amanda knox in court
In December 2009, Amanda Knox and ex boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito were charged with the brutal murder and sexual assault of friend and British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Northern Italy. A third man, Rudy Guede was found guilty for his part in the murder and was sentenced at an earlier trial.
The media portrayal of Knox as ‘Foxy Knoxy’ immediately following the murder went a long way to creating the public perception that the American was indeed involved in the case and was not adverse to sexually perverted behaviour, that in this instance had ended in the tragic death of Meredith Kercher.
The Trials of Amanda Knox asks: Is Knox a cold calculated killer as portrayed in the trial in Northern Italy, or is she victim of an unfortunate miscarriage of justice? Upcoming debate will finally give you the power to decide – was she really capable of murder?
Following the emotional response to its airing in the UK and the US, Crime & Investigation Network are giving British viewers the chance to see this profound portrayal which was filmed over two years, following the Knox family as they try to come to terms with Amanda’s arrest and subsequent trial by the Italian Justice System and the media. Also included are letters written by Knox during this time, giving viewers a unique insight into her life and this exhaustive case.
The debate around the trial centres on the reliability of evidence used to prosecute Ms Knox – namely Knox’s odd behaviour and contradictory accounts of the night in question arousing suspicions. Yet, a lack of DNA evidence and no obvious motive have also led to this huge debate which continues three years after Kercher’s death, although judges stated that the evidence presented during the year-long trial gave a “comprehensive and solid picture, without gaps or inconsistencies”.
For some, Knox’s conviction is evidence of a deep routed Italian vendetta against the US, a trial by the media who have portrayed Knox as a ‘devil with an angel face’. For others, Knox’s guilt is indisputable.
The Trials of Amanda Knox will be shown on Crime & Investigation Network on 5th April at 10pm
3 comments so far
1 Harry Rag // Apr 2, 2010 at 9:41 am
The evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is overwhelming.
Amanda Knox’s DNA was found on:
1. On the double DNA knife and a number of independent forensic experts – Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo and Professor Francesca Torricelli – categorically stated that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade.
2. Mixed with Meredith’s blood on the ledge of the basin.
3. Mixed with Meredith’s blood on the bidet.
4. Mixed with Meredith blood on a box of Q Tip cotton swabs.
5. Mixed with Meredith’s blood in the hallway.
6. Mixed with Meredith’s blood on the floor of Filomena’s room, where the break-in was staged.
7. On Meredith’s bra according to Dr. Stefanoni AND Raffaele Sollecito’s forensic expert, Professor Vinci.
Amanda Knox’s footprints were found set in Meredith’s blood in two places in the hallway of the new wing of the cottage. One print was exiting her own room, and one print was outside Meredith’s room, facing into the room. These bloody footprints were only revealed under luminol.
A woman’s bloody shoeprint, which matched Amanda Knox’s foot size, was found on a pillow under Meredith’s body. The bloody shoeprint was incompatible with Meredith’s shoe size.
Two independent imprint experts categorically excluded the possibility that the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat could belong to Rudy Guede. Lorenzo Rinaldi stated:
“You can see clearly that this bloody footprint on the rug does not belong to Mr. Guede, but you can see that it is compatible with Sollecito.”
The other imprint expert print expert testified that the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito’s foot.
An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. Meredith’s bra was removed some time after she had been killed and Rudy Guede had fled the scene.
The murder dynamic implicates Knox and Sollecito.
Barbie Nadeau wrote the following:
“Countless forensic experts, including those who performed the autopsies on Kercher’s body, have testified that more than one person killed her based on the size and location of her injuries and the fact that she didn’t fight back—no hair or skin was found under her fingernails.”
Judge Paolo Micheli claimed that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito knew precise details about Meredith’s murder that they could have only known if they were present when she was killed.
Amanda Knox voluntarily admitted that she involved in Meredith’s murder in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007. She stated on at least four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed. She also claimed that Sollecito was at the cottage.
Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito both gave multiple conflicting alibis and lied repeatedly. Their lies were exposed by telephone and computer records, and by CCTV footage. Neither Knox nor Sollecito have credible alibis for the night of the murder despite three attempt each. At the trial, Sollecito refused to corroborate Knox’s alibi that she was at his apartment.
Legal expert Stefano Maffei stated the following:
“There were 19 judges who looked at the evidence over the course of two years, faced with decisions on pre-trial detention, review of such detention, committal to trial, judgment on criminal responsibility. They all agreed, at all times, that the evidence was overwhelming.”
2 John Winters // Apr 14, 2010 at 12:49 pm
Look at the seemingly authentic evidence presented by someone calling themselves ”Harry Rag” above. ‘Seemingly,’ because on reflection, the thoughtful reader will realise that it has about as much authenticity as the charlatan (with his pseudonym), who posted it.
For example, consider the list of blood and DNA mixtures it cites. It appears to present some pretty damning factual evidence against Amanda.
In fact, it is shallow and without substance. And the application of a little logic will prove it.
As Amanda had been living in 7 Via della Pergola for 2 months prior to the murder, the observations on the list describing certain conditions in the cottage at the time of the murder are hardly surprising. What’s more, for all their dramatic declarativeness, they can hardly be understood as describing viable evidence. Please reconsider this list in light of the fact that this is Amanda’s home:
Meredith Kercher’s blood was found on:
Mixed with Amanda’s DNA on the ledge of the basin. (The one Amanda washed in every day).
Mixed with Amanda’s DNA on the bidet. (The one Amanda washed in every day).
Mixed with Amanda’s DNA on a box of Q Tip cotton swabs. (This box of Q Tips belonged to Amanda, so presumably she had handled the box!!).
Mixed with Amanda’s DNA in the hallway. (The hallway Amanda had to use to get in and out of the cottage every day)
Mixed with Amanda’s DNA on the floor of Filomena’s room, where the break-in was staged.
(Presumably, Amanda ventured into this room to investigate why the door was open and there was broken glass all over the place).
This is the elephant in the room: you might as well look at your wife, husband, brother, sister, or whoever you live with, and wonder why their DNA is mixed with yours in the bathroom and in the hall of your home.
I’ll just pick something else too which shows how much this person is wasting your time.
For example, this information from Rag was presented in court in June 2009:
”A woman’s bloody shoeprint, which matched Amanda Knox’s foot size, was found on a pillow under Meredith’s body. The bloody shoeprint was incompatible with Meredith’s shoe size.”
Again, seemingly pretty damning stuff. Yet it is redundant and misleading.
On September 18th, 2009, Francesco Vinci, the forensics expert, testified at Amanda’s trial about two vague traces of bloody shoe-prints that were found on a pillow under the victim’s body. While the police had previously suspected that one was a partial print of the bottom of Rudy Guede’s right sneaker – a Nike Outbreak2 – and the other the heel of a smaller shoe, probably a woman’s, Vinci testified conclusively that the original assumptions about the marks on the pillow were wrong, and that more thorough analysis carried out subsequently proved that BOTH prints were from a left shoe, the Nike Outbreak 2 already cited.
To compound the worthlessness of Rag’s kind of presentation then, one has only to consider at this point the fact that NONE of the DNA, nor ANY of the other forensic evidence discovered in the murder room, was attributable to Amanda. She simply cannot have been present in the room where and when the murder took place.
Thank you for your time.
3 Harry Rag // Aug 15, 2010 at 8:52 pm
The English translation of Judge Massei’s sentencing report can be downloaded from here:
http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=53735