Strong Case For Appeal, Page 1
By David D. Kamanski and Bruce Fisher


First Violation:  Disallow Spontaneous declaration made November 6, 2007 at 5:45am.

The statement that was signed by Amanda on  November 6, 2007 at 5:45 am should not be used against her because there was no attorney provided. 

The Italian Supreme Court ruled in April, 2008 that the statement could not be used against Amanda because at that time, she was a charged suspect, and there was no attorney allowed/provided.  This is prohibited by Article 63.  Amanda also had a right to silence.  Amanda's Constitutional right was breached under Articles 2, 24 & 111.

This statement was allowed into evidence on June 12, 2009 during Amanda's testimony at trial for the civil suit filed by Patrick Lumumba.  This statement should not have been allowed in any form at any time during the murder trial. The civil trial and the murder trial were run concurrently with the same jury.  The court ignored the Italian Supreme Court’s ruling regarding this statement.

Not only was the statement ruled inadmissible by the Italian Supreme Court because there was no attorney provided, the methods used to obtain the signature on the statement are also in violation of Italian law.  The statement was signed by Amanda during a period of time when she was experiencing a psychological abnormality from being exhausted, over questioned, denied food, water, bathroom, coercion, stress, and confusion.  This is a violation per Article 237 c.p.p. and Article 191 c.p.p., paragraph 2.


Second Violation:  Disallowance of the declaration made
November 6, 2007

The defense states in the appeal that Amanda's hand written note should not be allowed into evidence.

Allowing this hand written note into evidence is a violation of Italian law, 11 Article 237 c.p.p. and Article 188 c.p.p.  Amanda was not allowed/provided and attorney.  At the time, Amanda did not understand she was being arrested for murder. When Amanda wrote the note she was an official suspect.  Amanda wrote out a statement without knowing or being properly advised she was in fact a murder suspect. Amanda was under stress. Amanda was lied to when she was told that having an attorney would only hurt her more.  Amanda was denied the right to call her mom.  Amanda should have had an attorney present telling her she had the right to remain silent.  An attorney would have also advised Amanda that her hand written note would be considered a spontaneous declaration and would be allowable in court.  Amanda's rights were not protected because she was not given the proper time to fully exercise her rights and consult with legal counsel.

I will add that Amanda’s hand written note in no way incriminates her. Amanda’s note has been discussed in great detail. Amanda was attempting to inform the authorities that she was unsure of her previous statements. She was under extreme stress and it is obvious from reading her note that she was still in a state of confusion from extreme exhaustion and stress when she wrote it. If Amanda was provided with an attorney, she would have been able to take the proper time to express her thoughts.


Third Violation:  Evaluation of the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Misapplication of Article 192 c.p.p. paragraph 1 and 533, paragraph 1

In accordance with Italian law, evidence presented by the prosecution must be certain and unique, and not be contradictory and illogical.  There are facts that can be inferred from clues leading to reasonable doubt, especially when logically reconstructing circumstantial evidence.

The prosecution had four different motives reconstructing the crime that were all “hypotheticals.”  The court’s ruling must be based on the only possible expected version of events.  In the absence of certainty the court must accept that there is reasonable doubt.

The court may disregard only remote possibilities.  If there is uncertainty with regard to the evidence along with the presence of contradictory evidence, there is reasonable doubt.  The court failed to admit to the many other possibilities of this crime, instead using mere conjecture.  The court leaves many unanswered questions regarding the fundamental reconstruction of the crime, thus leaving reasonable doubt. 

1.  No logical explanation was given by the court as to why there is absolutely no proof of Amanda being in Meredith's room.
2.  The court does not mention in the motivation that Amanda is the material author of the murder.  This goes against the prosecution’s theory and leaves many unanswered questions.
3.  The court neglects to discuss the doubt of two knives being used in the murder. Evidence clearly shows that there is doubt that more than one knife was used.
4.  The court provides no logical explanation for Raffaele’s kitchen knife being transported from Raffaele's apartment to the cottage.
5.  The court provides no logical explanation as to why complete strangers would get together to commit a murder. Rudy Guede and Raffaele Sollecito had never met.
6.  The court provides no logical explanation as to why Amanda would participate in the rape of her friend.


Fourth Violation: Lack of motivation proving complicity in the crimes by Amanda Knox with others

The defense argues that Amanda’s character, personality and attitude do not coincide with the prosecution’s reconstruction of the crime. There are many examples of conflicting evidence. 

Amanda and Meredith were friends. 
There is no proof that Amanda met with Rudy and invited him over that night.
There is no proof that Amanda carried a knife with her in her bag. 
The prosecution changed the theory of the crime several times from theft to misunderstanding to sexual attack.  The court’s motivation then comes up with yet another theory that contradicts the prosecution.
Amanda had no prior history of violence or any indication she had any psychiatric disorders that would lead her to commit murder, which is a last resort. 

Amanda is a young woman with normal interests and is a typical college student. 
To prove that 3 people would get together to commit murder there must be rigorous proof, with the existence of one unitary goal.  All people involved must be unified and have a shared interest, all with each other. This is clearly lacking in this case.


Fifth Violation: Incorrect assessment of specimen # 36, the double DNA kitchen knife from Raffaele Sollecito's apartment

The defense argues that it was already well established at trial that Raffaele’s kitchen knife is not the weapon that killed Meredith Kercher.

Transport of the knife
There is no logical scenario of how Raffaele’s kitchen knife was brought from his apartment to the cottage.

The prosecution never argued this was a premeditated murder, but was a surge in erotic sex violence.  There was no proof that Amanda had any interest in harming Meredith Kercher. 

If Amanda had any growing resentment towards or against Meredith, it would have been displayed before resorting to murder. There is no proof whatsoever that Amanda had any intention of hurting Meredith before she was killed.  The Motivation made it clear that a sudden reaction occurred that caused the attack, so any knife used would have been a knife that was easy to grab and readily available. 
The court suggests that Amanda was carrying the knife around in her bag as suggested by Raffaele for her own protection. 

The court says this is “plausible.”  In reality, that suggestion is completely implausible.  Raffaele's kitchen knife is huge.  The knife is over 30cm long, with a 17cm blade.  It has a sharp tip.  If the kitchen knife was carried in Amanda's “cloth” bag it would tear through the bag and be harmful to Amanda.  The knife would damage the books and papers kept inside the bag.  The bag and contents were examined and found to have no cuts or tears or any damage of any kind.  The prosecution suggested that Amanda carried this knife in her bag for five or six days, yet no evidence confirms the knife was ever in her bag.  There is no proof whatsoever that Raffaele ever suggested for Amanda to carry the knife.  There has never been any suggestion that Amanda was ever afraid when she was outside in the streets of Perugia.  The suggestion that Amanda carried Raffaele’s kitchen knife for protection is backed by no proof and is very unlikely.  Raffaele’s kitchen knife was never seen before at the Cottage by any of the occupants, yet Amanda is claimed to have taken it with her everywhere for about a week.  The court’s claims regarding the transport of the knife are illogical and quite frankly ridiculous.

The forensic findings regarding the knife
The knife retrieved from Raffaele's apartment is not compatible with the wounds found on Meredith Kercher.  It is not logical to conclude that two different knives were used.  The medical examiner described that one shorter knife or object was used.  Raffaele’s kitchen knife could not have created two (those on the right side with short height and only 1.5cm depth) of the three wounds.  The prosecution’s experts agreed that a shorter knife could have created all three of the wounds.  The insertion of the knife was very forceful leaving an exit wound on the other side of Meredith’s neck. The knife went in only 8cm, not 17cm.  There is clear indication by bruising that the handle struck on the entry side making the blade only 8cm, not 17cm, especially given the size of the knife. 

The kitchen knife does not match the size of the knife that left the bloody imprint on Meredith's bed cover. The knife that made the imprint on the bed matches all three wounds.  The greater width of the third insertion is from the knife being sawed back and forth as it went in and out.  Experts said the kitchen knife was not incompatible with the one wound on the left, but that many other knives were more compatible.  One expert, Professor Torre, said it was not compatible at all due to the length of the knife along with evidence that was left by the handle. Professor Torre felt all wounds were made by the same blade, one that was 8cm.

Genetic testing of the knife
The defense argues that the court should have excluded the DNA testing on Raffaele's kitchen knife.  Dr. Stefanoni testified her job was to show objective proof by precise analysis, including use of scientific evidence as reflected by the IFIC.  Her own notes reflect that the DNA on the knife blade was showing a finding of “too low, too low, too low ...”  The testing done on the knife also showed it was not blood.  Dr. Stefanoni initially stated that there was a finding of  “a few hundred” picograms and she used real-time PCR for findings.  When data was later provided to the defense it showed that it was actually under 10 picograms, and could even be ZERO.  Dr. Stefanoni created her own form of  LCN DNA to achieve the desired results.  To make her finding she ran the test once, it destroyed the sample so no other testing can ever be done. 

Dr. Stefanoni had to hand set the machine to get beyond the “too low” finding, which stopped her from testing dozens of other samples but pushing the machine to levels that are not permissible, but they provided her with the desired result that she needed on the knife.  Dr. Stefanoni’s results show findings below peaks of 50 RFU which are not reliable. 

In this case much of the information was withheld regarding the testing until July of 2009.  At that time it was discovered that Dr. Stefanoni's testing was not reliable. The defense asked that the court order re-testing by new experts.  This request was denied by the court.   This denial was wrong, and lacked reasons which are required to be set forth.  Even to date some of the data files and documents have never been produced to the defendants that could show how contamination occurred.  Information that was turned over in July revealed inconsistencies and inadequacies that significantly undermine the reliability and trustworthiness of the results.  Specifically, per scientific guidelines, when you get readings of  “too low” on the machine, there is not a sufficient amount for subsequent amplification.  There is too little to study, and no finding will be reliable to a reasonable degree of certainty.  The court ruled by assumption that the phrase “too low” does not affect the outcome of the genetic results despite all others in science stating that is what it means. 

The court ruled there was no doubt regarding the results obtained by Dr. Stefanoni.  The court believed if the result was readable on the machine at any setting, then the result was reliable.  The court accepted what Dr. Stefanoni considered the only requirements needed for reliability, instead of what the international scientific community standards demand.  The testing could only be done once and alleles should not be counted as such as distinguished from an artifact when its height is below 50 RFU which most were.  It is simply not possible to correctly interpret a genetic profile under these circumstances. 

Contamination cannot be ruled out and is also highly likely with the methods used by Dr. Stefanoni.  Contamination is further possible by the fact there was no visible presence of biological traces on the blade. Tests also concluded that there was no blood on the blade.  TMB testing showed negative for blood. 

The argument that the location of Amanda's DNA on the handle shows it was used like a weapon to plunge into someone is a joke of an argument. The DNA on the handle simply shows that the knife was held normally as anyone would hold a knife while preparing food for cooking. 

The defense makes a very important observation regarding Amanda’s DNA on the handle of the knife.  If Raffaele's kitchen knife was actually used in the murder, it would have had blood on the handle which would have shown up in later testing.  There was a lot of Amanda’s DNA on the handle. The court states that Amanda’s DNA on the handle shows that she used the knife in the murder.  How would Meredith’s blood be missing from the same handle if the knife was used to kill Meredith? Cleaning of the knife would remove Meredith’s blood along with Amanda’s DNA. This clearly shows that Amanda’s DNA was deposited on the handle at a different time, most likely when she used the knife to prepare food in Raffaele’s kitchen.


Sixth Violation: The presence of Amanda Knox in her own residence

No evidence of Amanda was found in Meredith’s room
Several items of Rudy Guede were in the cottage and in Meredith's room including biological traces, fingerprints, footprints and feces.  Some items of Amanda and Raffaele were found in her own residence, but nothing to link them to the murder because she lived there and Raffaele had visited several times. 

The court stated that Rudy did not break and climb in the window thus Amanda is the only person who could have let Rudy into the cottage.  This is simply not true. This theory is not backed by any evidence.  Rudy could have come through the window or been let in by Meredith. 

If Amanda and Raffaele were to become intimate in Amanda's bedroom, why would they invite Rudy in? Why would they go to the cottage to be intimate when they could be alone at Raffaele's apartment?  Why would they instead chose to have Meredith in the room next to them?  There is no logical reason why Amanda and Raffaele would have left Raffaele’s apartment to go to the cottage to be intimate.

The court’s reasoning for Rudy not breaking into the cottage makes no sense.  The court states that Rudy would not want to break into the cottage because he knows the occupants and that one of the occupants may have been home.  This assumption in not based on any logical reasoning and also contradicts Rudy’s past actions.  Rudy had a history of breaking into locations, including once where he knew people were already inside. Rudy also had knives. There are several similarities of Rudy’s break in activities including use of a rock to break a glass window, clothing scattered on the floor, use of the bathroom, and consumption of beverages. 

The court suggested that Rudy would not break into a cottage because he knows the occupants could be home but then suggests that Rudy would attempt to rape Meredith knowing that Amanda and Raffaele were in the other room and could come to the aid of Meredith.

The fact that nothing of value was taken from the cottage is due to the fact that Rudy’s original plan was altered when he made the decision to attack and murder Meredith Kercher. Those actions caused him to change his plans and not complete his original plan of burglarizing the cottage.

The court stated that the break in was simulated by Amanda to deflect attention away from her being the one that let Rudy into the cottage.  The defense argues that this line of thinking is deeply flawed.

Evidence shows it is clearly very possible for a break-in to have occurred, thus explaining how Rudy entered the cottage.  Assuming the break-in was simulated by Amanda to provide cover for herself ignores the fact that she was the one to report the break-in. Amanda invited the Postal Police into the cottage when they arrived to show them what she had observed.

The court makes too much out of Amanda saying nothing was stolen.  It was a general assessment made by Amanda, and not based upon her knowing this information because she staged the scene. 

The court claimed that Meredith would have never opened the door for Rudy but that is not certain. Meredith could have let Rudy into the cottage. 

The testimony of Nara Capezzali
The defense argues that Nara, (the witness that claimed she heard a scream) was not a reliable witness. Nara says she now recalls the scream was bloodcurdling, but she just ignored it and went back to sleep like it was a joke.  Her daughter in her bed did not even wake up.  Nara did not even look out the window.  She never mentioned it to anyone the next day.  Nara then claims she could tell it came from the cottage, how?  She claims she learned of the death early the next morning, but the body was not found until after 13:00.  The noises she claims hearing in stones then stairs is in fact compatible with one person.  Her time frame is off.  How did Amanda clean off her bare feet, put on shoes to run to that location so quickly from the time of the scream? 

The defense mentions another witness that contradicts Nara but also provides unreliable testimony.  This witness claims the scream came after hearing a man and woman yelling at each other in Italian.  He claims he told his parents who claim he did not.  He was reported to the Prosecution over a year later by a journalist.  Amanda and Raffaele did not speak Italian during their conversations.  During Rudy's trial, testimony states that the scream occurs from 22:30 to 22:40.  During Amanda's trial it is testified that the scream is heard at around 23:30.  These witnesses failed to provide credible testimony.

Experts cannot rule out that Meredith was murdered by one person
The opinion of the experts at trial was that the number, type and location of knife wounds does not prove the presence of multiple assailants. The court ignores these experts and simply concludes that there were several attackers in the room.  This conclusion goes against the evidence.

The blood stain patterns are more consistent with a single attacker. Dr. Lalli, the Coroner that performed the autopsy, was unable to say that there was clearly more than one attacker.
Dr. Bacci, a medical examiner testifying for the prosecution, reaches the same conclusion.
“The biological data cannot tell us if it was one or more persons who killed  Meredith.”

Dr. Liviero, a police doctor testifying for the prosecution, states
“a single attacker could have done it.” 

Dr. Torre, testifying for the defense, sees only one attacker.
“There was a scuffle first then stabbing, that could have been from one person.” 

Dr. Cingolani, a forensic expert, also said one person could have been involved. 
“She was grabbed by the neck very violently.  Bruising on the face and nose trying to silence her, but there is no other evidence of holding her down.  Her left elbow shows signs she injured it when she fell down onto the floor.  The other injuries are very small.  During group violence, injuries are usually bigger and more striking.  The violent grasping of her throat, neck and face rules out being held down by others.  If there were three people, there would be no need to use two knives.” 

The existence of defense wounds is consistent with one attacker
The defense argues that the knife wounds found on Meredith are consistent with one attacker. All three knife wounds are substantially similar in direction.  Meredith could not grab the knife as it fully entered her neck because it was pushed in all the way to the handle.  Dr. Torre indicates that all injuries found on the victim are consistent with one attacker. According to Dr. Torre, one attacker immobilized Meredith by grabbing her neck with his left hand, and then stabbing with his right hand. 

The position of Meredith during the attack does not lend itself to multiple attackers.  The court completely disregarded the BPA or Blood Pattern Analysis.  This shows that Meredith’s height of the “convergence zone” was 40cm above the floor and 30 to 33cm from the wall of the room.  It is inconceivable that she was over 60cm above the floor per expert Dr. Camana (an expert with Rome's criminal forensic division).  Meredith was not standing when she was attacked.  She was lying on the ground, but not straight down and was not on her knees or standing.

Hair formations were found under Meredith's fingernails.  Mitochondrial DNA exam should be done to determine who this belongs to. This test was not done.  This shows that Meredith broke free and grabbed her attacker's hair to try and stop the attack.

Traces detected with luminol
The court makes two contradictory observations regarding the bare footprints detected with luminol.  In one statement the court says Amanda walked to Filomena’s room then her own room from the murder room, then to the bathroom.  In another scenario, Amanda goes to the bathroom first, washes off her feet, then walks to Filomena’s room with blood residue on the bottoms of her feet. The court cannot seem to decide exactly how those prints were made.  More importantly, testing confirmed that the material detected with luminol was never determined to in fact be blood. 

The defense argues that the observations made by Dr. Stefanoni should not be allowed because there is no proof that these prints were made in blood and there is nothing to link these prints to the murder.

Evidence shows that there were no footprints or shoe prints found inside the murder room that could be attributed to Amanda. There is no evidence that the luminol track findings deal at all with being blood, only 3 of  9 luminol tracks had the positive profile of Meredith.  Meredith’s DNA profile was not found in any of the claimed bare footprints (nor was anyone's). 

Many items will produce a positive luminol test result.  It is very easy to obtain false positives.  Many items contain iron that will set off the blue glow of luminol.  Dr. Stefanoni confirmed that to prove that blood is present, you have to test for it.  Dr. Stefanoni claimed that no testing was done.  In July 2009 the test records revealed otherwise.  The luminol findings were tested using tetramethylbenzidine, and the tests were negative for all tracks.  The luminol findings tested negative for blood.

The court makes up a hypothetical result that the negative test results occurred because the sample was just too small, which is not true.  Attacks of the tetramethylbenzidine test are not valid, because any error in this type of testing usually provides a false positive, not negative.  This same type of testing was able to confirm blood in tests of the bathroom samples of far smaller in quantity than the bare foot print findings.  Again, none of these luminol bare footprints showed  any DNA of Meredith and no blood.  The court simply overcame this result by saying the material was too little to be conclusive.  This is a bogus argument and just plain wrong. 

The court also relied on the claim that the luminol test turned blue so fast it had to be blood based upon their experience.  There is no truth to this reasoning.  The bottom line is there was no proof that the footprints were made with Meredith’s blood. 

The defense argues that the list of cleaning products that was cataloged by the prosecution was incomplete.  The prosecution stated that they did not find any cleaning products in the cottage that would react with luminol.  The prosecution’s list was only a partial one made up by Dr. Stefanoni.  Bleach, (or one of many other household cleaners) is the most common item to set off luminol rather than blood.  It is very possible that someone cleaned the shower, bleach was on the shower floor, someone stepped in it, then the floor. 

The court concluded that Amanda was in Meredith’s room barefoot by the fact it concluded the luminol prints were made with Meredith's blood.  The facts show the luminol prints were not made with blood. There is absolutely no proof  that Amanda was in Meredith’s room. 

Professor Torre testified that any evidence of Amanda outside of Meredith’s room was completely a neutral fact because she lived there so these findings were very normal. 
The defense offered a logical explanation for the barefoot luminol findings. A person exiting a shower that was cleaned with a bleach based cleaner and then walking on the floor would produce the results.  The court never even discusses this information in its motivation. 

In Filomena’s room there was a diffuse finding of luminol all over the floor, like the floor had been cleaned with a mild or water diluted agent that causes luminol to react.  The finding of DNA from both Amanda and Meredith in one spot in Filomena’s room is mixed with others and not in a bare footprint, just a shapeless area.  One other luminol  finding in the hall showed mixed DNA of Amanda and Meredith.  This finding was a shoe print of Rudy’s and thus Meredith's DNA came from her blood on Rudy's shoe.  Amanda's DNA is only found in this one shoe print, NOT in any of the others, and it is not Amanda’s blood, just DNA.  Finding Amanda’s DNA in the hall is normal. She lived there.

Many people walked throughout the cottage in the days that followed the murder. On the day the body was discovered, many people walked throughout the cottage. After the cottage was considered a crime scene many others walked throughout the cottage.  Investigators did not change their shoe covers when they walked from room to room.  Amanda’s DNA could have been in the locations where it was detected before the murder occurred or moved from one location to another afterwards by the foot traffic inside the cottage caused by many people.  For example, DNA could have been dragged from the bloody shoe print in the hall into Filomena’s room. The evidence collected on the floor was heavily compromised by the time it was collected 6 weeks after the murder was committed.

Cleaning activity 
The defense argues that there are many factors showing that no clean up effort took place after the murder.  Many items were left untouched like the footprint on the blue bathroom floor mat.  None of the shoe prints from Rudy were touched.  In Meredith’s room many items were not cleaned, such as fingerprints, shoe prints and blood stains.  There was DNA all over Meredith’s room. There was also visible blood in the bathroom. The fact that there are no footprints leading up to the blue mat proves nothing.  Why would they leave the mat untouched after cleaning all the footprints leading up to it?  There was no removal of dirt from any of the areas inspected.  Yet the court thinks Amanda and Raffaele were barefoot, so they cleaned up only those items related to themselves.  The court feels the cleanup occurred the next morning around 8:00 am to 12 noon.  The defense argues that there is no logical reasoning to suggest that Amanda and Raffaele had 4 hours to cleanup and missed all these items. 

If a cleanup had occurred, how could there be barefoot prints found with luminol so well defined as to not show any evidence that they were cleaned up?  Rubbing would smear the bare footprints.  The prints would lose their contour if rubbed with a cloth for cleaning.  Also, they found one bare footprint inside Amanda’s room that does not match Amanda or Meredith despite having 16 characteristic points for reference.  This print was never cleaned, if it had been cleaned there would be no way it would be identifiable.

Some of the bare footprints found with luminol appear to match only the profile of Meredith.  New testing should be done to see if tests that favored the defense were not identified by Dr. Stefanoni in her Technical Report Survey of Forensic Genetics dated June 12, 2008. 

With respect to DNA found in the bathroom, the findings cannot be dated, yet the court used the results anyway.  They did not do so with apparent semen found on a pillowcase because it may not have been left there that night.  So it is okay to test items that may help the prosecution, but it is not okay to test items that may hurt their case.  Findings in the bidet are consistent with Amanda just living there and could be saliva or vaginal discharge caught in grooves and areas that do not wash away easily.  Amanda left a blood drop on the faucet from an irritated ear piercing, and other DNA of hers could be menstrual.  All findings are consistent with normal use of a bathroom by someone living at the residence.  

Amanda was not hurt. There were no wounds of any kind found on Amanda.  There was no sign of bleeding the next day, so the finding of one drop of Amanda's blood on the faucet would be consistent with Amanda's ear piercing.  When collecting the DNA samples in the bathroom, Dr. Stefanoni took wide sweeps with the collection swabs, so Amanda’s DNA, even just a small amount would have been present in the bathroom and collected just because she lives there.  It is not clear when Amanda’s DNA or blood was left. These samples cannot be dated so they cannot be connected to the murder.  The fact that many of the test results showed the DNA of another unidentified female  further explains that these results came from the fact they live there and spread DNA while doing so.  The findings of Amanda’s DNA in her bathroom can not be considered relevant to the murder.


Seventh Violation: The tale of Amanda Knox

The court went to great lengths to show that Amanda’s actions after the crime and her testimony showed signs of her guilt. The defense clearly shows that Amanda’s actions and testimony are clearly that of an innocent young woman.

November 1, 2007
Amanda testified during two hearings regarding  the events of November 1, 2007. and November  2, 2007 that was reported by investigators to be devoid of any contradictions.  She reported normal events and stress for a girl of her young age recently located in a foreign country.  She indicated meeting and talking with Meredith the morning of Thursday, November 01, 2007. Both were recovering from the Halloween holiday events the night before.  Meredith was still in the fake blood mask that was dripping from her chin.  Raffaele cooked a bit of pasta and the three ate together.  After the meal Meredith had dealings with friends and left the cottage.  Amanda and Raffaele stayed at the cottage playing guitar and then greeted Filomena who was preparing to go to a party.  Later Amanda and Raffaele went back to Raffaele’s apartment where they had already spent a few days and entertained intimacy and rest.  Amanda and Raffaele later prepared a meal of fish, taking care of the necessary matters of preparation. After the meal they washed the dishes while Amanda asked Raffaele for a back massage.  When cleaning the dishes they learned that the sink had a leak which annoyed Raffaele because the sink was recently repaired.  Amanda told Raffaele not to worry because the next day she would bring a mop from her home.  Amanda and Raffaele spend the night together discussing experiences in their lives. They discussed Amanda’s life in Perugia and her relationship with her family.  Amanda also discussed her childhood and the trauma of divorce that her mother went through when Amanda was a child. After their discussion Amanda checked her e-mail on Raffaele’s computer.  During the evening Amanda had received an SMS message on her mobile phone from her employer which said she did not have to go to work.  Raffaele had also learned that he was freed from a prior commitment to help his friend, Jovana Popovic, pick up her suitcase from the bus station at midnight. The suitcase was coming from Jovana’s mother in Milan.  This gave Amanda and Raffaele the opportunity to have a relaxing evening together and recover from the Halloween parties from the previous day. As the night went on, Amanda and Raffaele smoked a joint, made love, and then went to sleep for the night.

November 2, 2007
The precise and detailed account that Amanda gave with regard to the morning of November 2, 2007 radically contradicts the assumed personality of a liar.  It completely contradicts those people who say differently, giving factually twisted information against her. In her detailed description,  Amanda discussed the fact that she gathered clean clothes from her bedroom and then took a shower.  She then discussed getting the mop to clean the floor in Raffaele’s kitchen. Amanda shows absolute spontaneity and truth in her behavior.  It seems hardly conceivable that a person that committed a murder just a few hours earlier would return to the scene of the murder given all the risks involved and then report details not known to anybody such as the open door, traces of blood in the sink and bidet, feces in the bathroom, Meredith’s bedroom door being closed etc.... These are a whole string of factors that a guilty person would not have interest to disclose.  A guilty person would have the instinct to keep silent, thus postponing to the latest possible time the discovery of these elements.  When the police arrive Amanda shows the Postal Police what she has seen.  This behavior is proof of the ordinary and usual conduct of a person in good faith.

So, Amanda returned to her flat and found the anomalies just mentioned, which first involved finding the front door of the cottage completely open.  She explained this actually struck her as strange because it was customary for everyone living in the cottage to always close the door using the key, because that is the only way to close it.  So she started calling the girls names aloud but received no reply.  At first she thought that perhaps one of the girls had gone outside to throw garbage into the bins, or was out at the neighbor’s home of the boys below.  She assumed someone had left temporarily to perhaps smoke a cigarette so they left the door unlocked and the door opened.  Amanda then said that she noticed drops of blood and a spot of blood on the mat outside the shower and other stains in the sink.  She explained that the blood in the sink was from her ear piercings a week prior, that were still bothering her more recently, while other blood could be menstrual from one of her roommates, that they just had not cleaned yet, although they usually did. 

This position underlines the absolute truth and good faith of Amanda.  Her reaction is immediate, natural and spontaneous.  After Amanda took her shower, she went to the other bathroom to borrow a hair dryer and noticed the water in the toilet was dirty with feces, as someone had forgotten to flush the toilet.  She said this made her feel strange but she had avoided doing so herself as stated in her declaration of November 02, 2007.   Amanda’s detailed account shows ordinary behavior and reaction.  Being the first to tell of these findings is clearly not the behavior of a murderer.  Amanda provided information voluntarily to the authorities.  Why would someone who is responsible for the murder do so? 

Amanda was concerned about the observations that she made at the cottage. She took the mop and returned to Raffaele’s apartment to discuss her concerns with him. Amanda then began calling Meredith’s mobile phone and then Filomena’s.  There were 7 phone calls within a short time frame.  Amanda and Raffaele decided to return to the cottage for a further investigation.  Once there, they then discovered broken glass and thus a possible burglary.  They called aloud for anybody in the cottage but received no answer.  Raffaele tried to open Meredith’s door with force but he was not successful. Amanda tried to see into Meredith’s room overlooking the terrace bathroom and they also looked through the keyhole on Meredith’s door.  Amanda checked to see if the boys below were home, but found they were gone.  At this point Amanda and Raffaele decided to call Raffaele’s sister who urged them to call the Carabinieri.  Raffaele then made two phone calls to the Carabinieri while Amanda had made a call to her mother in the USA to ask for advice.  Soon after the Postal Police arrived looking to locate the owner of one of two mobile phones that had been found in a garden near a road in Perugia.

The fact that Raffaele called the police before they arrived is now accepted in the ruling and it stresses the normal gradual increase in the reaction of normal people involved in this type of situation which appeared to be a burglary.  The intention of the Postal Police was to return the phones that had been found. When the Postal Police arrived at the cottage to inquire about the phones, they were asked to look at a broken window.  The fact that no one showed the emotions related to events later known to have occurred is normal. At that time,  no one thought a terrible tragedy had occurred.  When Filomena’s fiance, Luca Altieri offered to open the locked door, it was observed that the door had been weakened by Raffaele’s earlier attempt to open it.  Once the door was forced opened, it stopped any further activity. Amanda was shocked and distressed with what they found inside the room.  The police directed Amanda to go to the police station with Luca and her roommate Filomena.

In each day that followed, Amanda went to the police station and made herself available for long hours to help the investigating authorities in their search for truth.  She reaffirms once more that she will not leave Perugia, having worked hard to experience Italian culture and on Sunday November 04, 2007, she meets with Filomena to discuss finding a new apartment to rent.  Amanda confirms she has the desire to continue studying in Perugia and in the morning of November 5, 2007, Amanda goes to the University and drafts a letter assignment requested by her Professor.  Also, on Sunday November 4, 2007, Amanda sent an email to 25 friends and acquaintances to inform them of the ongoing details of the investigation.  Amanda remains in Perugia while all other students who are British return to their country of origin.

The court states that there is nothing to confirm that Amanda was in Raffaele’s apartment  from 21:15 until just after midnight on November 01, 2007. The motivation states that nothing confirms the presence of Amanda and Raffaele at his apartment, and nothing confirms that Amanda and Raffaele stayed at Raffaele’s apartment until 10:00am on November 02, 2007.  However, the prospect of the judgment ruling requires an arbitrary assumption.  The court considers and misinterprets Amanda’s statements as an excuse.  However the situation is absolutely clear as quoted by Amanda in her first statements on November 02, 2007, the letter to her friends on November 4, 2007, and in repeated responses during testimony on June 12 and 13, 2009.  Amanda stated that she spent the night of November 01, 2007 in Raffaele’s apartment with Raffaele.  The activities of the evening are analyzed in detail during Amanda’s testimony.  Amanda and Raffaele preparing a fish dinner, eating dinner, discovering the leak in the kitchen sink, watching a movie, reading a German book, discussing stories and memories of their lives, using cannabis, making love and going to sleep.

However the court would require evidence of specific activities of Amanda the night of the murder.  Yet she offered an explanation that is clear, logical and plausible which only lacks the precise limits of time for memory of making love.  Amanda’s response in relation to the night of the murder is true because it is a most obvious, natural and a common experience.  To assume that Amanda and Raffaele ever left Raffaele’s apartment that evening is contrary to the evidence found.  In particular, Amanda was supposed to work at pub Le Chic and Raffaele had promised to help a friend collect luggage from a bus stop.  Both had commitments that night and both commitments had late cancellations.  Amanda stated that the late cancellations gave them the opportunity to spend a relaxing night together.  Also, it could be added that both Amanda and Raffaele were tired from the Halloween events of the day before.  The next day was a public holiday. Amanda and Raffaele had planned to take a trip to Gubbio.  Amanda stated that they both wanted to spend a quiet night together.  There is truth found in this simplicity.  This is logical normal common behavior, that needs no further “element of confirmation” to be put forward.  Instead it is alleged that Amanda and Raffaele are misleading by stating they wanted a normal night’s sleep.

According to Amanda the time they ate dinner was changed from 22:00 to 23:00.  Amanda is accused of making the time later to add to her alibi and cover the time of the murder.  However, Amanda has always stated she did not remember exactly what time they had dinner.  Amanda repeatedly stated during interrogation the night of November 6, 2007, that she had found it very difficult to remember the exact hours of dinner and the movie on November 01, 2007.  During her June 12, 2009 testimony, Amanda stated:  “we talked, we had dinner, and we had not left the apartment.  I had not looked at the clock.  I am not able to tell exactly that time I did everything.”   Amanda also stated that she did not remember the exact events of the evening very well, and said “I think we were making dinner, but I am not sure.”  She was asked if they ate dinner after the movie and she said “I think so.”  It is a very arbitrary assumption that Amanda attempted to postpone the hour of dinner for an alibi based upon her stating she did not know the exact time lines of her activities.  Instead she recounted as best she could these normal activities that are repeated everyday and hard to be framed in a time line.  It is a common experience that two people in love might prolong or have intermittent consumption of food, without accurate times. 

If the court wants to favor Anthony Curatolo’s testimony instead, he provides an absolute alibi for the two from 9:30pm until 12:00 midnight.  If what he says is true and neutral, why wouldn’t the court just repeat what he says Amanda and Raffaele did, as it provides them with an alibi.

The testimony of Antonio Curatolo
The court has distorted Curatolo’s statements to try and claim he stated he did not see Amanda and Raffaele from some time after 11:00 to 11:30pm. They quote Curatolo’s actual testimony where he says repeatedly that he saw Amanda and Raffaele at the Piazza Grimana from 9:30pm to just before midnight. The court is in error concluding Curatolo said he did not see them just after 11:00pm. The testimony makes it clear he saw them there the whole time from 9:30pm to almost midnight.  Antonio Curatolo has been a professional witness having given testimony through the media and court on two other occasions. The Italian Supreme Court has consistently held the absolute unreliability of someone who is a morbid protagonist. However, if the court is to accept his testimony then he provides an Alibi for Amanda and Raffaele from 9:30 pm to midnight.  This would also rule out Amanda and Raffaele being responsible for the phones being tossed as a signal was received from the location where the phones were found at 12:10am.

The testimony of Marco Quintavalle
Witness Marco Quintavalle will be attacked heavily on appeal. Quintavalle is the store owner that testified that he saw Amanda in his store the morning after the murder. Quintavalle  claimed Amanda was in the store and she was showing an urgency to buy something in the cleaning section but left without buying anything.  Investigators checked Quintavalle's roll of tickets and found no bleach detergent was purchased. Yet the court concluded Amanda purchased bleach anyway. No bleach receipt was ever produced. In fact, there was already bleach at the cottage.  Quintavalle's testimony contradicted the statements that he made to Inspector Orestes Volturno on November 19, 2007.

The court inexplicably ignored the testimony of Inspector Volturno who subsequently questioned Quintavalle after the initial questioning that happened within a day or so of the murder.  Volturno's service record shows he questioned Quintavalle on November 19, 2007.  The record makes it clear that Quintavalle was shown photos of Amanda and Raffaele and he said they had been to his store two or so times but not on November 2nd. and they were always together.  The record indicates that Volturno spoke with Quintavalle and then his two employees.  On March 21, 2009 Volturno testifies to the same.

Inspector Volturno's testimony from March 21, 2009 hearing.
Question - Who did you speak to?
Inspector Volturno - Quintavalle and Chiriboga since she is his assistant and another girl whose name I don't recall now.

Question - You said previously that you had photographs of Amanda and Raffaele.
Inspector Volturno - That's right.

Question - And you showed them to the people who were inside the shop?
Inspector Volturno - Yes.

Question - Therefore both the owner and his assistants.
Inspector Volturno - Yes.

Question - You said that you asked the manager of the business if he had seen the two defendants.
Inspector Volturno - Yes, exactly.

Question - What was his exact response?
Inspector Volturno - He said that Sollecito was a regular client whilst Amanda Knox was seen on a couple of occasions in Sollecito's company.

Inspector Volturno explicitly asked Quintavalle whether he recognized the photographs of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and whether he had seen them buy bleach in a period close to the murder. Quintavalle only recognized Amanda Knox as the girl whom he had seen enter the shop on a couple of occasions, but always in the company of Raffaele Sollecito. There was absolutely no mention by Quintavalle to the investigators of the presence of Amanda Knox in his shop on the morning after the murder.

Quintavalle only came forward almost a year later following contact with a reporter which ended up getting him on TV.  Quintavalle claims Amanda was wearing a cap and scarf and she wore a grey jacket.  Quintavalle states that he only saw the side of Amanda's face. Then he claims it was Amanda's blue eyes that he remembers despite earlier saying he never saw the front of her face.  No grey coat was ever found to be part of Amanda's clothing and it doesn't match anything anyone else ever saw.  Ana Marina Chiriboga who worked in the store was asked in October, 2008 if she had seen Amanda on November 2, 2007 and she said no which she repeated in court on June 26, 2009.


The customs of Amanda Knox - The shower and change of clothing as well as behavior evaluations

The Court outlined circumstances in which it refuted the story of Amanda stating it was inconsistent behavior.  The court felt that the reasons Amanda gave for returning to her home the morning of November 2, 2007 were not credible.  The court did not believe that Amanda took a shower or needed to return home except to clean up the crime.  The court however has not explained why the inconsistencies they found proved Amanda guilty of murder.  They also do not explain why Amanda would not have done more to put a greater distance between her and the crime scene and delay the discovery of the corpse.  Why would Amanda purposely alert occupants of the cottage and the police to the scene?  The court has no proof that Amanda did not return home to take a shower.  All they have is an implausible and improbable opinion.  The assessments by the court break away from the principles of logic and experience.

The shower and change of clothes
The court felt that since Amanda and Raffaele were planning on going to Gubbio, she did not need to return home to shower or change clothes, she likely had clothes at Raffaele’s.  But the facts show that circumstances changed.  Amanda was supposed to go to the pub and work for Lumumba, and Raffaele was planning to help Popovic with luggage at the station.  The change of plans for the evening is logical and just happened showing no inconsistency in Amanda’s behavior. 

Amanda had stayed at Raffaele’s house other nights besides October 31, 2007,  and each morning after, Amanda had returned home to take a shower.  This is confirmed by Filomena’s testimony.  On the morning of November 1, 2007 Amanda returned to her own home to shower and change her clothing.  This was Amanda’s usual routine.  This is also what Filomena did.  She stayed the night at the home of her fiance, had a day organized the next day, yet returned to her own home then next morning.  She had to change her clothing and wrap a gift she already had with her.  There is no inconsistency in Amanda’s behavior by returning home to shower and change clothes.

The court also felt the shower was not necessary the next morning because Amanda stated that she took a shower the night before at Raffaele’s place.  He washed her hair and so she did not need to shower the next morning.  However, Amanda testified she showered the next morning because after she showered at Raffaele’s place the night before, they made love. 

The need for a mop has been disputed by the court.  The court did not believe there was a water leak in Raffaele’s kitchen despite the prosecution conceding there was. Several witnesses confirmed the rupture of the pipe under the kitchen sink. 

The customs of Amanda Knox
Since Amanda has been described as an early morning girl, the court stated that it would be unlikely for her to sleep in until 10:00am on a day they had planned to take a trip to Gubbio.  Yet the information of the trip was provided to the authorities by Amanda.  The motivation of the court failed to consider two important aspects.  First, it was a public holiday and thus Amanda did not have to get up early like she did for school, and second, Gubbio is only 30km from Perugia so there is no need to start off early to make it back in one day.  Thus, all the court has found are alleged inconsistencies that are very general and very personalistic.

The court analyzed the behavior of Amanda Knox on the morning of November 02, 2007.  The court found problems with Amanda claiming she took a shower alone after finding her door wide open and blood stains in the bath.  Amanda has explained, the door was broken and thus could have just been left open by a roommate who did not lock it.  As to blood in the bathroom, it was not alarming to the investigating Postal Police officers Mr. Battistelli or Mr. Marzi.  The Postal Police refused to break open Meredith’s locked door. If the Postal Police were not alarmed, why should Amanda have been.  Even though Amanda and Raffaele called the Carabinieri before the Postal Police arrived and pointed out the issues inside, the court ruled Amanda and Raffaele had a desire to delay discovery of the corpse.  This is incompatible with Amanda and Raffaele’s behavior to go to Amanda’s home and call the police to alert them to the strange things in the cottage. Yet, somehow, they are seen as trying to delay.  The reconstruction of the crime in the motivation report is contradictory and incomplete.  If the interest is to delay discovery of the crime, repeatedly calling the police, inviting them inside, showing them various places where they found anomalies makes one ask why?  And why would Amanda indicate a disappearance of feces in the large bathroom?  Why didn’t Amanda and Raffaele just confine their interaction with the Postal Police to only dealing with the two phones? 

This point made by the defense is very important. If Amanda and Raffaele were trying to conceal the murder, they would have discussed the phones with the Postal Police outside. The Postal Police would have never entered the cottage if they were not invited in by Amanda and Raffaele. Inviting the police into the cottage is not the behavior you would expect from someone who was guilty.

Another question asked by the defense is related to the planned trip of Amanda and Raffaele to Gubbio.  If they were trying to conceal the murder, why didn’t Amanda and Raffaele just go to Gubbio to extend the time of finding the corpse?


The character of Amanda Knox, the motive

Several different attempts have been made to come up with a motive for this horrible and inexplicable crime.  Despite the more than 400 pages of decision, the Court has only written a few lines discussing the motive.  This is insufficient to identify this fundamental element.  No reasonable motive has ever been established by the court.

Amanda was the victim of continual and unscrupulous attacks involving her personality, or what they wanted to believe was her personality.  Every movement and gesture was analyzed. Her attitude was scrutinized in an attempt to show that evil was in her soul which empowered her to commit this crime.

As hard as they tried, the investigation did not reveal any objective proof that would connect the “choice of extreme evil” that the court accused Amanda of with the relationship between Amanda and Meredith.

Amanda and Meredith had much in common that would have given them an opportunity to bond in Perugia. Both were in their twenties. Both were foreign students in Perugia. Both got along well with the other residents in the cottage.  Both shared a relationship of friendship as a result.

This relationship of friendship was confirmed by Meredith’s boyfriend (see Feb. 14, 2009 transcript p. 93).  There was no testimony put forward stating any arguments between Amanda and Meredith.  Amanda and Meredith went to the chocolate festival together about two weeks before the crime and were together when they attended a classical music concert.  Amanda’s roommate Laura Mezzetti reported seeing Amanda and Raffaele 10 days before the crime in the kitchen of the cottage and said: “I remember that I was cooking pasta for Amanda and later that day Meredith also joined for lunch”  Thus, there is clear the evidence showing that Amanda and Meredith had a peaceful friendship.

Signs of friendship between Amanda and Meredith continued to be seen until right before the murder. The evening before the murder, Amanda and Meredith sent SMS messages to each other with “xx” which means with kisses.  Meredith had confided to her friends that she felt guilty because Amanda had invited her to go out on the evening of October 31, 2007 as reported by Meredith’s friend, Robyn Butterworth. Amanda and Meredith were planning to be together for the Halloween activities.  Amanda had asked Meredith to go out with her.

There is no indication whatsoever of a difficult relationship between Amanda and Meredith despite the prosecution’s desire to demonize Amanda.  With absolutely nothing to back up the claim, the prosecution described Amanda as a wicked calculator, a manipulator of men and envious at the same time of the purity of the victim.

This imaginative reconstruction by the court has no basis. The failure to find key pathological elements  pertaining to Amanda and Raffaele made it necessary for the court to insert additional elements such as ideas of perversion and depravity that controlled the every day life of Amanda.  However,  the actual evidence completely contradicts the court’s imagined image of Amanda.

Amanda was described as punctual, a really good student, diligent, a participant, quiet, extrovert, nice, lover of music, sports, yoga, multiple languages, a girl who definitely had many interests to cultivate, a worker, early riser, always answered  with a smile, and liked singing aloud.

This description of Amanda is contrasted by the imaginative reconstruction of her personality by the court.  The court stated that Amanda was depraved, immoral and treacherous, which were contradictory to her personality.  The court claims Amanda’s behavior was caused by use of drugs.  Like a joint would create this type of blackout!  However this explanation is not convincing even a bit.  First of all, Amanda was the same person who trusted the police enough to tell them she had used cannabis.  All the information confirmed that Amanda and Raffaele were seen using cannabis only a few times.  They usually smoked a joint in the company of others when it was convenient including in the company of Filomena and Laura, who are young graduates in law.  Even the boys who lived below smoked pot on occasion and had 5 pot plants in a room adjoining the bathroom in the downstairs apartment.  One of the boys who lived below, had even asked Meredith to water his plants while he was gone.  Meredith accepted this request and for that reason had been given keys to the apartment below.  There was also a text from Meredith’s friend, Sophie Purton, that discusses cannabis use.  All of these circumstances show that Amanda’s cannabis use was less than that of the  other tenants in the cottage.

It is necessary to discuss the effect that can be attributed to one from smoking a minimum dose of cannabis contained in a joint.  Amanda’s first statement said that on November 01, 2007 after dinner she smoked a joint before intimacy and falling asleep.  The motivation states that this joint led to the desire to engage in erotic sexual violence.  This is not true and contradicted by scientific consultants.  Even friends of Raffaele reported that these substances had a calming effect upon him.  For an athletic girl like Amanda, positive in her studies and activities, smoking a joint would normally have a very calming effect and you may also experience the feeling of fatigue and listlessness. 

The technical adviser, professor Taglialatela indicated consumption leads to a situation of calmness and relaxation, with some loss of memory and impairment of reality.  The testimony recounted studies of animals who did have some memory problems for 4 hours or so after consuming pot.  He also stated the relaxing effect did not lead users to be aggressive or violent.  Most information showed that cannabis lowers tensions and thus would not promote criminal behavior during use.  In this case, after Amanda and Raffaele smoked the pot, they fell asleep following their memories of love and affection. 

The defense points out some of the statistics of pot users. The defense states that 74 million Europeans or 22% to the total EU population between 15 and 64 years old indicate they have used cannabis in a 2009 study.  Although this practice should be curbed and fought with better education, it cannot be said that there is any proof that use of pot will turn you into a heinous criminal.  Such behavior has never been reported by those studying the use of pot.

During the past 2 years there have been several attempts to come up with a motive that led Amanda and Raffaele to commit this terrible crime. The court has never found a motive.  Attempts to find elements that confirmed their hypothesis regarding the existence of tensions between Amanda and Meredith failed.  It was observed that Amanda had a positive personality, and had a peaceful friendship with Meredith.  After all attempts of coming up with a motive failed the court decided that the crime was purely random. The court believes that the use of pot lead to this random aggression.

It is not logical to classify this crime as a result of randomness.  After all of the evidence that was put forward showing that the effects of cannabis lead to a state of relaxation, the court still made the claim that Amanda’s cannabis use led to aggression.


Multiple violations concerning test results and observations made by the court.

The defense summarizes some principles of the evidence that were erroneously considered by the Court.  Throughout the long report there is no indication of finding any biological test result of Amanda in the murder room.  Nothing proves Amanda’s presence in Meredith’s room on the night of the murder.  However there are multiple biological traces attributed to Rudy Guede.  There were at least 4 tracks, within Meredith’s bedroom that belong to Rudy. To assume there were three attackers, the defense argues that there must be proportional evidence attributed to each attacker.  The total absence of all traces, clues or any evidence whatsoever confirms the certainty of the absence of Amanda Knox in the murder room that night.  The hypothetical reconstruction of the court for its ruling requires an absolutely illogical, contradictory reconstruction of the crime scene.

The Defense points out another obvious logical contradiction regarding the evidence of Amanda’s alleged presence in her house on the night of the murder. The motivation states Amanda and Raffaele reached the cottage shortly after 23:00 and they went to Amanda’s room for intimacy.  However, Amanda and Raffaele already had an apartment that had everything they needed.  They were freed from commitments with late cancellations and wanted to spend the night together in peace as they had done regularly for a number of days.  Amanda has confirmed she spent her nights at Raffaele’s apartment just to enjoy more freedom and privacy.  If Amanda and Raffaele went to the cottage they would have increased their chances of finding another tenant in the cottage that would take away their privacy compared to staying at Raffaele’s apartment.

The defense states that the presence of Raffaele’s kitchen knife in the cottage is illogical.  The Court has not found any item of any value or anything at all that gives a logical explanation of Raffaele’s kitchen knife being transported from Raffaele’s apartment to be used on the day of the crime.  It has been proven that the knife was not used in Meredith’s death.  Raffaele’s kitchen knife is not the murder weapon.  Genetic factors did not lead to conclusive identification of the DNA of the victim on the knife.  International standards were not followed when the knife was examined.

Amanda Knox is a young American student just coming of age in the physical and cultural development of her personality.  She was striving to improve her education with the inclusion of a program of higher education abroad.  Amanda chose Italy with pursuit of learning knowledge about the country and it’s language.  When Amanda arrived in Italy, she set out to find work to earn income so she would not be a burden on her parents.  Amanda was only in Italy for a short time before this horrendous crime took place. Amanda was open and positive.  She valued the intellectual information that was being provided by her teachers and she established easy social relations with others her age. 

It is simply not logical to believe that Amanda would carry around a kitchen knife that was 31 centimeters long and weighing about 400 grams.  Moreover there is no evidence indicating that Amanda regularly carried the kitchen knife in her bag. No one ever witnessed this and there was absolutely no proof inside the bag itself that the knife was ever transported inside.  This all confirms that Raffaele’s kitchen knife never left his apartment.

The court’s point goes further with the theory of the knife to assume Amanda would put the knife back in Raffaele’s kitchen drawer after the murder because she feared that Raffaele’s landlady would notice it was missing.  The knife was a very common kitchen knife and could have easily been replaced.  Any issues with the landlady would have been easily resolved.  This type of resolution would be far more logical that putting the knife back into Raffaele’s drawer.

The court’s suggestion that Amanda transported the kitchen knife in her bag is absolutely untrue and unproven.  There were already plenty of other knives at the cottage that could have been used.  It is also illogical and contradictory that a second knife was needed or used in the crime.  Raffaele carried a knife with him. If this was an unplanned act of casual violence as suggested by the court, Raffaele’s knife would have been convenient. This observation is only noted to further suggest how illogical it would be for Raffaele’s kitchen knife to be used in the crime. Of course there is no evidence to suggest that Raffaele’s knife was used in the crime either. If they had actually committed the crime, his knife would have been the most logical knife to use.

We know by the evidence that Raffaele’s knife was not used in the murder.  It is also absolutely inexplicable that Raffaele would have carried around the murder weapon in the days following the murder, even taking it to the police station when he was questioned.

The Court indicates in the motivation that Amanda and Meredith always had cordial relations.  They spoke the same language, had the same traditions, both cared about their studies and they spent time together in leisure hours. Amanda invited Meredith to join her for Halloween.  They had a normal relationship as young students.  The prosecutor tried to say that Amanda needed Meredith’s money which was not true.  The court found no justification for which the relationship between the two friends could transcend to violence.  The relationship between Amanda and Meredith was a normal one between young students. The theory by the court that Amanda and Raffaele would have interest in participating in an orgy is completely unfounded and not based on any of their past experiences.

The defense points out that the court’s theory of the crime would require a prior relationship among the attackers. The defense states that a required element for a group crime as described by the court is for there to be a collective knowledge among the attackers.  There is nothing to show that Amanda met with Rudy to plan out the attack.  Stating that all three participated in this heinous crime would have to involve prior planning.  They were not familiar with each others personalities, temperaments and reactions to the point that they could all agree to murder someone within such a short time of about 30 minutes.  If Amanda and Raffaele had decided to join in, how would Amanda know that Rudy wouldn’t become violent against her?  There is no logical scenario that can be made to suggest that these 3 strangers would come together to commit this horrible crime.  The defense argues that the court’s motivation lacks proof of this essential point because it does not match reality.  A chance encounter that night between Amanda and Rudy that led to murder is illogical and completely untrue.

The court states that Meredith and Amanda were always cordial with each other.  If Amanda heard Meredith being attacked, Amanda would have tried to help her friend. No past behavior would show otherwise.  It is illogical to think that Amanda would hear Meredith being attacked and then decide to help a stranger rape and murder her friend.

The court states that it can not be determined if Amanda, Raffaele, and Rudy met before they entered the cottage or later when Amanda and Raffaele decided to join in.  The findings show that there was no relationship between Amanda and Rudy before the crime, nor had they met. The evidence to prove the crime can never be hypothetical. In this case, a hypothetical was used to fill a key element of blame.  A chance encounter between Amanda and Rudy that led to murder is absolutely contrary to the truth.. 

It is also illogical, inconsistent and contrary to the evidence of this case to make the claim that the absence of evidence showing the presence of Amanda in her home or in the murder room is due to any cleaning effort.  How could Amanda perform such a selective cleaning that leaves out dozens of items attributed to Rudy.  What are the methods of this cleaning?  There were visible traces of blood found in the bathroom. If Amanda had attempted to clean up, she certainly would have rinsed out the sink and the bidet.  The evidence found in the bathroom shows that there was no attempt to do any clean up.

The court’s motivation assumes that the crime involved four people in Meredith’s room. The defense argues that the physical space in the small bedroom which would not allow the movement in the room that was described by the court.  The room was cluttered with a bed, a bedside table, a table, a chair, and a cabinet for hanging clothes.  The swing of the door also reduces the area in the room.  It is physically impossible to have the presence, activities and movements of four adults in that restricted area as described by the court in the motivation.  The testimony of Professor Torre showed only one person who was committing a violent action would fit in that area as described.

The defense points out discrepancies in the court’s assessment of Amanda’s phone calls.  The motivation report is contradictory regarding Amanda’s phone calls on November 1st. and 2nd.  It indicates that Amanda received a SMS on November 1st hooked to cell Via Aquila Water Tower 5-wk. 3, whose signal reaches Raffaele’s apartment.  The court then says Amanda left Raffaele’s apartment when the SMS from Patrick was received, being in the walking area that is served by cell via Eagle 5-Tower Aqueduct week. 3 (page 345).  The court then says Amanda attempted to speak with Meredith once and use English but did not communicate these calls to Filomena. This is all denied by documentary evidence.  In the same report on page 340, it states the SMS was claimed received by Amanda at Raffaele’s apartment where it is serviced by primary cell of Via Berardi week. 7, but also by cell 184 Eagle 5, Water Tower week. 3 and other cells also reach Raffaele’s apartment.

There were 7 phone calls made by Amanda between 12:07 and 13:34.  There are 3 calls to Meredith and 4 to Filomena. The first one at 12:07:12 is to Meredith’s British phone Lasting 16 seconds, then at 12:11:02 for 3 seconds she calls Meredith’s Vodafone number, and at 12:11:54 she calls the British number again for 4 seconds.  After the first call to Meredith she called Filomena at 12:08:44 for 64 seconds.  Then at 12:12:35 Filomena calls Amanda for 36 seconds.  Then at 12:20:44 Amanda calls Filomena for 65 seconds. Finally at 12:34:56, Filomena calls Amanda for 48 seconds.

In her testimony of June 12, 2009 Amanda was asked if she had called Meredith and Amanda said “we already called.”  Filomena says “then when you finish go home and determine what is going on and call back.”  This shows Amanda was concerned about the situation and persistently called her roommates with 7 calls in a short time frame, and Filomena told Amanda she had also tried to reach Meredith.  The court tries to use Amanda calling Meredith’s phones again as proof of guilt.  But Amanda had only called one of the phones and after speaking with Filomena tried to call Meredith’s second phone first since it had not been tried yet, then called the British phone a second time.  Amanda did so because she knew Meredith’s mom was sick and Meredith usually always had the British phone with her.  Saying this shows guilt for calling Meredith a second time is dangerous and misleading reasoning.

There is incorrect and inconsistent valuation placed on Amanda’s conduct with regard to Meredith’s closed door.  It is purely ideological to blame the growing reactions of Amanda rather than look at them in context according to the development of the situation.  Amanda has never omitted any details of the closed door which was subject to different assessments among the young people who were at the cottage at the time.  Amanda emphasized the deep-rooted modesty of young women, particularly Anglo-Saxon to close their bedroom doors when they were changing clothes.  Amanda was worried after her first visit to the cottage when she took her shower, but then became even more worried when examining the cottage with Raffaele and the Postal Police because, at that time, the broken window was discovered and there was the possibility of a burglary.  However the police were not that concerned and were not saying they thought someone had been killed.  The concern at that time was regarding a possible burglary.

Amanda was always willing to help the police.  Amanda made herself available to the police at the cottage, at the time the victim was discovered, and she was a willing participant in the discussion.  The court has made the claim that Amanda showed signs of guilt by where she was standing when Meredith’s door was opened.  There were 12 people in a narrow corridor and it is completely illogical to say that Amanda’s position down the hall yet still inside the home this creates a “background of guilt.” 

The defense argues that the court contradicts itself regarding the transport of the knife. The court says that Amanda brought the murder weapon that was used in the crime. She was given additional prison time for this. Then the court says that the crime was unplanned, unpredictable and an act of casual violence. If the crime was unplanned, then there is no logical reasoning that can be made by the court to say that Amanda brought the knife to the cottage to be used in the crime.

There is also conflict with the alleged behavior of Amanda after the murder with the testimony of witness Nara Capezzali.  After the scream, Amanda allegedly breaks Filomena’s window, cleans herself off and covers Meredith with the duvet, lingering around the house a long time.  The witness describes a scream followed by the noise of shoes trampling the leaves and gravel, and she did not hear breaking of the window.  She describes hearing footsteps of people running in a very short time after the scream.  There would not have been enough time for Amanda to complete tasks suggested by the court and make it outside in time to make the noise that Nara claims she heard.

The defense shows that there is further conflict regarding the people with the broken down car and the other witnesses who claimed to hear the scream and other activity.  The court states that the car broke down near the gate to Amanda’s home at 10:30pm.  They tried to restart the car and then at between 10:40 and 10:45pm called for assistance.  Records show the other witness, Alessandra Formica, who was bumped by a black man at just before 10:40pm saw the people with the stalled car calling for help and 15 minutes later was home at 11:00pm, so, this means the people with the stalled car were still on the phone at 10:45pm.  The witnesses all said it took 30 minutes or more for the repair person to arrive. One witness said 40 minutes, and service records show it took 20 minutes to assign it and 20 minutes to drive there, or 40 minutes.  So the repair person arrived at 11:20 to 11:25pm per the witnesses and records.  All witnesses said it took him 15 minutes to fix the vehicle, and they left after the repair was completed, at around 11:35 to 11:40pm.  The witnesses in front of the cottage all stated the gate was open and no one came or went, they heard no screams, and no lights were on from 10:30pm until 11:35-11:40pm.  This is at odds with the witnesses who claim there was a scream around 11:30pm. 

The motivation report says the crime was committed under purely random circumstances that merged with the situation.  The court claims that despite having no preset appointment with Rudy, all 3 met after 11:00pm, at Amanda’s home, there is no planning, no animosity with the victim, no pre-disposition to commit a crime, yet out of randomness Amanda commits a very grave crime with no reason or justification.  This is simply not a logical scenario.


The Slander against Patrick

Amanda was also convicted of the crime of libel under Article 368 c.p.p. against Patrick Lumumba.  The defense argues that the mental element of intent is lacking, therefore the charge of libel is not warranted.

The defense repeats the fact that this trial running concurrently with the murder trial made it necessary to discuss the signed statement that was ruled inadmissible by the Italian Supreme Court.  This statement should not have been allowed in any form at any time during the murder trial.  The court ignored the Italian Supreme Court’s ruling regarding this statement.

Amanda’s written document describing her interrogation shows an act of desperation of a girl that was distressed.  Amanda did not know her constitutional rights in Italy.  She did not make a free decision and yet the defense had no choice but to refer to the document because of the charge of libel.  Amanda was only trying to help the authorities in their search for truth.  A complete reading of the document indicates the absolute uncertainty and improbability of the facts mentioned previously by Amanda.  She says several times she doubts it is reality and thinks it is a dream.  The doubts, hesitation and anxiety are evident throughout the document.  This shows then the lack of the mental element of intent to award the specific offense against her.  The specific details of the accused of a violation of a crime by the accused are essential for slander.  This particular document appears as an elaboration of a fantastic experience and repudiated reality. 

There is a lack of explicit intent when Amanda says:

“I have serious doubts about the truth of my statements because they were made under the pressure of stress, shock and because I was exhausted.”

She was threatened with 30 years in prison and struck on the head when she did not recall events correctly.  Amanda states repeatedly, even to her mother in an intercepted conversation of her awareness of her innocence.   The intent to slander is missing because she is not convinced of the guilt or innocence of the person she accuses.  Amanda had no way of knowing that Patrick was innocent.  The police were telling her that Patrick was involved.   To be guilty of slander one must have certainty and full knowledge of the innocence of the person accused.  Amanda was not trying to slander Patrick.  She was attempting to help the police and was following their guidance. It was the responsibility of the investigators to determine Patrick’s guilt or innocence.


Final Conclusions

The ruling of September 14, 2009 violates the principles of a fair trial, and rights of the defense.  The parties are to come before the court on equal terms, independent and impartial.  Data was withheld on scientific matters, especially on exhibit 36, the knife.  Dr. Sarah Gino has provided ample explanation of the unreliability of the outcome of tests by Dr. Stefanoni, and the lack of genetic compliance with protocols along with numerous inconsistencies and serious documentary issues.  The failure to disclose all documents is a violation of the right of defense.  The motivation does not address this and thus the order must be declared invalid. 

The order of January 16, 2009 is also challenged.  The defense states that there is a problem with the file format regarding the documents that allowed the Judge to see items he was not supposed to see. These items undermined the judge’s impartiality. 

The defense is challenging the order of June 12, 2009 regarding allowing the 5:45am statement, and the February 06, 2009 rejection to expunge hearing the details of the statements of November 6, 2007.  Also an order of October 9, 2009 is challenged regarding the request for expert evidence on genetics.

The defense argues that the court was negligent for refusing to investigate Aviello Luciano.  The defense has included Aviello’s recorded statement taken March 31, 2010.  The defense argues that the refusal to investigate the details of Aviello shows that the court did not exhaust all avenues of information.

The defense asks for independent testing to determine the genetic findings of biological traces on Raffaele’s kitchen knife. The defense also asks for independent testing to be done on the footprints that were detected with luminol.

The defense is asking the court of appeals to nullify the orders of the court hearing on January 16, February 6, June 12, September 14 and October 9, 2009.  The defense also requests the suspension of payment of sums, and they want the complete reformation of the judgment.  Lastly, the defense also asks the court of appeals to reject the claim of Patrick Lumumba for his civil action.
The appeals filed by Amanda and Raffaele are available on this site for download. We have analyzed both appeals and we have highlighted the key points that were argued. Amanda and Raffaele had the opportunity on appeal to present their case to a brand new panel of 8 judges consisting of 2 professional judges and 6 educated citizens.  Amanda and Raffaele made very strong arguments in their appeals leading up to their appeal trial which resulted in their acquittals. As you will see from the content of both appeals, Amanda and Raffaele stood side by side in defense of their innocence.  David D. Kamanski assisted in the preparation of these summaries. David is an attorney with 26 years of experience. David's dedication to this case is greatly appreciated. 
Quick Jump Page Menu
Injustice in Perugia
a website detailing the wrongful conviction of Amanda Knox & Raffaele Sollecito
Appeals Filed by Amanda and Raffaele
Appeal Summary for Amanda Knox
Additional Resources
Professional Analysis
Injustice in Perugia
The Appeal
The Victim
Meredith's Killer
Wrongfully Convicted
About Us/Contact Us