Tuesday, December 28, 2010

Amanda Knox: 'I'll be home for Christmas, if only in my dreams'

by Anne Bremner

In the three years since Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were arrested in the murder of Knox's British roommate, Meredith Kercher, public opinion appears to have swung in their favor in Italy and abroad. Crime novelist Doug Preston says this may have an effect on the appeals trial, which opened with a preliminary hearing this month. While Amanda didn't make it home for the holidays this year, she may be home for Christmas next year.

The shift in opinion began when the original prosecutor in the Knox/Sollecito case, Giuliano Mignini (photo right), was convicted of abuse of office and sentenced to 16 months in prison. Then, the original trial judge, Giancarlo Massei, issued his massive 427-page conclusion. At least here in America, many judicial experts were disturbed, if not shocked, by the sheer amount of unsupported surmise, conjecture, and speculation that formed the backbone of the opinion. The loquacious Massei speculated freely, without offering evidence, about such basic issues as motive, the murder weapon(s) used, how the murder was committed, and why.

Also during the past year, a range of American experts re-examined and/or commented on the forensic and DNA evidence, which was exactly the kind of independent examination that the original trial court had denied the defense. These experts include the notable FBI special agent Steve Moore, a DNA expert and former Air Force scientist Mark Waterbury, criminologists Paul Ciolino and Larry Kobilinsky, and forensic specialist Ron Hendry. All concluded that the evidence collection had been grossly incompetent and that the scientific analysis of that evidence was deeply flawed. The DNA experts said the DNA conclusions, crucial to the conviction, had been deliberately manipulated and did not meet even the most minimal international standards. None of these scientists had been hired by the Knox family or accepted fees for their work, making it hard to question their independence.

This past weekend, the Italian Courts ordered a complete independent review of the forensic evidence. This was a major victory for Amanda. It is a good sign that the names have been made known in advance of the January 22, 2011 trial date, which suggests a more open process this time around. It is important to maintain the spotlight, demanding professionalism and expecting that an unjust verdict will be overturned so all parties concerned may finally move on and an innocent young woman can put this nightmare behind her for good.

Criminalist Mark Waterbury explains that if the forensic review burrows down into identification details, alleles and profile correspondences, they are deliberately missing the point. Larger issues render that evidence meaningless. You can't just twist a knob and make a new machine, technique or protocol. The standards that were not met are not meaningless red tape, but, rather, necessary steps to produce valid results.

One can directly witness Italian criminologist Stefanoni using very poor sample acquisition techniques, yet she is the same person who claimed that she had never seen contamination in her lab. She also testified that she "only changed gloves after handling a specimen that was particularly contaminated with blood." Material transfer is a surface energy phenomenon. It does not require dripping liquids to happen. Pet a cat. I rest my case. Stefanoni betrays ignorance of the basic physics of materials that cause the most contamination and is not competent to claim that those physics do not apply to her.

This speaks directly to her further claims about the knife, that DNA could not possibly have come from contamination in a lab full of Meredith's DNA. No responsible researcher would make such a claim. Many of the details of her unique test have not yet been revealed, which further compromises the integrity of the results. Full disclosure of the DNA data files and procedures to both the reviewers and the defense is critical.

Will Knox and Sollecito be acquitted? Per Preston, nearly 50 percent of all Italian criminal convictions are overturned on appeal. Indeed, in Italy, so common are reversals, that you are not actually considered convicted until you’ve been convicted on appeal. This is the main reason Mignini has not lost his job as he continues to appeal his own sentence for abuse of office. He is still acting as a prosecutorial consultant in the Knox appeal, and he has been busy filing criminal slander charges against many of his critics in Italy and America.

Everything hinges on whether the appeals court will decide to retry the case or just re-examine certain parts. Sources in Italy say that the judiciary would like to find a way to convict Amanda on lesser charges, proclaim time served, and get her out of the country. That would save face for the powerful interests who convicted her in the first place, while getting rid of a thorn in the side of U.S.-Italian relations. Italians are deeply embarrassed at the bright light this case has shone on their criminal justice system. They are acutely aware of its shortcomings and have been trying to reform it for years, and they are not happy that its flaws are on display in this case, exposed to outside criticism.

Among the many "Friends of Amanda Knox" are prominent authors, judges, attorneys, scientists and law enforcement experts such as Doug Preston, Paul Ciolino, Michael Heavey, Tom Wright, Mark Waterbury, Bruce Fisher, Charlie Wilkes and myself. Our Christmas wish this year was granted as the court in Perugia embarked upon an ongoing examination and criticism of the forensic evidence in the Knox case. Even world-renowned forensic expert Dr. Cyril Wecht has offered his assistance to Amanda Knox as she continues her quest for vindication. John Douglas, the inventor of modern FBI criminal profiling methods, declares in the current issue of Maxim magazine that "Amanda Knox is innocent." Let's hope Amanda is granted her dream of justice and freedom--if not during this holiday season, then certainly sometime soon in the coming months.


A Voice of Sanity said...

Many people mistake DNA evidence for other evidentiary items such as fingerprints, bullet markings and the like. One analogy for DNA is to add milk to coffee. Then try to remove the milk from the coffee.

If there's no reason why the coffee should contain milk, you have a valid question for the defense to answer. If, on the other hand, the milk is present in all of the cups its appearance in the coffee offers far less help to the prosecution.

When the LAPD technician spilled O J Simpson's blood in his lab he contaminated the whole place and destroyed the evidentiary value of every sample brought there. Only by using a different lab could any valid tests be made. Simpson has Philip Vanatter and that technician to thank for his freedom, not racism or any other specious excuse.

And similarly with Amanda Knox. Any of her DNA or that of her roommate found in either their home of that of Solecito is of almost no evidentiary value at all. Even using the same washing machines at a laundry will cross contaminate clothing from one person to another. Visiting other domiciles is more effective than that.

Paul in Michigan said...

If you really want to make yourself angry and sick read the judge's sentencing report, something I've had the misfortune of doing several times now. This weird, meandering, execrably written document is an acute insult to the concept of justice. It is full of inaccuracies, contradictions, and wild speculative leaps. The judge credits every prosecution argument regardless of how absurd is--all the while flippantly dismissing powerful defense claims. When he doesn't know what else to do--as in the case of the blood spatter evidence--he simply ignores testimony altogether. Whether you are talking about the DNA work, footprints, the Luminol, or the phone and computer records, the methods used by the defense experts were far more scientifically rigorous and technically sophisticated than the amateurish junk put forward by the police. The judge ignored all of it.

If you want to get a feeling for just how absurd this document is, consider the issue of cell tower coverage. Massei suggests that Amanda was lying when she said she received a call at Raffaele's apartment because the tower that handled the call did not cover that location. Just a few pages later the judge notes that Amanda made four calls from Raffaele's apartment and every single one of them was picked up by the very cell tower that the judge said didn't reach there. I swear I am not making this up. Even more strange, the tower that Massei said would have had strongest coverage at Raffaele's apartment picked up none of the calls.

The so-called Massei report is littered with this appalling junk. It is quite literally impossible to describe how bad it is.

Kathryn Casey said...

Great post, Anne.

Anonymous said...

Anne your dedication to Amanda and Raffaele is very much appreciated and your article is concise and accurate.

The hallmark of this case is that the truth is so powerful that no In House mistake makes any difference. These kids are innocent of all charges. The Slander charge is absurd in light of the fact that the police had engaged in the same crime against Amanda.

What is remarkable is how many experts in forensics, biology, crime and the justice system are speaking for the thousands of armchair investigators who have come to the same conclusion.

With only the Massei and Michaeli Reports, the Youtube videos of the crime scene anyone with rudimentary knowledge of forensics and the justice system can see exactly how Amanda and Raffaele were framed.

obladi oblada said...

Definitely some good news. I have never felt that these two were guilty of this crime. I cant wait for the day that they can return to their families! Great post.

Michaelsmth said...

This wrongful conviction was like the perfect storm (of injustice) - a media campaign poisoning public and juror perceptions, a corrupt and ruthless prosecution using the media to try the case, and two well meaning and innocent young people who naively cooperated not knowing they were walking into a trap.

Amanda and Raffaele were convicted of having spontaneously joined a virtual stranger in a rape, with absolutely no motive, an absurd crime theory involving a giant kitchen knife placed in Amanda's handbag for "protection, all because of "the effects of marijuana.

The appeals court will see this an acquit these two innocent young people.

Anonymous said...

You underestimate Stefanoni.

Mickey, another Friend of Amanda said...

Thank you Attorney Anne Bremner for being one of the earliest and most effective public figures to come out in support of Amanda Knox--long before this case even went to trial. Back then, your voice was a lonely one. You bravely stuck your neck out and spoke out loud and strong, and mostly alone, for what you believed was on the side of truth and justice. You courageously led the way. Because of you, the public and the media gradually became aware of the injustice unfolding in Perugia. Yours was a profile in courage. And I am very grateful for that.

Anonymous said...

Ms. Bremner, you do realize that today, December 28, would have been Meredith Kercher's birthday? And yet again, we have Ms. Knox in the spotlight, media darling.

Very poor taste to put your story up this day.

Kathryn Casey said...

Anon above: Anne's article was supposed to have run a couple of days earlier, but WCI had a scheduling conflict and held it. Those of us doing the posting didn't realize it was Ms. Kercher's birthday today. Although I'm not sure that should make a difference.

Thinking about this, wouldn't Meredith Kercher have wanted a fair and accurate accounting of the evidence? And wouldn't she have wanted the true guilty party punished? If Amanda is innocent, and the body of evidence appears to suggest that she is, wouldn't Meredith Kercher want her released?

A Voice of Sanity said...

Anonymous said: Ms. Bremner, you do realize that today, December 28, would have been Meredith Kercher's birthday? And yet again, we have Ms. Knox in the spotlight, media darling.
Very poor taste to put your story up this day.

Even worse 'taste' to convict the innocent based on media hysteria, shonky evidence, mendacious testimony and incompetent analysis. Sadly, Italy has learned the wrong lessons from the USA.

DUDE said...

NOTE: The following quote from Judge Massei’s report (motivation document) page 256-257, means there were no bloody foot prints compatible with Amanda or Raffaele and there were no bloody foot prints at all except for the print on the bath mat belonging to the only person that left evidence that he was in Meredith's bedroom and murdered her there. That person is Rudy Guede who's sentence was cut almost in half.

Massei report page 255: “Dr. Sarah Gino was heard at the hearing of September 26, 2009 on the subject of the documentation deposited following the relevant orders made by this Court, which have already been mentioned; with respect to this document, Amanda Knox's defence produced a memorandum statement dated September 25, 2009 from Dr. Sarah Gino.”

Massei report page 256-257: “With respect to the Luminol-positive traces found in Romanelli's room, in Knox's room and in the corridor, she [Dr Sara Gino] stated that by analysing the SAL cards "we learn, in contradiction to what was presented in the technical report deposited by the Scientific Police, and also to what was said in Court, that not only was the Luminol test performed on these traces, but also the generic diagnosis for the presence of blood, using tetramethylbenzidine, and this test, gave a negative result on all the items of evidence from which it was possible to obtain a genetic profile" (page 64 hearing Sept. 26, 2009).”
“In answer to specific questions about the Luminol-positive traces, she stated that from the technical report one exclusively learn that at the crime scene, these traces returned a positive reaction, like that which has come to be defined as the generic analysis made with Luminol, whereas in fact it could be seen from examining the SAL cards that testing specifically for blood had been carried out and had "resulted as negative " (page 77).”

DUDE said...

From injusticeinperugia "During the trial, assistant prosecutor Manuela Comodi, presented the footprint evidence to the court. As expected, her job was to defend the police work of police forensic biologist Patrizia Stefanoni. She claimed that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito's bare footprints, made in blood were found throughout the apartment. These bare footprints were not visible to the human eye. These footprints were detected with a chemical called luminol. Luminol is an investigative tool that can help investigators find blood that has been cleaned up. When applied, luminol glows for a few seconds when it reacts with blood. Luminol also reacts with many other things. Luminol reacts with various household cleaners, different types of soil, rust in tap water, and many other substances. When luminol glows, investigators can pinpoint the area and then test to see if the stain does indeed consist of blood. Stefanoni claimed these stains were never tested for blood, however in July 2009, Stefanoni's notes confirmed the stains were tested with tetramethylbenzidine which is extremely sensitive for blood. All of the stains detected with luminol tested negative for blood. Patrizia Stefanoni and Manuela Comodi chose to ignore the test results during the trail."

Michaelsmth said...

Hopefully all of this will be exposed by the Hellman jury, and "being home" will no longer be a dream.

DUDE said...

I am 100% certain the people on the CCTV cam videos shot the night Meredith was murdered, are Meredith and Guede. Guede said it was him and he said he came to the apartment, then left, then came back, which is exactly what is on the videos. Meredith appeared in front of the cam at 8:54 PM entering her driveway at the time she should have based on when she left her friends home. Nobody else appeared on the cam entering the driveway that night. If they had Mignini would have said it was Amanda and Raffaele. We all accept Guede and Meredith was at the apartment so who else could it have been? This leaves no doubt in my mind. Guede was not captured on cam the last time he left or the video was with-held. It is possible that he ran past the cam so fast that it didn’t respond fast enough to capture him leaving after he killed her. If there was a video of him leaving around, lets say 9:15 pm then it would be difficult to say Amands and Raffaele were involved so Migirat may have destroyed the video.

The time stamp is on the video of Guede arriving and leaving the first time however the time stamp was removed from the video of his second arrival and the police made a statement to the authorities that the video shows Guede and Meredith arriving TOGETHER shortly before 9 PM, but the video they released is actually two separate clips and it shows Guede arriving from one direction and Meredith arriving from another.

DUDE said...

OK, here we have evidence from the CCTV cam that indicates Guede came to the apartment, busted the window, ran away then returned about 1/2 hour later, so likely he was in the apartment when Meredith came home. Meredith appears in front of the cam at approximately 8:54 PM then call her mother at 8:56 PM. The all to her mother was interrupted before her mother could answer. I have no doubt the call was interrupted by Guede’s attack. I think Meredith did not realize Guede was in the apartment when she got home and she went straight to her room and placed the call to her mom. His attack was a total surprise.

DUDE said...

During the first week following the murder the authorities released a statement saying it was Amanda Knox on the video entering the apartment driveway at 8:53 PM. Soon after it was learned that Amanda answered the door at Raffaele’s flat at 8:40 pm so could not have been her on the video. After that the video disappeared for approximately one year and did not surface until an officer was assigned to find the video. I have sources for all the information I am giving you. I assume it was the defense that forced the authorities to produce the missing video.

DUDE said...

Amanda Knox: The missing Video Original

This is the video of Guede’s second arrival and Meredith arriving at ~8:54 pm. If the time stamps had not been removed they would be in the lower left hand corner of the picture. It appears the authorities are trying to hide something doesn’t it?

sam said...

Great post, Anne!!!!

Michaelsmth said...

No doubt the authorities did everything in their power to cover up all the evidence showing innocence.

The case was so weak they based it entirely misinformation, misinterpretation, and misrepresentation. Basically twisting every meaningless remark and action to fabricate evidence.

The entire wrongful conviction was based on smoke and mirrors. The Hellman jury will see this and acquit!

Solange305 said...

Where is my post where I pointed out Anne's mistake in calling Bruce Fisher and Charlie Wilkes experts? You took the time to delete my post, but not the time to correct the mistake. If truth is supposedly on your side, why silence honest criticism?

Solange305 said...

By the way, just saying (as Dude did) that Rudy Guede's sentence was "cut in half" is misleading. He ELECTED to get a fast track trial, which entitled him to the sentence reduction. Knox and Sollecito could have made the same choice, but chose a regular trial instead. There was no special consideration or protection for Guede, he was treated the same as the others.

Anonymous said...

I think your article is excellent, and refreshing for being sensible. I've read one book and am reading a second about this crime. Both books are biased in favour of guilt, but the bias results in such obvious non-sequetors, and hints and innuedos that have no place in a 'factual' work, that it is good to know that other people, especially a litigator, agrees with me.

May Amanda and Raffaele be exonerated and released soon!

Anonymous said...

Oh, I get it. If you have some intelligent questions your post will be deleted. This is all about consensus with the author not about discussion of the points of the article.

Anonymous said...

This sentence is rather misleading "…a complete independent review of the forensic evidence…"

Actually only 2 items out of many were allowed a review. All the others were denied including but not limited to: the mixed DNA, the staged "burglary" where nothing was stolen, and the staged "break-in".

Regarding the DNA tests you say:

"Many of the details of her unique test have not yet been revealed, which further compromises the integrity of the results. Full disclosure of the DNA data files and procedures to both the reviewers and the defense is critical."

Yet earlier you said:

"… a range of American experts re-examined and/or commented on the forensic and DNA evidence, which was exactly the kind of independent examination that the original trial court had denied the defense…"

How could this range of experts re-examine and/or comment on the forensic and DNA evidence if there hasn't been full disclosure of the DNA files?

Quoting the American crime author, Preston, as a source for Italian criminal statistics is fairly ridiculous. Why not source an Italian defense attorney?

Anonymous said...

Since the comment section is moderated in a clearly biased manner as the daughter of a Wall Street Journal investigative journalist, I believe that this opinion-based blog is NOT worth reading!

Peggy Gagsalot said...

Please ignore the nasty posts by Anonymous a/k/a "Bedalia" and Solange and the other nutcases from the hate site known as PMF. These are sick people who plot on PMF who next to spew their hatred upon. When given the opportunity to attack Anne Bremner, they usually show up in full force, as they are doing here. Anne Bremner wrote a great piece and she should not let the Haters from PMF get her down.

Antimethius said...

With the mountain of exculpatory evidence unveiled by the hoards of internet experts posting here and at the InjusticeInPerugia site, I'm positively shocked that the pair was unanimously convicted.

It's a shame that the two hapless martyrs had to depend on incompetent public defenders who clearly glossed over the prosecutor's case and missed all these obvious facts that prove the pair is innocent.

Wait, what's that you say? They had the best defense attorneys money could buy? Oh, I see.

Well then, it must be a country wide conspiracy then involving numerous judges, prosecutors, police officers, and civilian jurors. With his vast Machiavellian powers, I'm surprised that Mignini hasn't been appointed emperor.

A Voice of Sanity said...

Anonymous Anonymous said: Oh, I get it. If you have some intelligent questions your post will be deleted. This is all about consensus with the author not about discussion of the points of the article.

That's not been my experience here. They rubbish my posts (although they'll eventually have to admit I was right all along :D ) but they don't delete them.

Anonymous said...

Nice work, Anne. Everyone should be entitled to a fair trial, and if they don't get one exposure to the public of the obvious blatant cover up might serve as notice to others in power.

A Voice of Sanity said...

Antimethius said: Well then, it must be a country wide conspiracy then involving numerous judges, prosecutors, police officers, and civilian jurors.

Happens in the USA all the time. Ask Phil Spector, Scott Peterson, David Camm, Kirstin Blaise Lobato, Darlie Routier, Jeffrey Hornoff, Clarence Brandley and many, many more.

Prosecutors abusing their power, judges going along, police officers perjuring themselves and civilian jurors too stupid to tell the difference between real and fake cheese.

Antimetius said...

A Voice of Sanity said: Happens in the USA all the time. Ask Phil Spector, Scott Peterson

Phil Spector and Scott Peterson are victims of a vast conspiracy? I'm surprised you left out Osama bin Laden.

A Voice of Sanity said...

A Voice of Sanity said: Happens in the USA all the time. Ask Phil Spector, Scott Peterson

Antimetius said:Phil Spector and Scott Peterson are victims of a vast conspiracy? I'm surprised you left out Osama bin Laden.

That's a very stupid comment. The point is that you don't need your ridiculous "vast conspiracy". All you need are incompetent people with no moral scruples. There's no shortage of those.

And the best counter example you could come up with is bin Laden? Sad, very sad.

Antimethius said...

A Voice of Sanity said: That's a very stupid comment.

Yeah, because all the very smart folks know that Phil Spector and Scott Peterson are innocent just like Anita.

Are you sure 9/11 wasn't an inside job?

After all with Dubya and pretty much every member of PNAC at the helm, we have no shortage of "incompetent people with no moral scruples".

DUDE said...


SUMMARY: The evidence indicates Meredith was murdered around 9 pm, however the judge contends that at 10 pm, when a call to Meredith bank was initiated from her cell phone , it was “merely moments of relaxation during which Meredith Kercher, still alone in the house and probably just lying on her own bed, was absent-mindedly playing with the mobile phone in her hand” resulting in her bank’s number being dialed from the phone memory. To prove their point the police investigators measured the signal strength for cell tower 30064 OUTSIDE Meredith’s apartment. What a clever move. The strange thing about this is Meredith made five call from her apartment on the day she was murdered and none of the calls connected with cell tower 30064. As a matter of fact there were numerous calls made by amanda and Raffaele from Meredith’s (girls') apartment and none of them connected with cell tower 30064. The text message received at 10:13 pm was the only call in Massei’s report that connected with 30064. This indicates the phone was likely not in her apartment when the call to her bank was made at 10 pm and Meredith was likely murdered around 9 pm as indicated by the evidence (parking garage CCTV video, Meredith's phone records, initial state's coroner's report, crime scene).


DUDE said...

The authorities said the crime scene was staged by breaking the window from inside the room. They have a 9 pound rock bouncing off a shutter mounted on the outside of the window without making a dent on it, then striking a shutter mounted on the inside of the window, making a large gouge in it. That makes perfectly good sense to people living in the twilight zone.

DUDE said...

The authorities released to OGGI magazine photos of Guede arriving a little before 8 pm at Meredith’s driveway along with a statement saying the parking garage CCTV cam was 10 minutes slow. Later the authorities were saying the cam timer was 10 minutes fast. Raffaele’s lawyer presented to the court CCTV photos of police cars arriving at the apartment driveway and Amanda’s cell phone records which proved the cam timer was in fact 11 minutes, + or – 1 minute slow. Apparently the authorities said the clock was fast because if it was slow it would indicate the officers did not arrive until after Raffaele called the police. How cunning.

DUDE said...

Massei report: The judge knew Amanda and Raffaele were guilty because they were standing too far from Meredith's bedroom door when it was forced open. I'm curious. Would 5 feet be close enough to be innocent? How about 4 ft, 3 1/16 inch? What is the correct distance to be innocent?

DUDE said...

Massei report: Amanda and Raffaele received 6 months added to their sentence for stealing Meredith's phones. The judge said they were worried about someone hearing the phones ring and would discover Meredith's body too soon (too soon for what). Meredith's Vodafone was off so there was no need in carrying the phone a great distance to throw it away. They only needed to carry the UK a great distance to throw it away so nobody would hear it ring. I guess the judge didn't think of that ;)) BTW, there is absolutely no evidence that Amanda or Raffaele stole Meredith's phones. NONE. ZERO.

DUDE said...

Six months was added to Amanda's sentence for carrying a knife in her purse. There is no evidence the knife was ever in her purse. None. Zero. Nothing.

DUDE said...

A witness said he saw Amanda and Raffaele at the park until midnight. A neighbor said she heard a scream then people running at 11:30 pm (windows closed) so the prosecutor coached the witness into saying he last saw Amanda and Raffaele at 11 pm. The witness based the time on the bus leaving the park to the disco at 11 pm. It's a fact that the bus to the disco did not run the evening Meredith was murdered because it was a holiday. Also the neighbor of the woman that said she heard people running (windows closed) said she did not hear people running with her window open. This woman didn't know what time she heard the scream.

DUDE said...


Massei report: Amanda and Raffaele received 6 months added to their sentence for stealing Meredith's phones. The judge said they were worried about someone hearing the phones ring and would discover Meredith's body too soon (too soon for what). Meredith's Vodafone was off so there was no need in carrying the phone a great distance to throw it away. They only needed to carry the UK phone a great distance to throw it away so nobody would hear it ring. I guess the judge didn't think of that ;)) BTW, there is absolutely no evidence that Amanda or Raffaele stole Meredith's phones. NONE. ZERO.

A Voice of Sanity said...

Antimethius said: "Yeah, because all the very smart folks know that Phil Spector and Scott Peterson are innocent just like Anita."

Correct. A considerable number of smart, competent people do know that Phil Spector and Scott Peterson are innocent, as is Amanda Knox. They know this from careful reading and analysis of the evidence and by ignoring the incompetent claptrap published by the lazy media. Of course the dullards all still line up behind the guy with the T-shirt that says "I'm with stupid --->". May I assume that you are in that line?

DUDE said...

If you follow through what I'm explaining you will see that the Massei report contradicts it's self again. In the following the judge is saying Amanda was not at Raffaele's flat when she received a call (text message) from Patrick Lumumba at 20:18:12 , because the call connected to a cell tower that does not service Raffaele's flat. Based on the information in the Massei report it appears the cell tower does service Raffaele's flat because four phone calls at Raffaele's flat connected to the cell tower.

MASSEI REPORT PAGE 322: "− 20:18:12: "Amanda receives the SMS sent to her by Patrick Lumumba, which let her off from having to go to work at the ‚Le Chic‛ pub on the evening of 1 November. At the time of reception the phone connected to the cell on Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, whose signal does not reach Raffaele Sollecito’s house. The young woman was therefore far [i.e. absent] from Corso Garibaldi 30 when the SMS reached her, as she was walking in an area which was shown to be served by the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 cell. This point of her route could correspond to Via U. Rocchi, to Piazza Cavallotti, to Piazza IV Novembre, bearing in mind that Lumumba’s pub is located in Via Alessi, and that Amanda Knox would have had to travel along the above-mentioned roads and the piazza in order to reach the pub"

NOTE ADDED BY ME: Cell tower Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 connected with 6 phone calls made from Raffaele’s house on Nov 2 2007.

MASSEI REPORT PAGE 318: "1. The area around the defendant’s [Raffaele] home was reached by a very strong signal radiated from the Via Berardi sector 7 cell, indicated as being the‚ best server cell‛ with regard to Sollecito’s house; furthermore the signals of other cells are also powerful, respectively that with a pylon in Piazza Lupattelli sector 8 and that with a pylon in Via dell’Acquilla -Torre dell’Acquedotto sectors 3 and 9."
NOTE ADDED BY ME: If Via dell’Acquilla -Torre dell’Acquedotto sectors 3 and 9 is such a strong cell tower signal at Raffaele's home, why did none of the phone call listed in the Massei report connect with that cell tower? I Googled Acquilla (Via dell’Acquilla), and apparently it isn't a word. I checked with Google maps and Via dell’Acquilla is not a street in Perugia but Aquila is, so it must be a typo at a convenient location in Massei's report, and likely should be Via dell’Aquila. Acquilla (Via dell’Acquilla) only appears here one time in the Massei report. Likely Via dell’Acquilla -Torre dell’Acquedotto does not exist.

DUDE said...


MASSEI REPORT PAGE 322: "− 20:18:12: Amanda receives the SMS sent to her by Patrick Lumumba, which let her off from having to go to work at the ‚Le Chic‛ pub on the evening of 1 November. At the time of reception the phone connected to the cell on Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, whose signal does not reach Raffaele Sollecito’s house.
NOTE: The following summeriest the following four calls cell tower locations and all four calls were connected while the phones were at Raffaele's flat. This is the same cell tower that Amanda's phone connected with at 20:18:12.

"-12.08.44 (lasted 68 seconds) Amanda calls Romanelli Filomena on number 347-1073006; the mobile phone connects to the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 cell (which covers Sollecito’s house)
"− 12:11:02 (3 seconds) the Vodafone number 348-4673711 belonging to Meredith (this is the one [i.e. SIM card] registered to Romanelli Filomena) is called and its answering service is activated (cell used: Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 "
"− 12:11:54 (4 seconds): another call is made towards Meredith’s English mobile phone number (the cell used is the one in Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, thus compatible with Sollecito’s house)"
"− 12:12:35 (lasting 36 seconds) Romanelli Filomena calls Amanda Knox (No. 348-4673590); Amanda receives the call connecting to the cell on Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 (still at Raffaele’s house)"

DUDE said...

Massei's report is a perfect example of cherry picking and attempting to conceal the truth by intentionally confusing the issues by scattering the pertinent information helter skelter throughout the report. If you will read Massei's report closely you will see that Elisabetta Lana's daughter, Elisabetta Biscarini, found Meredith's UK phone at 12:07 pm and not between 11:45 am and 12:00 noon, as Massei's word smithing would lead one to believe. Also you will see that Mrs Lana did not deliver the UK phone (2nd phone found) until 12:46 pm (which is in agreement with the postal police post logbook entry, the altered logbook Judge Micheli said he did not see, and apparently did not want to see ) and not around 12:15-12:20 pm as Massei’s word smithing attempts to lead the less attentive to believe. All of this contradicting info is in the report. I'll not attempt to explain here, why the judge did this because it's too complicated. It involves supporting the time the police said they arrived at the crime scene. I'll simply say that apparently the authorities shifted the time around as they pleased regardless of facts. See injusticeinperugia for details.

Anonymous said...

It's not true, as Bedelia from PMF claims, that Judge Hellman "refused" all other tests. He reserved the right to order other tests if necessary, pending review of the all-important DNA tests done on the bra clasp and the knife evidence. If those two items do not hold up, then the court has reached reasonable doubt and there is no need for further review.

Anonymous said...

Only intelligent questions get deleted? Since when did a PMFer post intelligent questions? Thank you, moderators, for sparing us the usual bilge water.

DUDE said...

Something very strange happened the evening Meredith was murdered. Due to a bomb threat received by Ms Lana around 10 pm the evening Meredith was murdered, the police were walking around in her yard sometime after 10 pm . Both of Meredith's phones were found in her yard the following day. Massei's report does not say when the police arrived at Ms Lana's residence or what time they left her residence.
Massie report page 25-26: "Thus it happened that the evening of November 1, 2007 at around 10:00 pm, someone called and warned Elisabetta Lana not to use the toilet of her dwelling because it contained a bomb which could explode. Mrs. Lana immediately notified the police of this phone call; and they came to the house but did not find anything. Mrs. Lana and her husband were nonetheless asked to go to the Postal Police the next day to report said telephone call.
The next day (November 2), as they were preparing to go and file the report, their son Alessandro Biscarini found a mobile phone ‚in the garden, in the clearing in front of the house" at around 9:00 am (declarations of Alessandro Biscarini, hearing of February 6, 2009, page 166).
Thinking that it has been lost by one of the officers who had come the evening before, Mrs. Elisabetta Lana phoned Police Headquarters and was told to bring [13] this phone to the Postal Police, where she was going anyway and where she arrived, with her husband, at about 10:15 am."

DUDE said...

BTW, the Wind companie's cell tower data indicate the phones were thrown in Ms Lana's yard before midnight or they were in the area. The last activity that evening on one of Meredith's phones was at 10:13 pm. This call connected to a cell tower that services a wooded area across the road from Ms Lana's home. The phones were found in Ms Lana's "front yard" so I think Guede threw the phones from the wooded area or likely the phones would have landed in Ms Lana's back yard. I believe Guede thought he was throwing the phones into the woods and he was visiting someone that works for the church that lives in that wooded area which is owned by the church.

DUDE said...

Massei report page 26: "Alessandro Biscarini specified that the place in the garden where he had found the first mobile phone, a Motorola, was about 15 – 20 meters from the road above and that the second phone had been found a short distance from the first."

This report said the phones were found in Ms Lana's front yard. Using Google maps view I discovered discovered Ms Lana's house is not 15-20 meters from the road.

Everything about this case is very confusing because the time, distance and numbers never add up. For example Sophie Perton (Meredith friend) said Meredith last ate at 6 pm or sooner. The state's coroner's first report said she was murdered no later than 2 or 3 hours after she last ate, which would make the time of death around 9 pm at the latest because she was last seen alive around 8:54 pm. The judge added 6 + 3 and came up with 11 pm for the time of death. See judge Micheli's report to verify that he did this. I think the reason the judge's math suffers is because Amanda and Raffaele had an alibi until a little after 9 pm. In Massei's report the state's coroners report had been revised to the time of death being 4 hours after she last ate which got them to 10 pm but that wasn't good enough because the prosecutor had a witness that said she heard a scream at 11:30 pm, so they juggled the numbers and the coroner's reports and came up with a time of death of 11:30 pm. They had a witness that said he saw Amanda and Raffaele at a park near the apartment. He said he last saw them around midnight, so they coached him into saying he last saw them at 11 pm. Now we have all the numbers in place to include Amanda and Raffaele in the crime. Big problem. The witness that said he last saw them at 11 pm based the time on the bus leaving for the disco. The bus to the disco did not run that night because it was a holiday. LOL . :)))))))))))))))))) Have you ever seen anything as ridiculous in your life? I don't think I have.

Charlie Wilkes said...

Excellent article Anne! You hit all the key points.

This court can and will do the right thing - if they have solid support from the public. FREE AMANDA AND RAFFAELE!!!

Anonymous said...

Thank you, Anne, for all your hard work to get two great innocent kids out of prison, and shining a light on what's really happening as this tide turns to their favor.

Solange305 said...

Peggy Gagsalot, if you consider a misleading article to be great, your standards are quite low. Seeing as you choose to call people who disagree with you childish names like "nutcases", I'm not surprised. If I'm so crazy, prove me wrong. Show me how Charlie Wilkes and Bruce Fisher fit into any of these categories: prominent authors, judges, attorneys, scientists and law enforcement experts.

Certainly it should not be hard to disprove an accusation coming from a "nutcase"? Furthermore, if Anne Bremner wants people to judge Mignini by a past conviction, it is only fair to mention that she herself has had trouble with the law. Or is fairness just another "nutcase" endeavor?

Anonymous said...

Solange305, besides being a persistent poster on PMF, what are your credentials. Maybe you should disclose that you were kicked off the JREF Forum because of your derogatory and dishonest posts.

Michelle Moore said...

I respect what you'e been through and how you'e handled it, and I apologize on behalf of people who want to find any and every little thing they can to criticize as to delay the very thing at hand.
I can read the first few sentences of some of these comments...oy, there are some serious hateful people in this world. Ignore them, block them, and delete inappropriate comments.
And report them. it's worked for me many times over.
Anyway, thank you for this article. It's excellent, and you need to speak out even MORE! Seriously!!!
Sincerely, Michelle Moore

Michelle Moore said...

Also, I , too, want to thank you for sticking to fact. :)

Anonymous said...

Thank you Anne Bremner, for being a beacon of truth in this sordid affair.

In this article we find:

"Sources in Italy say that the judiciary would like to find a way to convict Amanda on lesser charges, proclaim time served, and get her out of the country. That would save face" ...

In other words "Scheming" their way out, you do not make 1 right with 2 wrongs, Italy should do the right thing, and investigate team Mignini for what they did to Amanda Knox and Rafaelle Sollecito.

In doing so, they would not only save face, but the whole world would cheer on.

Show us how it's done Italy!

DUDE said...

For over a year I've been reading Harry Rag's lies and half truths designed to distort reality in favor of criminal Mignini (the prosecutor that went after Amanda). Anyone knowledgeable about this case disregards anything you say because it is rubbish. It appears you have devoted the majority of your time to publicly prosecuting Amanda which leads me to believe you are either mentally ill or being paid by someone with personal interest in Amanda's (not Raffaele's) guilt.

Do you recall that in December of 2009 you told me there were pictures available of Amanda arriving at the girls' apartment the evening Meredith was murdered. You provided me with links to photos that were totally unrelated. After investigating this for about nine month's I found the Missing Video, Original and news articles that prove that the photo you were referring to was actually Meredith arriving in front of the parking Garage CCTV cam at approximately 8:54 pm the evening she was murdered. During Nov of 2007 the authorities released this info to the media saying the photos were of Amanda arriving at the apartment at 8:53 pm. Soon the authorities realized that Amanda had an alibi for the time period so the photos / video of Meredith arriving and Guede arriving shortly before Meredith went missing for over a year. Your elaborate deception leads me to think you are paid by someone very familiar with the errors made by the authorities while build their fictitious case against Amanda. Are you being paid by the prosecutor? If not then are you being paid by someone associated with Beast Books? I think it must be one or the other or you need to consult a mental health professional about your issues.

I would like to thank you for your attempts at deception because you put me on the trail I needed to follow to uncover the lies and deception put forth by the authorities in Perugia.

This is what the authorities tried to conceal: Meredith arrived home at approximately 8:54 pm. Not realizing Guede was in the apartment she went to her room and placed a call to her mom at 8:56 pm. Guede's attack was a total surprise and his attack ended the call to her mother before she could answer the phone. The crime scene does not support a prolonged struggle. Guede did not allow Meredith to live long after the attack. The time of death was around 9 pm as indicated by the state's coroner's first report (unmodified) as described in judge Micheli's report (Court in Perugia, ruling of October 28, 2008 (Dep. 26/01/2009)).

DUDE said...

Massei's report has Meredith arriving home after 9 pm. They have her friend Sophie Perton last seeing Meredith alive "at 8:55 pm". If this fabrication was true Meredith and Sophie would have been walking at 1/5 the average walking speed for young individuals, to the corner where they last said good by. Fact is Sophie did not know the exact time. Her time estimate was based on her arriving home before her TV program started at 9 PM. Apparently the investigators selected "at 8:55 pm" to mislead us into thinking it was not Meredith's image captured by the parking garage CCTV cam at 8:54 pm. This would lead us away from thinking Guede's attack interrupted the call Meredith placed to her mom at 8:56 pm, which convinces me that the authorities were full aware that most likely Guede attack Meredith at 8:56 pm, which makes my blood pressure go excessively high.

DUDE said...

159.2 in reply to 159.1

START TIME (per testimony) = ~8:45 pm
TOTAL DISTANCE (per Google maps) = O.4 MILES = 704 YARDS

DUDE said...

The blurred image of what is thought to be Meredith, captured by the parking garage CCTV cam, arriving at Meredith's apartment driveway at ~8:54 pm is most likely Meredith.

The calculated time of Meredith arriving at her apartment driveway entrance is [ ] approximately the same time that what is thought to be her image was captured by the parking garage CCTV cam. There is only approximately one minute difference between the two valves. [8:43 + 10 = 8:53 and 8:43 +12 = 8:45]

Their calculated average walking speed = 3.42 mph, and is within a logical value.

Sophie testified she arrived at her home at about 8:55 pm. The calculations indicate this is not logical. For this value to be near accurate the girls would have been walking at approximately 1/5 average walking speed for young individuals which is not within reason.

DUDE said...

~08:45 START, Meredith and Sophie started their walk home.
~08:47 Sophie & Meredith part at corner [~218 yd (190 m from start)
~08:48 Sophie at home. (34 m from the corner where they parted ways).
~08:54 Meredith photo on parking garage Cam (418 yd from corner).
~08:54 Meredith should be in her apartment by now. ( 82 yd driveway length)
*08:56 Meredith called her mom, call interrupted

NOTE: Per Google Maps, it's 34 m from the corner to Sophie's home.

DUDE said...

NOTE: My calculations are based on the distance values taken from Google Maps.
I calculated the times above based on the distance from the starting point to the parking garage entrance where Meredith's image was captured by the parking garage CCTV cam at 8:43 pm per photo time stamp, which is ~8:54 pm after correcting for the fact that the cam timer error, which is know to be approximately 10 - 12 minutes slow (11 min, + or - 1 min, slow) (see Link below for cam timer error, or Perugia Shock for more proof of cam timer error).

As an anchor points I used the time start value of ~8:45 pm which is the time Sophie estimated she and Meredith started their walk home.
8:45 pm + 7 minutes = 8:52 pm

DUDE said...

NOTE: "500 yd from corner where they parted ways to Meredith's apartment". The value of 500 yards is from the news article below. Notice the news article gives the distance to Meredith's cottage and not the cottage driveway entrance.
So 500 yd - 418 yd = 82 yd, which should be the approximate length of Meredith's apartment's driveway.

For walking speed I used the following values:
Average walking speed is 4.85 to 4.95 fps (3.3 mph ~ 3.38 mph), for younger individuals.

(0.4 mile / 7 minutes) X 60 minutes/hour = 3.42 mph

NOTE: As you can see above, the calculated walking speed, calculated from Google Maps' distance values, for Meredith is 3.42 mph, which is slightly faster than the average walking speed for younger individuals (3.38 mph), but a little slower than the average walking speed for speed walkers average walking speed shown below.
Speed walkers generally walk at a pace of 3.5 to 5.5 miles per hour.

DUDE said...


Per Judge Micheli's report;
Sophie said it takes her 2 minutes to walk from her home to Meredith's home which is ~1500 ft. (500 yd per news article). Her guess was apparently wrong.

Sophie would be walking 1500 ft / 120 seconds = 12.5 ft / sec, = ~17 mph which is three times faster than the speed a speed walker generally walks, as shown above.

Per Judge Micheli's report;
She said "she got home at ~8:55 pm, Her time estimate was based on her TV program coming on at 9 pm". Apparently her time estimate was wrong because given they started walking home at 8:45 pm, they would part ways at the corner 2 minutes later at 8:47 pm.

The only exact time we have is Meredith calling her mom at 8:56 pm (likely a rounded off number).
So: I'll assume after arriving home Meredith went straight to her room and called her mom in ~1 minute.
So: Meredith arrived home at ~8:55 pm.
So: at 8:47 she said good bye to Sophie. Assuming 1 minute for Sophie to get to her home, then it was 8:48 pm when Sophie got to her home.

From the article dated Nov 13 2007: "A CCTV camera at the parking area above the cottage recorded the image of a female figure in a light colored skirt said to be Ms Knox (who owned such a skirt, now being analyzed), entering the driveway of the cottage at 8.43pm"
"They then watched a film on DVD, "The Notebook", until "about 9pm". Ms Purton has testified that she then walked home with Ms Kercher, but their ways parted and she went to her own home, leaving Ms Kercher to walk the 500 yards to the cottage in Viale Sant' Antonio. This would put Ms Kercher's return to the cottage at about 9.15pm".
NOTE: I think the police are saying this is Amanda in the following identical videos

DUDE said...

NOTE: Apparently we don't have the picture said to be Amanda caught on cam arriving at the girls apartment at 8:43 pm. Where is the picture? If you add the cam timer error then the time is around 8:54 pm when the picture was recorded. This photo is likely Meredith arriving home although Meredith is wearing blue jeans. ~8:55 pm is about the right time for her to arrive home then call her mother from her room at 8:56 pm.

NOTE: The above news article was wrote on Nov 13, 2007.
On Nov 2, 2007 Sophie stated to police that she thought she got home at 9 pm. Sophie did not correct the time she arrived at her home.

On Nov 17, 2007 she stated to police that she had remembered she got home a little before her TV program came on at 9 pm (She did not look at a clock). She said she thought it took them about 10 minutes to walk home and thought she got home about 8:55 pm.

NOTE: The film on DVD, "The Notebook", Run Time: 123 minutes = ~2 hours. The girls said they began to eat about 6 pm. If they chewed each bite 147 times it's likely the finished eating before 6:30 but I'll give them 1/2 hour to eat, so 6:30 + 2 hours = 8:30. Sophie said they that they left at ~8:45 pm after the movie, so this gives Meredith plenty of time to call her mom from her home at 8:56 pm.
In the Massei's and Micheli's report it's said they left for home about 8:45 pm.

NOTE: For what ever it's worth, Google Maps shows it would require around 7-8 minutes to walk the 711 yd from Meredith's friend's house ( Ms Butterworth where she last ate about 6 pm), to Meredith's apartment. Given they start home ~8:45 pm, then Meredith would arrive at her apartment around 8:53 -8:55 pm, so it's highly likely the girl in the video is Meredith.

DUDE said...

It's only ~37 yards to Sophie's home from the corner where they parted, so Sophie must have got home about 8:48 pm, NOT at 8:55 pm as Massei's report misleads one to believe.

Charlie Wilkes August 26 at 5:54am Reply
uploaded Buongiorno's presentation:

Bruce Fisher said...

Excellent article Anne. Thank you for your continued effort to set the record straight. The truth will eventually prevail.

DUDE said...

I would like for you ladies to know that the Wikipedia article "Murder of Meredith Kercher" is controlled by a bunch of amateur editors / administrators who's goal is to publicly prosecute Amanda Knox. They have the power to block anyone from editing that insist on including the truth about this case. For example the article contains the following statement:

"Luminol revealed footprints made in blood in the flat, compatible with the feet of Knox and Sollecito."

I tried to include the information from Massei's report, that test were performed by the authorities that verified the footprints were not made from blood. I was blocked from editing on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is currently asking for donations. I suggest that nobody donate to Wikipedia unless they provide effective administrative control of the information contained in Wiki articles. Also the public should be fully informed that they should have no confidence what so ever in anything contained in Wikipedia articles regarding disputed issues. Previously I considered sending Wikipedia a donation, but now it's out of the question.