've been rude or disrespectful. In fact, I feel I've been fairly tolerant of the nonsense that has been posted here. I don't even mind if people post anonymously (though it would be handy if anon posters would provide some kind of handle so they could be addressed specifically).

One thing I want to address is the notion that I'm an extremist for having reached a firm conclusion. Researching evidence from multiple sources, reading arguments on both sides, and then reaching a conclusion isn't extremist at all. There is the sense nowadays that it is somehow wrong to arrive at a firm conclusion, to say I really have no doubt, to refuse to consider facts as opinions, etc. This kind of thinking is what allowed the birthers to stick around as long as they did. It's infuriating. Facts aren't up for debate. And you really can reach conclusions.

Anonymous said...

No S. - people are not posting 'nonsense' because they support a unanimous verdict arrived at in a court of law.

Being rude to people - or worse - because you are so convinced that you are right and other people are wrong is how extremists behave.

Today a child killer gave testimony on Knox's behalf - insisting that she is completely innocent. Chances are that he too would want to attack everybody who disagrees with him, dismissing them as worthless nobodies whose 'nonsense' views don't count.

Extremists come in all shapes and sizes, and it's very sad to see you betray yourself as one.

js202 said...

Anonymous (whichever "anonymous" you may happen to be) --

You have crossed the line and are positively shameless. This professional attorney has displayed the grace to allow obsessive compulsive individuals like you onto her website, and freely comment as they choose. By comparing her opinions to those of a felon, you are more than rude; you are indecent, and clearly were not raised properly.

Not once have you, nor "Harry Rag," nor "Michael" deferred to this woman's courtesy or professional experience. All of you have come in, guns blazing, with the usual guilter hostility and imprecision. In terms of their knowledge and experience, both S. and "halides1" have torn all of your posts to shreds, but, -- like always -- like punch drunk fighters, you persist. It would be comical if it were not so profoundly mannerless and offensive.

Anonymous said...

That was a fascinating series of posts.

Wow, been following this case recently and just want to say what a great blog article.

For me its an example of what happens when conspiracy theorists/armchair detectives like Harry and Michael run into real professionals like the blogger and halides1. They get their asses handed to them.

I just feel bad for the waste your time arguing with these tools. They have an agenda that they have backed themselves into, and will never ever admit they're wrong, and will be very rude about it.

Anonymous said...

Mountains of drivel being posted on PMF today.
No-one there even attempts to understand the Italian criminal justice system.
It is an odd combination of the inquisitorial and adversarial systems.
Alessi, Aviello and co were NOT called as defence witnesses.
Defence counsel asked Hellmann for them to appear in order to show that their evidence had been ignored at the first trial.
It also was a successful ploy to get Hellmann to order Guede to appear as a witness.
So on 27 June Guede will face questioning under oath from all sides.
3 days later the DNA report is due.
All told a good day for AK and RS.

Anonymous said...

The last three posts are hilarious - especially the guy telling everybody off for not being deferential enough to the great S. (what a sad guy he must be - he must suffer from massive status anxiety. He attacks people for stating, quite correctly, that S. has the same view about Knox as a convicted child killer - that she is innocent - yet misses the essential point that S. is advocating for a convicted felon! ).

And listen to these posters writing as if Knox is innocent and that they are 'right'. Er, last time I looked, she was in prison! And being supported by five criminals, including a child killer and mobster.

Anyway, I suspect that from now on S. 'the attorney' (bow down everybody - she's 'really' important and clever) will solely carry her own views, or those of other anonymous little bloggers who support those views. That's what extremist propoganda is all about.

js202 said...

"Anonymous" --

Not only are you an absolute coward in your anonymity, you are literally stunning in your rudeness and stupidity.

To repeat, you are so grotesquely transfigured by this case that you have abandoned all norms of propriety. The host of this blog is an attorney whose *job it is* at times to defend the rights of wrongly convicted felons. What part of that don't you understand? When you're not on the dole, what's your own professional experience? Surely it doesn't involve correctly spelling "propaganda."

This is not PMF or TJMK, where wackos lap up your transparent bullshit like so much foie gras. It is a private blog where the author displayed the temerity to write *one entry* on the subject held so dear in your withered and distorted heart. In your rants here, you, "Michael," and "Harry Rag" have displayed the good manners and taste of guests who waltz into their host's living room and gleefully piss on the oriental rug.

You might notice that this host has ceased replying to you jokers. Are you fool enough to think that this is because she feels confounded by the superior reason and logic of the likes of you?! No doubt she has gone silent because she is aghast at what a circle jerk of obsessed cretins she has unwittingly invited into her space.

Anonymous said...

Js202 – calm down.

‘Literally stunning’ – that sounds interesting, just as all of your outraged language sounds ‘interesting’ (not important, or helpful, or in the least bit intelligent – just interesting). You really are clearly very unhappy with your life, and certainly suffer from acute status anxiety.

As it happens, there’s nothing ‘private’ about posting offensive material relating to the murder of Meredith Kercher on the worldwide web. You can swear, and rant, and insult people as much as you like but that doesn’t mean Meredith’s friends and family are going to stand by and let you get away with it unchallenged.

Inarticulate types like you can’t string a coherent post together without using words like ‘piss’and ‘jerk’. That's sad, but that's who you are. Unhappy, inarticulate types like you are of no consequence – you will always use language like this, you will always be angry and emotional rather than rational, and you will always fail in everything you do, no matter how many people try to help you.

However S. claims to be a distinguished (if anonymous) attorney. Yet she doesn't speak Italian (and, who knows, may never have even been to Italy) so surely knows far less about a murder trial in Perugia than she thinks. Certainly, if she claims superior knowledge to the family and friends, and indeed Italian legal representatives, of the murder victim, then she’s going to get criticised. S.'s disturbingly certain views are now linked to all kinds of sites around the world. They are not ‘private’ – they need to be challenged, just as the views of all extremists posting about this case need to be challenged (on both sides of the legal argument). As an 'attorney' (one who clearly has a lot of fans - many of them extremely deferential ones like you) she might appreciate knowing this, even if you don't.

S. has perhaps stopped posting because she’s lost credibility, and perhaps been exposed as rather chauvinistic and dogmatic. Your unhinged rants – and those of other ‘interesting’ S. 'fans' posting on her blog - perhaps prove that beyond doubt.

Oh, and it's most amusing to see so many spelling mistakes and grammatical errors in your own, ahem, ‘highly-emotional’ (to put it politely) posts. Perhaps you’re a lot less clever – and indeed far more cowardly – than those you attempt to insult (while in fact causing them much merriment).Just sayin'. : )

S said...

Anon, in case you hadn't noticed, I do not delete comments, unless they are spam. I do not silence other viewpoints, no matter how obnoxious and arrogant the proponents might be or how Ill-informed the views are.

Calling Amanda and Rafaelle "sadistic sex killers" is nonsense. Referring to Amanda leaving footprints in Meredith's blood is nonsense. (The evidence doesn't support it.) Calling me an extremist for having reached a conclusion different from yours is nonsense. Oh, and lest i forget, the case against Amanda and Rafaelle is nonsense. I don't understand why you claim to be so offended by anyone having the nerve to say these convictions should not stand.

It is not an insult to Meredith's memory or to her family to question the validity of these convictions. And challenging the claims made by you, Michael, Harry Rag, etc. is not attacking them. Nor is it rude. I would most respectfully submit that I am not the one who has called names or generally turned the tone of this comment thread negative. That would be you and your cohorts.

js202 said...

Anonymous --

Regrettably, I've been around your circles long enough to know that "calm down" is the standard, imbecilic rejoinder for you clowns. By now it is considerably less effective even than your ilk's laughable attempts at scientific discussion and debate. Rest assured that I'm calm enough to recognize arrant jackasses when I seem them. And you are one prize jackass.

In another sign of your reckless stupidity, I'll suggest that if you devote your time to finding *one* misspelled word in my last post, you'll be looking all day. There are none.

Out of deference to the host of this blog -- whom obviously I entered this "discussion" to defend -- I'll make this my last post, leaving you to continue making a contemptible laughingstock of yourself and your cause.

Anonymous said...

@S. – you have your position, and I respect you for that. I also want to thank you for initiating this debate. But please remember if you ever return to this interesting case: not everybody who supports the initial guilty verdict in this case is a ‘troll’, and nor are they writing ‘nonsense’. This goes as much for Meredith’s family as for anybody else who accepts the evidence rehearsed in a year-long trial carried out in the most public of circumstances.

And as for @Js202: don’t take yourself too seriously, tiger. This is an amateur blog site. As much as anyone might try, it’s very hard to display ‘reckless stupidity’ on a site which is headed by a cartoon of a young woman. And a cute little dog. Your neurotic housewife act is sadly misplaced over here. If you’re after grown-up emotional turmoil, then you’d be better off moving up to the drama that is daytime TV. Who knows, you might even find some happiness there.

In the meantime, if you’re going to defend anyone, or anything, again - watch your language. S. will know this, especially if she's a defense attorney. As a junior clerk to my own chambers once suggested: ‘Once they start swearing at you, it’s clear that it’s case won.’ How right he was.

Thanks again @S and good luck with your career……

Oh,and @Js202 – good luck with your spelling and punctuation. You’ll need it. :)

Chris Halkides said...

Anonymous at 11:15 AM,

What time do you think that Meredith died and why?

komponisto said...

Sarah (as I gather your name is),

You've nailed it. Your analysis is spot on -- Occam's razor and everything. This is an excellent post, which you reinforce with some equally excellent comments.

You are a credit to your (oft-maligned) profession.

Anonymous said...

Crazy how folks think the guilters have a CAUSE – shes been in prison for more than four years. Shes being punished and the cause is our cause to get her home right now to the USA. One of the biggest obstacals is the confesion Amanda signed – you can read if you google ‘Amanda Knox statemant to police’. It says stuff lick ‘In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer’. This statement is a forgary that is sure is nonsense like the blogger says. Amanda is innocennt definitely and folks who say not are liers and trols.

Anonymous said...

Way to go u guys!! Amanda is on a home run and its all thanks to u guys who are write when you say that the dirty foreign people just talk nonsense. We should not have anything to do with foriegn filth who are jackasses and no nothing about American freedom. Amanda was on railroad trial from hell but now she is coming home thanks guys 4 bein there!

S said...

Thank you, komponisto. Funny how you were able to figure out my name (as it's in this post and on a sidebar). Anonymous seems not to have caught that. ("S" is just how I've always signed notes and e-mails, but my identity is hardly a secret.)

To Anon @ 11:15, I'm sure there are some who think Amanda is guilty who are not trolls. But an awful lot of the commenters here in the past week absolutely have been. Michael stands out as the textbook troll. But I have to disagree with you that not everyone who writes in support of the initial verdict is writing nonsense. The guilty verdict is nonsense. The case against Amanda is nonsense. There is no evidence against her and I will not defer to anyone on that point, regardless of how civilly they state their points or how closely connected they may be to Meredith. It is not disrespectful to Meredith's memory to challenge anyone, even her family, who would keep 2 innocent people in prison in a misguided attempt to secure justice for her.

Anonymous said...

Hey @halides1 - stop acting like a troll like those stinking foreign jerks, especialy the third world italian jackasses.

Chris Halkides said...


I am not sure what you mean, but I am happy to discuss the facts of the case.


You gave answers to some of my questions, but you did not cover the issue of gloves. I did not agree with the answers that you gave.

GreyFox said...

Great article. Sadistic Halloween That's a good one.And people bought into that? The day after Halloween? Now she did it from the other room ? That Mignini sure comes up with some good ones.Before long he'll pin it on the good Queen herself!

Anonymous said...

@halides1 - you answered your own question buddy. as Sarah makes clear there is nothing to discuss ziltch. The best US attorneys in the world have proved Amandas innocent beyond doubt including Steve Moore FBI. Amanda is absolutely innocent and the US government concurs. Those Italian jackasses just wanted to pin this murder on innocent Americans but they counted without investigaters like Steve and sarah so quit your trolling.

StacyH said...

Sorry I deleted my comments, Sarah. I was scared they would visit my blog and I don't want the wackies over there! And I forgot to comment as just my name and not with my login, if that makes sense.

These people are nuts. You are not nuts. We may disagree on a host of social issues (and I bet even those we aren't that far apart) but a persons a person, no matter how they vote. :)

StacyH said...

And to Anon - I'm a girl (young lady? woman?) not a "guy," most assuredly not a "sad" one, and I was taking issue with people saying S. was uneducated and had little understanding of the law. Which is like saying I have no idea what a diaper genie is, a device with which I'm intimately familiar.

I do not have a firm understanding of the law, or it's finer points, which is why I can not say with any conviction what the hell is going on over in Italy with Amanda Knox and her case. I do know that S.'s blog makes sense, and her restatement of the facts of the case seem to illustrate why their is such a feeling out their that Knox's conviction will be over turned.

And we should not bow down to S. because she's a lawyer, but we should respect her legal opinion because she has some expertise here, and rather than be rude and condescending, should debate honestly and politely. Which apparently, you can not do.

Now ... go away. Go bug a message board. This is not the place for you. And my life is not sad, thank you so much.

Anonymous said...

@StacyH - 'Sorry I deleted my comments,'

No one else was... and not all Amanda fans are nuts so dont be so rude missy. shes coming home within 2 weeks and its no thanks to your rudenes.

S said...

Stacy, I figured that was why you deleted them. I hope nobody followed you to harass you. Some of these people are nuts.

And I really hope Anon is right that Amanda will be home soon. I keep reading more and more about this case and am only becoming more and more convinced that her conviction is an absolute travesty.

Anonymous said...

It is interesting to note that the pro guilters seem unable to discuss this case in a calm, polite and reasoned manner.
It is the same on JREF.
Furthermore they appear unaware how badly the appeal is going for the prosecution.
It is a trial de novo and
Judge Hellmann is slowly and surely leaving no stone unturned.

Anonymous said...

Absolutly @anoymous - we debate in a calm sensible manner but those guilty scum cant do this. Thats because most of them are foriegners, family and jsut the kind of jackases who support those legal jackasses. They are all guilter scum and liers and S. has proved this.

Anonymous said...

What hurt me the most there is just one very rich person who leading the Attack, on Amanda and Raffaele.
When you ask for real fact there is nothing? Sorry it is in the Massei report.
Or the PR machine in Seattle,or the Knoxs family are very rich, or Amanda is white.
The same old rubbish posted, day after day on all, the web sites across the world.
As yourself, knows that Amanda was very far from being budy budy with Rudy Guede.
We the surporters of AK and RS, hate what this rich person is doing for fun, with his web site.
Please note I have note said no names, but you your self know who I mean,
Take care.

Anonymous said...

Yesterday's hearing:

Rudy Guede denied Alessi's claim.
Then Mignini was allowed to read out a typed letter he had prepared for Guede to sign last year, stating that Amanda and Raffaele were guilty of the murder of Meredith.
Judge Hellmann did not allow the defence to question Guede on this although he was appearing as a witness for the prosecution.
So the court was denied the possible opportunity to hear what really happened on that fateful night.

Or was Hellmann being very astute in allowing that document into evidence of Guede's perjury, already knowing the experts' DNA results?

Anonymous said...

Correction to my post above.

The letter was handwritten by Guede from Viterbo prison on
7 March 2010.

Anonymous said...

I just cant believe how the guiltar scum are allowed to accuse Amanda of being a girlfriend of an Italien. It is disgusting. We should have nothing to do with jackass foreign scum especially not Italians.They our all liers and anyone can see what they have no evidance whatsoever. Now that the black guy Italian Africa man is defanitely guilty Amanda will be home in the USA next week. Way go!

BMN said...

Now that the court-appointed experts have discredited the DNA evidence, it is time now for the hate-fueled guilters to disappear into oblivion.

S said...

You might think that, BMN, but they're kinda still at it. Now they're all focused on the idea that there HAD to be more than one killer because a grown-man like Guede couldn't have possibly overpowered Meredith and inflicted the wounds on her as he did without help. Because she knew karate and was feisty or some such nonsense.

Sadly, even if Amanda and Raffaele are ultimately acquitted by the courts (as I have real hope they will be), they will both live the rest of their lives with some idiots out there just doggedly believing, assuming, they had something to do with this.

onofarar said...

Sarah you have hit on one of the real tragedies of this case - because of the reckless disregard for proper investigative techniques, shoddy police work, a rush to judgement by the authorities and confirmation bias (to mentiononly a few causes) two innocents have been branded as killers and like a visible tattoo they will carry that with them forever. Nutjobs, wackos and the uninformed will associate them with the label "murderer" whenever they get the chance. Even after their acquittal we will have to maintain vigilance against continued attacks on their character.

onofarar said...

BTW - I want to commend you for your courage standing up to Harry Rag, Michael, Peggy (Skep)and Peter Q and their crowd. As you have experienced, they attempt (with some success unfortunately) to shout down any voices raised to defend AK & RS or who question the verdict or the evidence (lack of) for guilt. For many months they controlled the wikipedia site about the case deleting any edit attempts to present a fair minded review of the case - many well informed supporters such as "Charlie Wilkes" (aka Jim Lovering) were even banned from the wiki site when they posted anything "anit-guilter". You have just had a small dose of their tactics.

S said...

Thanks, onofarar. I don't tend to take people's assertions as truth without checking them out. So when Harry et al started posting comments on here, maybe they didn't expect me to do as much research from as many sources as I did. It's utterly ridiculous how often they continue to spread absolute lies all over the internet. They underestimated my willingness to keep responding. I notice they haven't come back to tangle with me again. Now, that's probably because this is just a small time blog and the big news out of Italy this week (confirming that the DNA testing was unreliable) has kept them occupied. But it's my birthday today, so indulge me for thinking maybe it's at least a little bit that they know they can't fool me.

onofarar said...

Belated Happy Birthday!

Anonymous said...

Blah, blah, blah Harry Rag. You are such a 'troll'-kin record.

Anonymous said...

Happy b'day m'valiant lady!

Anonymous said...

Happy Birthday!

S said...

Aww, thanks for the birthday wishes!

Anonymous said...

Way to go! We beat the scum filth foreigners hands down. We are the winners and thats why Amanda Knox won her case and has now been freed. Who needs dirty filthy foreign people when the pride of American free and true is their to stand up against foriegner jackasses! The black African Italian did it and Amnda is now a free woman thanks to her FBI atterney. Way to go sister advocate - American and Proud!

Anonymous said...

This blog seems to be designed for all-American racist delinquents. I'm going some place else.

Chris Halkides said...


I suspect that the some of the last few comments were not added by anyone with a serious interest in the case and can safely be ignored.

Anonymous said...


We are Amandas friend and we have more interest in this case than foriegn scum buddy. Amanda should never have spent time with them Afkikan Italian scum. Amanda never lied, never smoked drugs, never drunk alcole and most of all never went with Italian filth boys. It is all lies and thats why she is now free.

Anonymous said...

Team Knox brainwashing - look at the evidence! They are guilty - just like OJ was guilty; if you think they have no evidnece then you must really think Scott Peterson got a raw deal - Oprah should have his family on to decry how he will be put to death for something he didn't do, right?

Chris Halkides said...

This is the second Scott Peterson comment from you today. That is a facile comparison. Why are you insulting everyone by referring to brainwashing?

Anonymous said...

I have nothing to do with the law. I'm just a simpleton. I started off thinking she was guilty, not knowing other people were involved, and after a while I find out she has an appeal and a guy was convicted of the crime...that said.
The Harry Rags and Michaels out there, please stop blogging to hear yourself write. (I refer to the clicking of the keyboard here) I personally like to hear myself talk because I make myself laugh, so don't go attacking me for saying this. I'm not saying that she is innocent, but your blatent disregard for simple facts, and again I haven't read any reports, but I did read a little bit on the knife and footprints that were so damaging in the first place?, and your blatent disregard for the impossibility that police try to force out confessions from people is ludicris. It happens ALL THE TIME. It's called a tactic. They do that. Prosecutors lie too. They aren't thrown down here by God to smite the guilty and uphold the truths of the innocent. And...INNOCENT PEOPLE DO LIE. Known fact. It is human freaking nature. Lets use a liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitle common sense. The facts of DNA even I know. You can get DNA from so many places, but just because it's DNA doesn't mean its blood. Footprints? SHE LIVED THERE YOU CRAZY MAN!!! I don't understand how you can say things like that when I can find footprints, and probably blood, somewhere in your house and I can then say, "you hurt your wife and then ran out of the room and I know this because there's a footprint of YOU in YOUR house and there is blood of YOUR WIFE who LIVES with you somewhere in your house. Again, I haven't read the reports and I don't know much about this case. What I do know and what half the arguments are about have no merit and would never have any merit in lots of courts. "There were footprints of Amanda in the house...that she lived in..." No way...
The knife...I mean come on guys. Just...stop. Come up with something real.
Personally...I think she had just a liiiiitle bit more to do with it than everyone claims how innocent she is. Only because it's just a little funny that they would go after her in the first place if she wasn't completely innocent. Unless that was their witch hunt.

Anonymous said...

Oh...and this "unanimous" decision people seem to get bent on saying that is the sole evidence of guilt...
Haven't you watched any news of people being exonerated after a unanimous decision by the jurors in lots of cases? I've been hearing tons of cases where people are getting exonerated because of DNA evidence that we didn't use back then. And I supposed during segregation that all the white people on the jury hanging the black man were ALWAYS correct...
Ignorance must be bliss. I want it.

S said...

People still cling to the idea that she must have had a liiiiitttle something to do with it for their own comfort. It's hard to accept the fact that completely innocent people really can get caught up in something like this and be accused for absolutely no good reason. But it does happen. And there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that she had anything to do with it. In fact, I think it's pretty much stone cold fact that she did not have anything to do with it. That she and Raffaele were at his apartment as they said all along, perhaps fuzzy on the details because normal people don't pay all that much attention to exactly what time they finished cooking dinner, what time they went to bed, etc. That Rudy Guede acted completely and totally alone, as the vast, vast majority of such rape/murders go.

It's scary to think that completely innocent people could be convicted without having SOME involvement, but it's reality and by any objective, rational measure of this evidence, it is what happened here.

onofarar said...

Well AK (and RS) were acquitted yesterday - at least belatedly justice was served. Thanks for so clearly seeing what a total miscarriage of justice the first trial was. In fact, ever thinking the two were suspects was whacky but then you figured out Mignini was just that too.
BTW - The assistant prosecutor Manuela (Flush The) Comodi was pretty evil as well.

S said...

Yes, they were acquitted. Absolved, actually. With the appellate court declaring they did not do the crime.

The crazy prosecutor, who himself might soon be in the clink as he is a convicted felon, is predictably blustering about how this second trial was conducted under "unacceptable" media pressure. Uh, pot meet kettle. Remember all the publicity before and during the first trial? All the false stories you leaked to the press? Truth lost out in the first trial thanks to your work with tabloid journalists. Thankfully, truth won out the second time.

And tragically, Meredith Kercher's family are left feeling like they have no idea what really happened to their beloved. Because all this time, they were told by the prosecution that there were 2 people besides Rudy Guede involved in this crime. There weren't, but courts and experts played along with that theory because Mignini and Comodi (also evil, as Orofar points out) were just so dang sure that Amanda and Raffaele were involved. But they weren't.

So now it's time to go back to square one, look at the crime scene as it really was, without injecting theories into it that make no sense. The crime scene speaks fairly clearly to what happened. It was Rudy Guede. By himself. Here's hoping everyone can get to a point of acknowledging this simple truth that should have been obvious all along.

Michelle Moore said...

The guilters were so full of it, they have no where to go.
I had found a great blog:
and it shared who Harry Rag really is. I think it's Peter Quennell, who is too chicken to say who he really is.

Michelle Moore said...

Wait, that was the wrong address...I'll get the correct one to you tomorrow hopefully. Thanks,

Michelle Moore said...

Hi there, this is Michelle Moore. I wanted to try (again) to leave you the link that will give you the low down on the infamous "Harry Rag".
This gal wrote a great blog and the responses from Harry put him in a place of being straightened out.
You have to copy and paste, sorry:
Comments are superb!!!!

Harry Rag said...

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

Harry Rag said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Harry Rag said...

If anybody wants to understand the reasons why Amanda Knox was convicted of murder, I recommend reading the translations of the official court documents and court testimony. They can be downloaded from the Meredith Kercher Wiki website:

Anonymous said...

I agree that Amanda is innocent but three things don't make sense to me:

1. The locked door - Rudy's bloody footprints show him walking away from the bedroom. To lock the door he'd have had to turn around therefore leaving at least one footprint, but there aren't any. So who locked the door? Also why did Meredith insist to the local police that Meredith often locked her door so this was nothing to worry about. Yet Filomena disputed this and said she never locked the door and encouraged them to break it open.

2. How did Amanda know that Meredith was killed by the wardrobe when she didn't see inside the room, and when the police kicked the door in Amanda and her boyfriend were in the kitchen so didn't see Meredith in the room.

3. Rafaelle's 211 calls. He hung up mid question (as if to consult Amanda) and then rang back. He also stated nothing had been taken in the break-in. How did he know this?

4. When the local police turned up with the mobile phones, why was Amanda standing outside with a mop? What was she cleaning? And more importantly WHY was she cleaning?

I truly believe their innocence and think they have been made scapegoats to help Rudy get a reduced sentence. Apparently Rudy's adoptive family are very wealthy and give money to the police. However I wonder if Amanda went back and found Meredith, panicked, possibly thinking she could be somehow blamed. Maybe she went back to get Rafaelle and they locked the bedroom door in order to buy themselves time to think and also clean.

Channel 5 in the UK have done a very interesting documentary where they hired forensic experts and every piece of "key" evidence was refuted. They even proved that the break-in did indeed happen and Rudy could have climbed up to the window with ease. So none of the evidence can place Amanda or Rafaelle in Meredith's bedroom. However I just wonder whether Amanda discovered Meredith and panicked. And maybe this is why she and Rafaelle have changed their stories so many times - not because they are guilty, but because they were worried about placing themselves there by accident in case of implication?

Anonymous said...

Sorry, I meant four things don't make sense!

S said...

1) Rudy didn't have to face the door to lock it. That hallway is pretty narrow. He went first to the bathroom, then walked out, I'd guess locking the door on his way out. Body at a 90 degree angle to the door is a perfectly natural way to stand while locking a door.

I don't think Amanda was trying to insist Meredith "locked" her door. I think this was a lost in translation thing in that chaos. Remember Amanda didn't have strong command of Italian at the time. I think she was trying to say it was normal for Meredith to leave her door closed.

2) Way too much is made of this. There were so many people there, all who saw something or surmised something. Either someone said something that she heard or she just assumed that based on the layout of the room. (Meredith's room was pretty tiny; everything would be by the wardrobe.)

3) Have you ever come home to find something weird at your home? You call the police, but you're a little worried you're going to be made to look foolish when there's nothing really wrong. Raf and Amanda didn't know what they were finding. I don't think there's anything terribly weird about him hanging up, either out or nervousness or by mistake. I also think it's totally normal to see everything you expect to see in your home and say nothing seems to have been taken. Of course they wouldn't have known if smaller things like jewelry or money was taken, but I have called 911 when my own home was burglarized and said nothing seemed to be missing as I sat in my living room and could see my tv, my dvr, etc. Of course, lots of stuff had been taken.

4) Why Amanda and Raf were outside with the mop has been well-covered. Raf had a bum pipe in his house and didn't own a mop (typical bachelor guy). Amanda came home to shower and was going to take the mop back with her, but forgot it as she was weirded out by the slightly off things she saw. She went back to get Raf and bring him back. Once they decided this really was worth a call to the cops, they went outside to wait. This time, they remembered to bring the mop. (That mop was tested, you know, and showed absolutely no signs of having been in contact with blood, Meredith's DNA, etc. It was quite clearly not used in a clean-up that morning.)

The only way Amanda and Raffaele's behavior that morning and after makes any sense is if they had no idea what had happened at that home.

Anonymous said...

Thanks so much for the detailed reply. Everything you said seems very plausible - sure of course the mop would have been tested and you wouldn't be standing with that if you'd been cleaning a murder scene! Do you know about the blood in the bidet? I can't find any info on that other than it being Amanda's mixed with Meredith's. It most definitely seems to be a total stitch up - all the focus on these two whilst Rudy almost goes unnoticed and will be out soon. Shame on the Italian police and legal system. Two young people's lives needlessly ruined when they already have the killer.

Anonymous said...

Oh one other thing I forgot about - if Rudy left bloody footprints in the hallway as he was walking out, did Amanda not see these as age went home for her shower? I've read about her being weirded out by the open door and the bits of blood in the bathroom, but nothing about the bloody footprints in the hallway (unless they were really faint and could only be seen via luminol?).

Anonymous said...

Sorry I meant "as SHE went home for her shower". I'm typing from my phone with autocorrect :-)

S said...

Yes, of course, Amanda's DNA is in the bathroom she used. There is no spot in anyone's house that would have more of his/her DNA than the bathroom. And, yes, Meredith's DNA was there, as well. Also, it's clear that Guede went in there and washed some of the blood off, so some drops of Meredith's blood are in there.

But anyone who tells you that when there is a drop of blood with more than one DNA profile found, you can tell whose blood it is is flat out lying to you. There is no way to tell that a drop of blood is actually made from one person's blood mixed with another person's blood. That's just absolutely not possible.

The insane guilters will go on about the quantity of the DNA in that bidet sample meaning it couldn't have come from anything other than blood because no other skin cells or body fluids would excrete and leave that quantity of DNA. Which just makes you scratch your head and wonder if they understand exactly what goes on in a bathroom.

That drop is blood and does contain both DNA profiles, but it does not mean that Amanda and Meredith were both bleeding. The most obvious explanation is that it is Meredith's blood that landed on a spot in the bathroom where Amanda's DNA was already present.

As for how she didn't notice the footprints in the hallway, check out the crime scene photos. When you see the close-up photos of the footprints, you can see them. But when you look at the picture of the hallway, they're not noticeable, really. They're hard to pick out when you're not looking for them. Here we have a 20 year-old girl, who people have described as a little oblivious, who is just running home to take a shower and change her clothes before spending a long holiday weekend with the new boy she is utterly infatuated with. It's totally normal that she didn't notice those footprints. My understanding of the crime scene is that no one else noticed them, either, until after Meredith's body was found and they started looking closely at the house as a crime scene. I've never read anything that says that the other roommates, the first police on scene, etc. noticed those footprints before the door to Meredith's room was opened.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for replying. They all makes perfect sense. Of course, the local police who arrived first would have noticed the footprints too had they between noticeable. And absolutely all bathrooms will be full of DNA. Thanks again.

Unknown said...

Dear Sir
I leave you with this thought it has been proven that mignini had an enemies list

Unknown said...

I wonder your a lawyer could you please find the Supreme Court ruling that says that the constitution overrides treaties somewhere. The reason I ask is I heard that the first trial judge didn't let the defense question Rudy . Doesn't that violate the constitution .

Unknown said...

You are right, and let me add two very important details with regards to that knife:

(A) The knife doesn't match the wounds on Meredith;

(B) The knife doesn't match the bloody imprint left on the bed.

Furthermore, in Amanda's purse there is no damage from the blade of a knife (at variance with Mignini's "explanation" of why the knife was allegedly carried from Raffale's apartment to the cottage).

Anonymous said...

Mignini had Carlizzi arrested for defamation in 2006 and the rest of your article is the same tired crap the Amanda Knox cult has been propogating, yawn. I see the FOA camp are out in force with their stupid "guilter" ad hominems.
Those two killers are going down come their final appeal.

S said...

"Tired crap" = truth and logic. While I do agree it's likely the high court will uphold these bogus convictions, I will never agree the convictions are at all justified. The truth of what happened to Meredith is plain as day for anyone who wants to see it to do so. Why so many are so fixated on maintaining the fiction that Amanda had anything to do with Rudy Guede's crime will never make any sense.

Anonymous said...


Is it true that you are ‘denying’ that you are a Holocaust denier on a site that promotes justice for the murder victim in this case.
While deleting all mentions of your unfortunate taste in ‘sceptical political websites’ on your own blog.
What gives? If, as you claim, you are not a holocaust denier why hide ‘your lamp under a bushel’?

Unknown said...

Hurrah, that’s what I was trying to get for, just what a stuff Presented at this blog!! Thanks admin of the site. MacFarlane Curry

Anonymous said...

Why did Amanda Knox falsely accuse Patrick Lumumba? Isn't that sort of, you know, a horrible thing to do to someone? Even if she did not murder Meredith, she was still guilty of putting an innocent man in prison.

MATINA said...

I was diagnosed as HEPATITIS B carrier in 2013 with fibrosis of the
liver already present. I started on antiviral medications which
reduced the viral load initially. After a couple of years the virus
became resistant. I started on HEPATITIS B Herbal treatment from
ULTIMATE LIFE CLINIC ( in March, 2020. Their
treatment totally reversed the virus. I did another blood test after
the 6 months long treatment and tested negative to the virus. Amazing
treatment! This treatment is a breakthrough for all HBV carriers.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 278 of 278   Newer› Newest»
Blog Designed by : NW Designs