jump to last post 1-2 of 2 discussions (30 posts)

Meredith Kercher - The return

  1. Silverspeeder profile image60
    Silverspeederposted 4 years ago

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article … trial.html

    Surely if she knows she is innocent the she should go back and prove it?

    1. Josak profile image59
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Once you are found innocent it should be finished, this retrial (again) would be considered illegal under double jeopardy in most countries.

      1. Silverspeeder profile image60
        Silverspeederposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I agree Josak but in this instance that's not the case. I am not in favour of dragging people through the courts for ever but if there have been obstacles to justice (both for Kercher and the victim) shouldn't every avenue be explored. At this moment in time there are still doubts about her innocence, this wont be any advantage to her future.

        1. HowardBThiname profile image90
          HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          It would be silly for her to go back. She was acquitted on appeal. It's over. Another guy has already been convicted of the same murder. Italy appears to have a prosecutorial problem.

          1. Silverspeeder profile image60
            Silverspeederposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            As I said the Italian Supreme Court has ruled that the acquittal was wrong.
            So only one person can be convicted if a murder then?

            She would be a fool to go back because it would show her to be a fool and a liar maybe!

            1. HowardBThiname profile image90
              HowardBThinameposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Given that Italy is known for having a corrupt judicial system, an Italian Supreme Court ruling doesn't hold a lot of sway in the international community.

              And given that the Italian courts already convicted another man - unrelated to the Knox theory - the girl certainly WOULD be a fool to return.

              And given that the US said that under no circumstances would they extradite her since Italy is violating US "double jeopardy" law, the girl certainly has justification to stay put here.

              From what numerous legal experts have said - there was never sufficient evidence to convict the girl in the first place. Of course, no one but the girl, herself, will ever really know.

              But, I tend to agree that this was more about the Italians trying to capitalize on sensationalism rather than being a hunt for the truth.

              The girl was exonerated - nothing else beyond that matters. Not legally. Not morally. And not in any sense of fair play.

              I'd be willing to say that if Knox is stupid enough to go back to be tried once again by a corrupt legal system - she deserves to spend the rest of her life locked up.

              1. Silverspeeder profile image60
                Silverspeederposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I will agree with you although I will add that the American and UK justice system leaves something to be desired. And a country that locks people up without trial shouldn't really be spouting rubbish about evidence.

                1. profile image57
                  Lie Detectorposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  This isn't about the U.S. or U.K. judicial systems its about a corrupt and incompetent Italian judicial system.

                  Locking up terrorists isn't anything to get worked up over!

                  1. Silverspeeder profile image60
                    Silverspeederposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Firstly how do you know they are terrorists who are being locked up and secondly the Italian justice system is the most defendant friendly in Europe.
                    Many chose their lawyers on the fact that they have court appeal, especially in the US.

                    Hollie if the justice system treats everyone equally then all cases can be compared, apples and oranges are still fruit.

    2. HollieT profile image87
      HollieTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      If they believe that she is guilty shouldn't they have proved it beyond reasonable doubt in a court of law? If I were her, and innocent, I would not go back, because if innocent she has already spent time in a prison for a crime which she did not commit.

      1. Silverspeeder profile image60
        Silverspeederposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        What about if she is found guilty in her absence? Would that mess up her life even more?
        Innocent people don't run away from the truth.

        1. HollieT profile image87
          HollieTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Well, I would if I'd already spent a number of years in an Italian prison for a murder which I did not commit. The case has been shambolic, as recent events demonstrate. They find her guilty, yet on appeal found that the evidence against her was extremely dodgy- hence her acquittal. Now they want to retry her. Who, in their right mind, would have any confidence in the Italian justice system after this circus?

          And no, I don't believe it would, because I don't believe that America would  forcibly send her back to Italy. She is merely a pawn in a "we have to pin this on somebody" political debacle.

          1. Silverspeeder profile image60
            Silverspeederposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Criminal debacle, mostly instigated by Knox herself.
            The Supreme Court has ruled the acquittal as without grounds, so technically she is still found guilty.
            However is she was found guilty on a retrial she wouldn't be able to return to Europe if she wanted to, I am not to sure if Italy has an extradition treaty with the US or not.

            1. HollieT profile image87
              HollieTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Criminal debacle, mostly instigated by Knox herself.

              You see, without having seen or analyzed any of the evidence yourself, you have already decided that she is guilty. I, on the other hand, have no idea whether she is innocent or guilty- and certainly wouldn't presume to say either way.

              Now let me see, if she was found guilty at a retrial (even in her absence) would she really give two S**** about visiting Europe again. Tough one...face a retrial which may result in lifetime imprisonment (even if innocent) just in case she wants to visit Europe again. No brainer really.

              1. Silverspeeder profile image60
                Silverspeederposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Who said I hadn't studied any of the evidence?
                I haven't said she was guilty but hen she did say she couldn't remember if she was guilty or not. As you said you haven't studied any of the evidence so you don't really care.

                And I must agree with you that she doesn't give a toss about being guilty or innocent she knows she is protected and she is rich.

                1. HollieT profile image87
                  HollieTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh ok, so you've examined the files from both the prosecution and the defense? Reading about the evidence in the paper (especially the DM) and listening to snippets of evidence given in court, is not, I'm afraid, a thorough examination of the evidence.

                  Can you point me to the reports where she claims she can't remember whether she is guilty or not? Because this is news to me.

                  As you said you haven't studied any of the evidence so you don't really care.
                  Neither have you studied the evidence, because you're not privy to the files. Bit silly to contend that I don't care or otherwise, I've just seen (first hand) what the assumption of guilt by those who have absolutely no idea what they're taking about can do to an individual and a family.

                  And I must agree with you that she doesn't give a toss about being guilty or innocent she knows she is protected and she is rich.

                  She is not rich, legal fees wiped her and her family out which is why she signed a book deal.

                  1. Silverspeeder profile image60
                    Silverspeederposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Consider as you read this what is your own possible explanation for each of the following:


                    •the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito on Meredith’s bra-clasp in her locked bedroom;

                    •the almost-entire naked footprint of Raffaele on a bathmat that in *no way* fits that of the other male in this case – Rudy Guede;

                    •the fact that Raffaele’s own father blew their alibi that they were together in Raffaele’s flat at the time of the killing with indisputable telephone records;

                    •the DNA of Meredith Kercher on the knife in Raffaele’s flat which Raffaele himself sought to explain as having been from accidentally “pricking” Meredith’s hand in his written diary despite the fact Meredith had never been to his flat (confirmed by Amanda Knox);

                    •the correlation of where Meredith’s phones were found to the location of Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guedes’s flats;

                    •the computer records which show that no-one was at Raffaele’s computer during the time of the murder despite him claiming he was using that computer;

                    •Amanda’s DNA mixed with Meredith Kercher’s in five different places just feet from Meredith’s body;

                    •the utterly inexplicable computer records the morning after the murder starting at 5.32 am and including multiple file creations and interactions thereafter all during a time that Raffaele and Amanda insist they were asleep until 10.30am;

                    •the separate witnesses who testified on oath that Amanda and Raffaele were at the square 40 metres from the girls’ cottage on the evening of the murder and the fact that Amanda was seen at a convenience store at 7.45am the next morning, again while she said she was in bed;

                    •the accusation of a completely innocent man by Amanda Knox;

                    • the fact that when Amanda Knox rang Meredith’s mobile telephones, ostensibly to check on the “missing” Meredith, she did so for just three seconds - registering the call but making no effort to allow the phone to be answered in the real world

                    •the knife-fetish of Raffaele Sollecito and his formal disciplinary punishment for watching animal porn at his university – so far from the wholesome image portrayed;

                    •the fact that claimed multi-year kick-boxer Raffaele apparently couldn’t break down a flimsy door to Meredith’s room when he and Amanda were at the flat the morning after the murder but the first people in the flat with the police who weren’t martial artists could;

                    •the extensive hard drug use of Sollecito as told on by Amanda Knox;

                    •the fact that Amanda knew details of the body and the wounds despite not being in line of sight of the body when it was discovered;

                    •the lies of Knox on the witness stand in July 2009 about how their drug intake that night (“one joint”) is totally contradicted by Sollecito’s own contemporaneous diary;

                    •the fact that after a late evening’s questioning, Knox wrote a 2,900 word email home which painstakingly details what she said happened that evening and the morning after that looks *highly* like someone committing to memory, at 3.30 in the morning, an extensive alibi;

                    •the fact that both Amanda and Raffaele both said they would give up smoking dope for life in their prison diaries despite having apparently nothing to regret;

                    •the fact that when Rudy Guede was arrested, Raffaele Sollecito didn’t celebrate the “true” perpetrator being arrested (which surely would have seen him released) but worried in his diary that a man whom he said he didn’t know would “make up strange things” about him despite him just being one person in a city of over 160,000 people;

                    •the fact that both an occupant of the cottage and the police instantly recognised the cottage had not been burgled but had been the subject of a staged break-in where glass was *on top* of apparently disturbed clothes;

                    •that Knox and Sollecito both suggested each other might have committed the crime and Sollecito TO THIS DATE does not agree Knox stayed in his flat all the night in question;

                    •the bizarre behaviour of both of them for days after the crime;

                    •the fact that cellphone records show Knox did not stay in Sollecito’s flat but had left the flat at a time which is completely coincidental with Guede’s corroborated presence near the girl’s flat earlier in the evening;

                    •the fact that Amanda Knox’s table lamp was found in the locked room of Meredith Kercher in a position that suggested it had been used to examine for fine details of the murder scene in a clean up;

                    •the unbelievable series of changing stories made up by the defendants after their versions became challenged; Knox’s inexplicable reaction to being shown the knife drawer at the girl’s cottage where she ended up physically shaking and hitting her head.

  2. HollieT profile image87
    HollieTposted 4 years ago

    •the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito on Meredith’s bra-clasp in her locked bedroom;

    •the almost-entire naked footprint of Raffaele on a bathmat that in *no way* fits that of the other male in this case – Rudy Guede;

    •the fact that Raffaele’s own father blew their alibi that they were together in Raffaele’s flat at the time of the killing with indisputable telephone records;

    •the DNA of Meredith Kercher on the knife in Raffaele’s flat which Raffaele himself sought to explain as having been from accidentally “pricking” Meredith’s hand in his written diary despite the fact Meredith had never been to his flat (confirmed by Amanda Knox);

    •Amanda’s DNA mixed with Meredith Kercher’s in five different places just feet from Meredith’s body;

    "The appellate court noted that the murder weapon was never found, said that DNA tests were faulty and that prosecutors provided no murder motive".

    Until, and whether in her absence or otherwise, the DNA tests are proven not to be faulty, any discussion regarding DNA is pointless-because after all, it could, indeed, be faulty. Therefore, as of now, this "evidence" is highly questionable. Unless of course, you really do have access to the real files and proper analysis of evidence (not the Daily Mail version!)


    •the fact that cellphone records show Knox did not stay in Sollecito’s flat but had left the flat at a time which is completely coincidental with Guede’s corroborated presence near the girl’s flat earlier in the evening;

    •the fact that Amanda Knox’s table lamp was found in the locked room of Meredith Kercher in a position that suggested it had been used to examine for fine details of the murder scene in a clean up;

    •the unbelievable series of changing stories made up by the defendants after their versions became challenged; Knox’s inexplicable reaction to being shown the knife drawer at the girl’s cottage where she ended up physically shaking and hitting her head.

    Knox has always claimed that she was "framed" I'm not saying that she was, or wasn't. I honestly don't know. But, two things to bear in mind here:

    Firstly, the Italian Police are not exactly "renowned" for their integrity.
    Secondly, this case is "highly political" there has been a great deal of anti-American rhetoric. Are the Italian police A-political- Are they really immune to political pressure?

    •the separate witnesses who testified on oath that Amanda and Raffaele were at the square 40 metres from the girls’ cottage on the evening of the murder and the fact that Amanda was seen at a convenience store at 7.45am the next morning, again while she said she was in bed;

    I'm not sure how to break this to you; but the police frequently use known informants to "stage events", or at least they do in this country. This is how informants are used, they are also used the same way in prisons. Convicts obtain "a deal" in order to turn nark and often give "false" evidence to secure parole. The same is true of community "narks" they escape prosecution when they do as they're told. I'm not saying this as some "conspiracy theorist" but because I have worked in the criminal justice field in a professional capacity. I've appeared in court, probably more times than you've had hot dinners. And whilst I would also like to have complete faith in the evidence brought forth by the police, I know from experience that some are as corruptible as the perpetrators of crime whom they target. Hence, my "open" mind when it comes listening to defendants who claim that they have been framed. Sometimes, they are telling the truth, and sometimes not.

    •the bizarre behaviour of both of them for days after the crime;
    This is nonsense, the "classic" the victim showed no remorse syndrome. Highly subjective and of no value whatsoever. (sounds like something the Daily Mail would spout)

    Can I also point out your highly sensationalist language when you talk about "the evidence" the same evidence which is "questionable" at this stage.
    "*no way* fits"
    "the unbelievable series of changing stories"
    " where she ended up physically shaking and hitting her head."
    "the fact that after a late evening’s questioning, Knox wrote a 2,900 word email home which painstakingly details what she said happened that evening and the morning after that looks *highly* like someone committing to memory, at 3.30 in the morning, an extensive alibi;"

    Unbelievable, No way fits, she ended up, looks *highly* like someone. All of this is your opinion, nothing more. You are actually beginning to sound like a sensationalist, opinionated tabloid hack with a motive.  Furthermore, I note that you have painstakingly looked for incriminating evidence against the two, yet, not once have you offered a summary of the conclusions of the appellate court. You haven't analysed the evidence at all, this is unbalanced, you have just decided that she is guilty. That's it.

    1. Silverspeeder profile image60
      Silverspeederposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Summary of the Massei report

      Version 1.5: June 4, 2011

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

      1. Introduction

      Meredith Kercher, a British student, was murdered in the apartment she shared with three other young women, in Perugia, Italy, on the night of November 1, 2007. Three people were charged with the murder: Amanda Marie Knox, an American student who was one of Meredith’s flatmates; Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student who was Knox’s boyfriend; and Rudy Hermann Guede, an Ivorian resident of Perugia who was known to both Knox and Kercher.

      Guede opted for a ‘fast track trial’ which, under Italian law, permits defendants to relinquish some rights, at trial, in exchange for a more lenient sentence, if found guilty. In October 2008, Guede was found guilty of murder and sexual assault. Knox and Sollecito opted for a full trial, and this took place, in Perugia, between January and December 2009. The presiding judge was Dr. Giancarlo Massei, assisted by a second professional judge, Dr Beatrice Cristiani,  and six ‘lay judges’. Knox and Sollecito were found guilty of murder, sexual assault and other charges related to the case.

      In accordance with Italian law, the judges produced a report detailing their interpretation of the evidence and the thought processes that led to their verdict. This document is sometimes referred to in English as a “motivations report” and, more accurately, as a “sentencing report”: often just by the name of the presiding judge - the “Massei Report”. It runs to 427 pages.

      A team of unpaid volunteers who are regular posters on the Perugiamurderfile.org message board, devoted to discussing the murder of Meredith Kercher, undertook the translation of the entire document into English. Another team of volunteers from the same message board has undertaken the present document - a summary of the Massei report.

      The act of summarising involves selection: deciding that some things are included in the summary and some are not. The editors and reviewers have tried to do this in such a way as to bring out the points to which the judges themselves attached the most weight. But, this was a process of editorial judgement and, however diligent the editors and reviewers have been, they did not know the minds of the judges, other than by the words of the report. Readers are very strongly recommended to read the report itself, or at least key passages, and not to rely on this summary alone. To assist with this, the editors have cited page references [in square brackets]: these refer to page numbers in the PMF translation which, in turn, includes page references to the Italian language original.

      2. Background

      Meredith Kercher

      Born Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher in London on December 28, 1985, she had studied Italian and Latin in England, and came to the University for Foreigners in Perugia as part of the Erasmus Programme. She chose Perugia because it was small but could be easily reached by air. In England, she had also taken classes in dance, played soccer and practised karate. Her mother and sister described her as strong, both physically and in temperament.[23]

      She left England for Perugia on September 1, 2007, at first staying in a hotel. She found the rental house on Via della Pergola; she liked it because it was near the University for Foreigners and offered a beautiful view of the Umbrian landscape. She occupied the room farthest from the entrance; from its window she enjoyed a panoramic view of the valley below.[23]

      Via della Pergola was almost hidden from Viale S. Antonio and the car park in front of it. The cottage had two floors, the basement being occupied by four young men, and the upper floor shared by four young women: Filomena Romanelli, Laura Mezzetti, Amanda Knox, and Meredith Kercher. [24] The 1,200 euro per month rent was divided evenly between the four. Each would give 300 euro to Romanelli, who would make the payment.[62]

      Each had her own room. Romanelli and Mezzetti had the rooms on either side of the entrance and a living room/kitchen was located in between them. Knox occupied the bedroom between those of Meredith and Romanelli. A hallway led to Knox’ and Meredith’s room, and to a small bathroom that they shared. Romanelli and Mezzetti shared a larger bathroom directly across from Mezzetti’s room.[24]

      Meredith studied Italian language, politics, English, cinema, and more Italian.[23]

      On September 28 she returned to England to get warmer clothes, returning on October 1. She was very attached to her family. She brought a mobile phone with her from England to keep in touch with her family, and in particular to be informed about the condition of her mother’s health, which was not good.[23, 24, 29-30]

      She was affectionate, conscientious, and very intelligent. She loved pizza and at times went dancing. Her mother and her sister knew about Amanda, and Meredith’s relationship with Amanda.  They knew that when Amanda started to work in a club, Meredith and her friends had gone there to support her. Meredith had also said that Amanda constantly sang.[23-24]

      The last time Meredith talked with her mother was on November 1. She had said that she was coming back to England on November 9 and would be present for her mother’s birthday on November 11. She had bought some presents, and chocolate for her sister.[24]

      Amanda Knox

      Amanda Knox decided to study in Italy, and chose Perugia because she wanted to learn about the Italian people and culture, and not live in a place that was “too touristy.” She worked to save the money to come, and also received some money from her mother and father. She left the United States in mid-August 2007, staying in Germany until late August or the beginning of September, arriving in Perugia with her sister. She looked at the house on Via della Pergola, found it to her liking, and then returned to Germany, ultimately returning to Perugia and the house. [61]

      One of her teachers in Perugia described her as “a really good student, diligent, actively participated.” She found a job at the pub Le Chic managed by Patrick Lumumba, initially working every day from 9:30pm, then from 10pm, then only two days a week: Tuesdays and Thursdays.[61]

      Raffaele Sollecito

      Raffaele Sollecito came from Giovinazzo to Perugia in 2002 and obtained his graduation diploma that same year. He enrolled in the faculty of informatics and chose Perugia because ONAOSI college is located there. He boarded at the college from 2003 to 2005. He was “taciturn, introverted, shy,...and watched many films”. Educators at the college were shocked to find a very hard-core film containing scenes of sex with animals. In response to that they monitored him in an effort to understand him.[61]
      In 2003 the Carabinieri found Sollecito in possession of 2.67 grams of hashish.[62]

      According to his father, he had, from his teens, a habit of carrying a pen knife in his pocket to record things on the bark of trees and to carve wooden objects.[61]

      He had a brief affair, lasting only a few days, with a girl from Brindisi a few months before October 2007.[61]

      The meeting of Knox and Sollecito

      Knox and Sollecito met on October 25, 2007, at a classical music concert to which Knox had gone with Meredith. Meredith had to go home, so after she left during the intermission, Sollecito sat down near Knox. Knox and Sollecito quickly established “a good understanding,” he treating and cuddling her “like a little girl.” They met frequently and were constantly together. Sollecito’s father called him daily, often several times a day, and every time he called, his son talked about Amanda. Knox told her parents in a November 13, 2007, conversation that they were going out together as if they were a couple and that he was kind and caring, that he cooked for her and always wanted to hug her and help her.[62]

      Both were using drugs, which was corroborated by the statements of the flatmates, and by Knox in tapped intercepted conversations.[62]

      Romanelli recalled seeing them together at the flat the day after the concert, and saw him there two or three more times. Mezzetti recalled seeing him there at other times, “about four times” in all.[62] Very often Knox slept at Sollecito’s house.[63]

      Mezzetti said Knox and Sollecito were constantly hugging each other, and that Sollecito was particularly tender, but seemed to her to be a bit possessive. She thought he was “very attached to Amanda.”[62]

      Rudy Hermann Guede

      Rudy Guede was a regular at the basketball court in front of the University for Foreigners in Piazza Grimana. He was acquainted with the young men who lived in the lower floor of the house, and knew Meredith and Knox from the upper floor. Although he had chatted with both of them, he was particularly interested in Knox and inquired as to whether she was seeing anyone. He was well-received at the house, having gone there one Sunday to watch a Formula One race, and on another occasion having returned from the clubs at 2 in the morning, then spent the night asleep on the toilet.[42]

      Sometime between the evening of October 13 and October 14, someone had broken into the law offices of Paolo Brocchi and Matteo Palazzoli, in Perugia. A window was smashed with a large stone, and a computer, a cell phone, USB keys, and a printer were missing. On October 29 a colleague in his office called Brocchi to tell him that a man had come into their office to say that he had legitimately purchased some goods in Milan which Brocchi had reported as stolen in Perugia. Brocchi later identified Guede as that person.[46]

      On the morning of October 27, 2007, the principal of a nursery school in Milan found a stranger coming out of her office. Police were called and the person was identified as Rudy Guede. There were no signs of a break-in; money was missing, but just small change. The police made him open his backpack. Inside the backpack was a computer, a 40 cm kitchen knife (which had come from the nursery school kitchen), a bunch of keys, a small gold woman’s watch, and a small hammer like those found in buses to be used to break windows. Police told the principal that the computer had been stolen from a law office in Perugia.[45]

      Guede explained his presence by saying that he had asked someone at the central Milan train station where he could stay, and after paying 50 euro, he was directed to the Milan nursery school.[45]

      A householder, Tramontano, testified that someone attempted to rob his home, [Date unspecified] and upon being discovered tried to leave. Finding the door locked, the intruder pulled out a jackknife and threatened him. Tramontano saw Guede’s picture in the newspapers and said “I believe I recognize him.”[46]

      3. Evening and night of November 1

      On November 1, Romanelli and Mezzetti both left the shared apartment with the intention of spending the night away; it is not clearly stated in the Massei Report when Knox first knew of their intention. They played no further part in the proceedings until the following day.[29]
      From about 4pm or 4:30pm onwards, Meredith Kercher spent the evening with her English friends Robyn Butterworth, Amy Frost and Sophie Purton. They prepared and ate a pizza, looked at Halloween photos from the previous evening, watched part of a film and prepared and ate an apple crumble.[34-35]

      They drank only water.[35] Shortly before 9pm, Meredith and Sophie Purton left. They parted company at about 8:55pm near Purton’s apartment (which Purton returned to in time to see a TV program starting at 9pm).[37] Meredith continued the short walk to her own house alone. Meredith did not say that she was meeting anyone: just that she was tired.[38]

      After this point, Meredith was not seen alive, except by the murderers, and some of the main evidence is derived from the usage-records of her telephones. Up until 10:13pm, Meredith’s phone was in the vicinity of her own apartment but, by 00:10am, it had been dumped in a garden, a few streets away from her home. Various calls were made in the intervening time: at 8:56pm, an unsuccessful call was made to the family number; at 9:58pm there was an attempted call to the mobile phone’s answering service; at 10pm an unsuccessful call was made to Meredith’s bank (the first number in her address list), and, at 10:13pm, a GPRS data connection was made.

      Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito went to his house on Corso Garibaldi in the late afternoon.[65] Jovana Popovic, an acquaintance of Sollecito’s, testified that on the evening of November 1 she went to his house twice and that on both of these occasions, she met Knox. The first was around 5:45pm and the second was around 8:40pm.[63-64] Then, at 8:42pm Sollecito received a phone call from his father and mentioned that he was with Knox and that the next day they were planning a trip to Gubbio. Sollecito also mentioned that, while he was washing the dishes, he had noticed a leaking pipe that had spilled water onto the floor.[63] The last human activities on Sollecito’s computer were the conclusion of watching a film, at 9:10pm.

      Analysis of the hard drive by the Communications Police concluded that there was no further human interaction with the computer until 5:32am the following morning.[304] A defence expert noted a very brief (4 seconds) access to Apple iTunes at 00:58am: the court accepted that this could have been a human interaction with the computer, but that it was after the time when the murder was believed to have taken place.[310]

      Knox was scheduled to work that night at the Le Chic, the pub managed by Diya ‘Patrick’ Lumumba. However, he sent her a text message, at 8.18pm, telling her that there was no need for her to go to work that evening.[64] Knox’s phone was turned off at 8.35pm and Sollecito’s shortly after. According to Knox this was so that they would not be disturbed.

      At this point, the various accounts of the events diverge. Knox’s account is that, until the following morning, she stayed with Sollecito. They smoked some marijuana,[66] then had dinner together, but quite late, (she placed it as late as 11pm in one account[66] but spoke of the washing up being done at 9:30-10pm in another[69]). Knox stated that after dinner, she had noticed a bit of blood on Sollecito’s hand and had the impression that it had to do with blood coming from the fish that they had cooked.[67] Sollecito washed the dishes, but a break in the pipes occurred under the sink and water flooded the floor. Since they didn’t have a mop, they decided that they would do the cleaning the next day, with a mop that she could get from her house.[67]

      The above account given by Knox differed from that given earlier by her to police, during the night of November 5-6, 2007. That earlier account was briefly alluded to at her trial, but was admissible as evidence only in the civil case brought by Patrick Lumumba, and not in the murder case. Knox accounted for her change of story, on the grounds that it was because of the persistence of the questioning which had made her imagine what could have happened.[68] In this earlier account, she had described returning home to Via della Pergola, in the company of Patrick Lumumba, on the evening of November 1, 2007, after 9pm. She had described many things which she now realized she had imagined, including Meredith having had sex and being killed, while Knox held her own ears closed so as not to hear Meredith’s screams.[67-68]

      Also in contradiction to Knox’s account is the fact that her SMS exchange with Lumumba, was in a different phone “cell” from the one covering Sollecito’s house, indicating that she was not, in fact, in the house at this time (just after 8pm),[77] although she had returned by Jovana’s arrival at 8:40.

      The court noted the discrepancies in Knox’s various statements about the time they ate dinner: in one statement 9:30 to 10 pm and, in another, 11pm.[78] The court noted that both of these times are contradicted by the declarations of Sollecito’s father that his son had indicated that they had eaten and washed up before 8:42.[78] The court also noted the contradiction by witness Antonio Curatolo, who testified that on the evening of November 1, 2007, after 9:30 pm, and before 11 to 11:30pm he saw Knox and Sollecito, several times, in the area of Piazza Grimana, the tiny square in front of the University for Foreigners.

      Curatolo is homeless and lives in the street in that area. Although unsure of actual dates, he was able to state that this sighting of Knox and Sollecito was the night immediately preceding the day on which police and carabinieri began to crowd around the house where the murder took place.[78-79]

      Nara Capezzali, a resident living close to Via della Pergola, went to bed around nine or nine thirty that evening and got up to use the bathroom about two hours later. While doing so, she heard a woman’ scream, “but a scream that was not a normal scream”.[95] She testified that she then heard running on the steel staircase and, almost immediately, running (in a different direction) among the leaves and the gravel, both adjacent to the the house in Via della Pergola.[96]

      Another resident, Maria Ilaria Dramis, confirmed that she had had the feeling of hearing running footsteps under the window of her bedroom, and that she did not remember hearing people running in the same way on other occasions like that night.[98]

      1. HollieT profile image87
        HollieTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        While this is all very interesting,(and irrelevant) where are the findings of the appellate court who claim that the DNA evidence is unreliable, and how did they reach this conclusion?

        1. Silverspeeder profile image60
          Silverspeederposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I think you will find this report comes after that of the Appellate court.

          In actual fact the evidence in this case would have convicted someone in either the UK or US for the same offence.

          1. HollieT profile image87
            HollieTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            But this is not the UK or the US, this is Italy, and I asked for a summary of the evidence which led the appellate court to conclude that DNA and forensic testing was faulty. That, particularly as you want to weight the DNA evidence so heavily, is the pertinent debate, not a report translated by a group of volunteers who have no legal standing.

            1. Silverspeeder profile image60
              Silverspeederposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              But that's the point isn't it, the Supreme Court as ruled the the appeal wrong so the DNA evidence is back on the agenda, even knox's own defence couldn't get it thrown out originally.
              The re-examination of the evidence in this case has led the Supreme Court to bring forward a case.
              I don't think Knox done her self any favours with the book that clearly was full of lies.
              The fact that someone has taken the time to translate and forward the report and other information is just a counter for the Knox who continue to post unsubstantiated slurs and lies about the case in general.

              1. John Holden profile image61
                John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                How do you know they are unsubstantiated slurs and lies?

                And as far as I'm aware there is no court in the world that allows a verdict of "probably guilty".

                1. Silverspeeder profile image60
                  Silverspeederposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Oh they do John, its called a majority decision.

                  An Hollie people risk the rest of their lives in our courts based on the personalities of our lawyers with evidence balanced on a knife edge so what makes Knox and Sollecito any different?

                  1. HollieT profile image87
                    HollieTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    They risk their reputation and liberty based on the integrity of the courts, faith in the judicial system and skill of their legal representative, not the personality of their representative. I've never, ever heard of a defendant choosing a lawyer because of their personality. I think you mean track record. And besides, most people do not have a choice as to whether they show up in court or otherwise. Comparing the Knox scenario with any other court case is like comparing apples and oranges.

                  2. John Holden profile image61
                    John Holdenposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No, a majority verdict is not a probably verdict. It is a guilty verdict pure and simple.

              2. HollieT profile image87
                HollieTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                No it isn't, they asked for a review of the findings because they believe that they may be flawed. That's completely different from saying the DNA evidence is back on the table because the ultimate decision has not been made yet, one way or another. it has to be tested in a court of law, ie. the retrial.

                You've decided she is guilty because that's what you want to believe. I'm glad you're not a lawyer.

                1. Silverspeeder profile image60
                  Silverspeederposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I have decided she is a liar but my judgement on whether she is guilty or not is withheld for the moment.
                  We will see after the retrial when hopefully the evidence will be given in the best way possible to either prove guilt or prove innocence.
                  All to often the balance of evidence hangs on the personality and competence of the lawyers, in this case the lawyers for both parties could be seen as incompetent.

                  1. HollieT profile image87
                    HollieTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    All to often the balance of evidence hangs on the personality and competence of the lawyers, in this case the lawyers for both parties could be seen as incompetent.

                    And yet you still believe that she should (potentially) sacrifice the rest of her life by facing trial, where both the defense and prosecution lawyers, in your own words, are incompetent?

 
working