My Truth and My Challenge – Amanda Knox

by Anne Bremner

The following piece was originally written in March, 2010, and still holds true today, as the Italian appeals court hears DNA evidence that may set Amanda Knox free.

One year after the murder of Meredith Kercher, a man has been convicted and two other suspects await trial. Public interest in the case remains strong, and the truth about what happened is emerging, gradually and inexorably. But the truth is not without staunch foes who are doing their best to keep it submerged beneath a sea of resentment. Recently, for example, La Nazione published an article quoting Rudy Guede’s lawyers Walter Biscotti and Nicodemo Gentile, who allegedly made the following comment:

“A request was made to move the trial to the United States. Maybe to an outdoor affair in Alabama, where there’s a tree with a noose ready to hang the negro whose turn it is.”

This statement is spectacular in malicious intent. It goes beyond slander and reaches the level of hate speech. And since I am the one who supposedly made this request, I should clarify the record.

I did not request, and would never request, that Italy yield jurisdiction over a criminal case arising within its borders. This erroneous allegation was made by the London Telegraph, and they formally retracted it the next day, but not before it was widely repeated. Italy is one of the world’s great democracies, with public institutions that befit that status. I have no doubt that the Italian court system will deliver justice in the end.

At the same time, this particular case has been managed by Perugia’s chief prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, in a way the public should know about. Somebody needs to challenge the bizarre conjecture through which Mignini and his associates have turned a straightforward murder into a fable with no precedent in the annals of crime.

And somebody needs to make the point, again and again until the world understands, that Amanda and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent. The case against them is based on evidence so ambiguous and compromised it should have no place in a fair trial. But the prosecution has done a good job of using lies, distortions and innuendo to incite resentment and public prejudice against these innocent suspects, and that is why I am speaking out. No one is paying me to do so. I have practiced law for 25 years, both as a prosecutor and as a defense attorney, and I recognize an outrage when I see one. This case is an outrage.

Someday the smoke will settle, the mirrors will be pulled away, and the public will see that. I’m going to stay involved until that day comes. And if people slander me along the way, I’ll take whatever steps are necessary to deal with it.

Tweet

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to Perugia

by Anne Bremner

Given the continuing scrutiny of the forensic evidence in Amanda Knox's trial, I've asked my friend, Mark Waterbury, Ph.D, a member of The Friends of Amanda Knox, to give us his thoughts on the evidence. Most recently, Mark has authored and released a book, The Monster of Perugia – The Framing of Amanda Knox, which is now available in Kindle (eBook) format on Amazon.com.

by Mark Waterbury
A funny thing happened on the way to Perugia.

In December, the court in Perugia, Italy, that is hearing the appeals of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito ruled that independent experts should review the DNA forensics work of the Polizia Scientifica. In particular, it asked the experts to take a fresh look at the only two items of evidence that the prosecution claims connect Amanda and Raffaele to the crime. Those items are highly contested by the defense because of the unique and irreproducible handling of the evidence, as well as the interpretation of testing results.

A review of the methods and interpretations has been a longstanding demand of the defenses.

The first item of evidence was a kitchen knife retrieved from Raffaele’s kitchen implements drawer. Although it does not match the knife wounds, does not match an imprint left on a pillow at the crime scene; and although it tested negative for blood with TMB and the DNA profiling systems reported “too low” as the test result, the prosecution’s forensics expert twisted the controls to blow up the noise at the bottom of the graph. Voila! In a DNA profiling lab with many samples of Meredith Kercher’s DNA, both before and after PCR amplification, a noise level trace appeared. This kind of contamination is not unusual at all.

The other item was Meredith Kercher’s bra clasp, which was cut or torn from her bra during the assault. The strap was spotted and photographed soon after but not retrieved until 47 days and unknown exposure later. At this point in the investigation, not one single shred of DNA evidence, or fingerprints, or footprints, or anything else connected these two defendants to the scene of the crime. That implies very strongly that these two defendants were innocent, and that the murder was committed by a third defendant, Rudy Guede, who has already been convicted. Guede left extensive traces at the crime scene, and even admits being present.

Instead of releasing Amanda and Raffaele in what I call a "hail Mary" clasp play in my book, The Monster of Perugia – The Framing of Amanda Knox, the investigators went back in 47 days later specifically to retrieve that bra clasp. By remarkable coincidence and unbelievable luck, it showed a contamination level DNA of at least three people, and was compatible with the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito. It was also compatible with many, many, other people because it is a mixed DNA profile at trace levels.

The funny thing happened when these new experts appeared in the Perugia court and one of them asked if they could dismantle the knife handle to inspect the tang, the part of the blade that secures the knife to the handle. The defense had no problem with that, but the prosecution and the civil attorneys that side with the prosecution fought it tooth and nail.

The prosecution has claimed that this item is powerful evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. Why should they be afraid to take a closer look at it? In fact, why didn’t they examine the insides of the knife handle long ago? If it was, in fact, used to commit a stabbing, blood certainly would have made it to the handle and some of it would wick up into the joint between the blade and the handle. Critical evidence would be preserved at that point. Yet, the prosecution never looked for it, and now doesn’t want it examined.

The appeals judge granted the independent experts the right to dismantle the knife, and we 'll now wait 90 days for their report.

Click to find more information about Mark Waterbury's book or Amanda Knox evidence.

Mark is a Ph.D. in materials science with 20 years of experience, including as a scientist for the Air Force, an engineer for a major engineering firm, and CTO for two companies. He's also developed a number of measurement techniques, holds several patents, and has worked on a wide range of scientific projects. Most recently, Mark started his own firm, Perception Development Co., which provides consulting services and development of a variety of new products and technologies.

Tweet