In writing this post I’d like to extend my gratitude to Stuarthome2000, the thoughtful citizen of Perugia who has kindly given up his valuable time to provide all TJMK and PMF readers with factual and up to date information from the courtroom. There is a great deal of detail in his reports, detail that would probably not be found in newspapers who merely sum up the most dramatic events of the day, nor would they be found in one particular blog from a ‘reporter’ who claims to be objectively blogging about the case from his courtroom seat.
The Witnesses
I have written a quick rundown of the witnesses and their testimony from last weekend’s trial dates, more information and detail from Stuarthome2000’s fantastic posts on Friday and Saturday’s trial dates can be found at True Justice for Meredith Kercher
Friday the 27th March:
Saw testimony from Nara Capezzali the 69 year old widow who reported getting up to go to the bathroom on the night of the murder at around 11 or 11.30pm and hearing a chilling and disturbing scream coming from the cottage. A few minutes later she reported hearing the sounds of at least two people running in different directions. Ms Capezzali reported hearing the sound of footsteps on the metal stairs next to the parking facility outside her apartment; she also reported hearing footsteps on the pavement below and rustling in some nearby bushes. Ms Capezzali recalled being so disturbed by the scream that she was unable to sleep that night. She made herself some camomile tea before finally settling down in the early hours of the morning. Similarly, Maria Luisa Dramis reported hearing someone running up or down her street on the night of the murder at around 11 or 11.30pm. Antonella Morlacchia who lives in an apartment with a clear view of the cottage reported hearing a man and a woman arguing at around 10pm on the night of the murder.
The court also heard from Giampaolo Lombardi, the tow truck driver seen by alleged ‘super witness’ Hekuran Kokomani on the night of the murder. Lombardi testified as to having seen a dark coloured car parked in the driveway of the cottage that night, the prosecution alleges this is significant as the defendant Raffaele Sollecito drove a dark coloured Audi. The testimony of the witnesses Francesco Tavernese, Leonardo Fazio, and Antonio Galizzi were concerned with the character of Raffaele Sollecito, his time in the ONASI student centre in Perugia and his conduct in his hometown of Bari in Southern Italy. This testimony revealed that RS was shy and bashful, enjoyed kickboxing and was once arrested for possession of hashish, however drug searches in his halls of residence found nothing except for some pornography that ranged in taste from ‘normal’ to ‘extreme’.
The testimony of Leonardo Fazio, a friend of RS at the ONASI student centre corroborated the assertion that RS is shy and liked to visit the gym. Fazio also stated that he had seen RS and his co-defendant Amanda Knox in the days following the murder acting normally as if nothing had happened. This seems to both corroborate and refute testimony from Meredith’s English friends who remember Amanda and Raffaele acting ‘oddly’ at the police station after the body had been found, though it could be stated that Amanda and Raffaele behaved like a ‘normal’ couple following the murder by kissing and petting outside the house and in the police station, going for a pizza, flirting with each other and making, for want of a better word, a ‘scene’ in a local lingerie shop, we could also conclude that AK and RS behaved anything other than normal following the murder by acting cold, distant and so strangely that it immediately roused the suspicion of people close to Meredith and investigating officers who quickly began covert surveillance of them.
Saturday the 28th March:
Saw impressive and potentially damning testimony from Antonio Curatolo the 53 year old homeless man who spends a lot of time in Piazza Grimana which has a good view of the gate leading to the cottage. His testimony was supposedly clear and concise; it appears that Curatolo is no fool and that he definitely knows what he saw. Curatolo claims he saw a man and a woman in Piazza Grimana at around 9.30 or 10pm on the night Meredith was murdered. When asked to describe the couple he pointed at Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. He stated that they may have left the Piazza at around 11-11.30pm but definitely returned before midnight. Curatolo stated that he saw RS looking towards the gate leading to the cottage where Meredith was killed. According to a report from Ann Wise, Curatolo also claims to have seen the couple talking animatedly. Curatolo’s testimony is crucial as it places Knox and Sollecito in the vicinity of the cottage on the night of the murder when they have both claimed to be at RS’s apartment. Amanda’s lawyer Luciano Ghirga made a statement to reporters alleging that Amanda was unhappy with Curatolo’s testimony he said: “Amanda was not happy with what Curatolo had to say, because she was not there that night”, funny then that she chose not to rise and refute the testimony of this key witness by addressing the court as she is legally entitled to do under Italian law.
Raffaele Sollecito however, did address the court in response to testimony from Fabrizio Giofreddi who claims to have seen Knox, Sollecito, the victim and he alleges, with 99% certainty, Rudy Guede leaving the cottage together on the 30th October 2007. Sollecito firmly stated to the court that this witness could not have seen the four together as he had never met Rudy Guede.
The court also heard from the hugely criticised and reportedly unreliable ‘super witness’ Hekuran Kokomani who claims to have driven up to Amanda and Raffaele who were lying in the road outside the cottage on the night of the murder. Kokomani claims to have had an altercation with RS and also claims that Amanda pulled out a large knife, raised it above her head and began cursing him in Italian, he then claims to have thrown some black olives and an old Nokia phone at Amanda before taking a picture of her and RS which he later deleted, he then claims to have bumped into Rudy Guede who told him that the knife in Amanda’s hand had been used to cut the cake at a ‘party’ in the cottage. Kokomani is currently being held on drugs charges after 8 grams of cocaine were found in his house. His testimony was reportedly all over the place and it probably didn’t impress the jury and it also seems that the witness may have been talking about the night of the 31st October 2007 and not the night of the murder. Antonio Aiello, Kokomani’s lawyer took the stand to state that Kokomani had contacted him with regard to what he had seen, Kokomani agreed that his tale could wait until the lawyer returned from his holiday. Upon his return Aiello agreed to accompany Kokomani to the police station to make his statement and admitted that even he did not really understand what Kokomani claims to have seen.
The witnesses summarised
So in short we have three witnesses that claim to have heard unusual sounds coming from the direction of the cottage on the night of the murder we also have three witnesses that report seeing the defendants or a car potentially belonging to one of them in the vicinity of the cottage that night, this is damaging as they both claim to have been at RS’s apartment all night. We also have a witness that claims to have seen RS, AK, RG and the victim together two days before Meredith was killed. Both defendants deny ever meeting or socialising with Rudy Guede. This testimony seems to refute previous testimony from Meredith’s English friends who had never seen them together or heard her mention his name.
On a little side note I find it interesting that two witnesses stated that RS was sporty, one stated that he enjoyed kickboxing. If RS was fit and did kickboxing why then does he say he wasn’t strong enough to break down Meredith’s door when she didn’t respond? So either we have a regular gym goer and a kick boxer who couldn’t break down a door (despite another young man on the scene being able to do so) or we have yet another big fib from Raffaele.
But how reliable are these witnesses? It seems that their testimony is crucial to the prosecution’s case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Does their testimony tell us anything about what happened that night or have any implications for our understanding of the crime?
Eyewitness Testimony
The reliability of eyewitness testimony has long been debated amongst psychologists and the general consensus is that eyewitnesses, on the whole either believe they have seen more than they actually have or deny what they have seen is important or relevant. Some of the factors involved in determining the reliability of a witness include:
- Age (children are much less reliable than adults as witnesses)
- Mental competency
- Level of intoxication at the time of the ‘incident’
- Drug/alcohol dependency
- Eye sight/hearing or whether the ‘incident’ was obstructed from view
- Weapon focus
- Trauma
- Attention i.e. how much they were focusing on what they were doing at the time the ‘incident’ occurred.
What took them so long?
Good defence lawyers like Giulia Buongiorno sometimes make mincemeat out of witnesses and often attempt to do so because they know that psychology research has picked several gaping holes in the reliability of eyewitness testimony. One of the points that a good defence lawyer will use in an attempt to discredit the witness is the length of time it took for the witness to make a statement to the police with information that later forms the basis of their court testimony, it is important that the witness is interviewed according to correct procedure and that they are clear of all details related to the statement which may be relevant upon cross examination by defence lawyers.
Investigators must be careful not to lead the witness during the initial interview (and in court) as this can encourage false memory ‘reconstruction’ whereby details are altered or added to the original story through suggestion by the interviewer, these details may be false or misleading. Some witnesses are more ‘suggestible’ than others, especially if they have a great deal of respect for the police or are trying to please investigating officers. The interviewer must strike an appropriate balance between encouraging the witness to think back and remember as much detail as they can and pressing them on issues which the interviewer believes may be crucial to the investigation. It’s a very fine balance and unfortunately, interviewers often get it wrong.
During last Friday’s hearing, Buongiorno fiercely grilled the 69 year old widow Nara Capezzali as to why it had taken her 20 days to come forward with information about what she had heard that night. From her window Ms Capezzali saw the arrival of the police and the crime scene investigators and was told about the murder at a magazine kiosk in Piazza Grimana the next day. Buongiorno grilled Ms Capezzali so hard about not coming forward sooner and not mentioning that she had drank a cup of chamomile tea to settle her down in her original statement, that Ms Capezzali began to cry in court possibly through frustration or intimidation. Ms Capezzali reiterated that what she heard that night was reliable and true as it had upset her. This may have impacted upon the jury who could either perceive her as being too ‘old and scatty’ to be reliable or it, more likely may have evoked a certain degree of sympathy which may ensure her testimony is well remembered and considered by the jury.
During a trial as high profile and with as much information as this, the jury are literally bombarded with information, information they are expected to remember and consider over a long period of time. The trial began on the 16th January 2009 and is expected to continue until at least the autumn, it may even continue into 2010 and it is important for both the prosecution and the defence to make an equal impact upon the jury. Nara Capezzali’s tears are sure to be remembered, as is the laugher that Stuarthome2000 reported, resulting from a big presumption made by Giulia Buongiorno as to how homeless Curatolo could have possibly known it was 9.30pm when he saw Amanda and Raffaele in Piazza Grimana, his response? “Because the sign next to the piazza has a digital clock”, he also added “and I have a watch”. Buongiorno must have been furious with herself for making the ridiculous assumption that Curatolo could not or did not have the means to tell the time and I have no doubt that the resulting laughter from this presumptuous slip-up will play a small part in ensuring the jury remember the crucial testimony of Antonio Curatolo.
Witnesses Fabrizio Giofreddi and Antonella Morlacchia were both asked why it took so long for them to come forward with the information that formed the basis of their testimony. Giofreddi stated that he was not following the case and as such had no idea it would be relevant, fortunately he told his Spanish professor what he had seen who encouraged him to go to the police. Similarly, Antonella Morlacchia did not think what she had heard was relevant either but was also encouraged to go to the police upon talking to one of her friends who happened to be a journalist.
Supposed ‘super witness’ Hekuran Kokomani was reluctant to talk to police until he had consulted his lawyer Antonio Aiello who later accompanied him to the police station to make a statement. Since he has now been arrested for possession of cocaine it would be fairly safe to assume that Kokomani was reluctant to share what he had seen for reasons much different to the other witnesses.
Factors involved in a witness coming forward with information relevant to a serious crime investigation
There many factors involved when a witness debates whether or not to go to the police with information relevant to a criminal investigation, aside from a witness not realising the importance of the information because they have not been following the investigation in the papers or on the TV, some of these factors can include:
Fear of wasting police time, not being believed or that information is irrelevant
A lot has been made of ‘wasting police time’ and older people in particular are more likely to deny the importance of what they have seen, this may be because some older people perceive they would be wasting the time of the authorities by coming forward with details about what they have seen or heard, thinking their information is ‘irrelevant’ or ‘nothing’. As a result of this some (particularly older) witnesses like Nara Capezzali are reluctant to come forward and share with police what they have seen or heard possibly due to a belief that as they are old their memory will be deemed unreliable, often these older witnesses are sharp and observant, especially if they live alone and spend a great deal of time looking out of the window or ‘snooping’ through the curtains. Older witnesses are often good time keepers and have a reasonably good memory, unless they have a condition which influences their memory or mental state. Sadly they are the often ones least likely to come forward, sometimes through a fear of wasting police time or not being believed. They may also be nervous about giving testimony or frightened of retaliation for doing so.
Fear of the police
In the same way that some witnesses have a lot of respect for, or are overly keen to help the police some are quite literally terrified at the very thought of having anything to do with the police or helping with a criminal investigation. This could be because they are involved in criminal activity, take illegal drugs, have been in trouble with the police themselves or have had a negative experience with the police in the past for whatever reason. Hekuran Kokomani was in all likelihood reluctant to go to the police as the discovery of 8 grams of cocaine in his house indicates he was either a heavy user or a small time drug dealer. Bringing his lawyer to the police station also indicates that Kokomani had a certain level of paranoia about law enforcement officials and associated being at the police station with needing to have a lawyer present. Though his testimony was disjointed and bizarre, Kokomani originally reported seeing the breakdown truck and his cell phone was pinged in the vicinity on the nights of the 31st October and 1st November, despite this I believe the jury will have trouble believing his testimony as it quite frankly seems too unlikely and too disjointed to be true, it also sounds as if Kokomani has attempted to weave into his ‘story’ certain facts that later became apparent, such as the presence of the knife he claims he saw in the newspaper. As Kokomani waited until his lawyer returned before making his statement he could have read a lot about the case and may have inserted a few extra details in order that his story sound more ‘believable’. It will be interesting to keep an eye on developments surrounding Kokomani’s drug use/possible dealing as his presence near the cottage on the night of the murder or the night of Halloween could be relevant to the case. Similarly, as a homeless man, Curatolo may have been wary of the police or had dealings with them in the past yet I believe his decision to testify “because it is a question of conscience” makes him a more reliable and honest witness.
Bystander Effect
In areas that are quite densely populated it is common to see a kind of diffusion of responsibility in witness reporting. Some witnesses mistakenly believe that someone else must have heard what they heard or saw what they saw and will report it to the police instead. Some people do not go to the police under the mistaken belief that someone else already has or will! A tragic example of this is the murder of Kitty Genovese. It may well have been that someone else in the apartments above the cottage heard or saw something that night and didn’t come forward for this very reason.
Reliability of Witness Testimony
For the reasons listed above I believe it is unfair simply to criticise or discount the reliability of the witness testimony seen over the weekend solely on how long it took the witness to come forward with the information relevant to the investigation. However, the amount of time taken to come forward with this information could have had an effect on the ability of the witness to accurately recall specific details, as may the way they were interviewed and the questions they were asked when making the initial statement.
A number of the witnesses did not come forward until well after the crime had been committed yet some of them explained that they not feel their testimony was important or relevant to the case. These witnesses were encouraged by others who, upon hearing about what the witness had seen or heard promptly told them to go to the police, which they did. If the witnesses genuinely believed they had heard nothing or the defence claim they cannot possibly remember due to the passing of time, why then do several of the witnesses claim to have accurately remembered what they saw or heard up to a year after the murder was committed? This may in part be explained by the news of the murder spreading through Perugia which may have cemented in the witness’s minds the things they saw or heard on the days leading up to and the night of the murder. Some of these witnesses remembered enough to tell a friend what they had seen, why then should we discount them by assuming they cannot tell the court the same thing?
In a previous post I discussed how Knox and Sollecito’s claim to have been so stoned on the night of the murder they cannot remember what happened could affect their long term memory recall of the night in question; this could influence a witness in the same way. If a witness decided their testimony was not important or relevant they may cast it aside and this action may influence subsequent memory recall and be clouded over time. Similarly, a witness in their desire to help the police or be involved in the investigation may be open to suggestion or leading questions that could alter or obscure what they really saw on the night in question.
As Curatolo was homeless he may have spent a great deal of time ‘people watching’ or just watching the world go by, I’d be willing to bet that he has seen a thing or two around Perugia and has a good memory for people and places. He may or may not have been in trouble with the police but we could suggest that Curatolo has no particular allegiance with them either. Because of this he would be less likely to try and ‘please’ them with what they want him to have seen in favour of testifying to what he actually saw: Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in Piazza Grimana looking towards the cottage where Meredith Kercher was murdered on the night of the 1st November 2007, when both defendants have claimed to be elsewhere.
Aside from Antonio Curatolo, one specific witness the court has seen so far which has stuck in my mind is Marc Quintovalle, the shop owner who testified as to having seen Amanda Knox in his shop early in the morning before the body of Meredith Kercher was discovered later that afternoon, this testimony is crucial as Knox claims to have been in bed with Sollecito at the time. Knox did not choose to stand and refute the testimony given by Mr Quintovalle. Quintovalle remembered Knox’s distinctive features and all but stated he found the defendant attractive to the court. I believe that his mild attraction to Knox and in particular her distinctive blue eyes coupled with the events that unfolded later that day cemented in his mind the brief meeting her had with her in his shop that morning.
Some Ideas and Conclusions
Though the witness testimony we have seen so far could in certain instances be unreliable and on its own should not form the basis for a case, it does help to put the events of the evening in some sort of context. It also helps with establishing the timeline of events that night and gives some sort of human ‘face’ to the evidence.
It has been noted that Amanda in particular has not stood and addressed the court as she is entitled to do in defence of testimony from various witnesses that place her outside RS’s apartment on the night of the murder, something a jury would expect her to do should she disagree with the testimony of the witness. As a result of this the jury may conclude that her reluctance to refute this testimony implies she does not dispute it’s reliability, which in turn implies she was not at the apartment with RS as she claims.
With regard to how long it took some of the witnesses to come forward I would agree that in most cases this may influence memory recall of the event, however the witness testimony we have seen so far (with the exception of Kokomani) has been received well, has showed continuity and has in certain cases refuted the defendants weak alibi as to their actions and whereabouts on the night in question.
It does matter when the witnesses decided to come forward and that will influence the reliability of their testimony, however at this important stage of the trial, the witnesses are not really contradicting themselves and bear in mind they are often being cross-examined by the ruthless and probably terrifying Buongiorno if and when they do, this is in stark contrast to Amanda and Raffaele who have contradicted themselves many times and will continue to do so until they start telling the truth.
March 31, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Hi Miss R. I’d also like to extend my thanks to stewarthome2000 for his reports from the court. It’s important for those following the trial to have different sources of information. There are a couple of things which have puzzled me though. First, the reports that I read said Ms Formica had categorically excluded the possibility that the man who bumped into her boyfriend that night was RG.
Stewarthome2000 said;
“She focused on his face and could state the he was a “person of color” which essentially meant a black man.”
and this is correct. When an Italian says a ‘uomo di colore’ they mean ‘black’. I was therefore wondering if the reports in the Italian press were wrong. This is important because I believe the prosecution had assumed that person was, in all likelihood, RG and also because her saying it wasn’t (if the press reports are accurate) is the only change she made to what she told the police after the murder. If she did say what was reported, I can’t understand why she described the man as ‘di colore’. It doesn’t make much sense.
Toto was supposed to be the most important witness for the prosecution but he too seems to have changed what he originally told the police. From what I understand, he said in court that AK and RS were in Piazza Grimana from just after 9’30pm till around 11’30-12. This is not what he originally said and MU had this quote after the day’s proceedings;
Mignini; Why didn’t you say before that you saw AK and RS from 9’30pm onwards?
Curatolo; Because nobody asked me.
Stewarthome2000 has reported that Toto then ‘clarified’ that he wasn’t watching the couple the whole time and that they ‘may have left around 11-11’30′. I was wondering who was questioning him when he ‘clarified’ this. Maybe it was Mignini? Perhaps he wanted to get the witness to say that he couldn’t be sure the two were there the whole time because he was reading a magazine. I don’t know. I’m just speculating.
All the Italian reports I read said Toto had given the two suspects an alibi. As well as casting doubt on the suspects’ version of events he seems to have also cast doubt on the prosecution’s version of events. I think his testimony could have gone much better for the prosecution and I think they were surprised by what he said. Also, he is reported to have said;
“I’d like to point out that I’m not saying these things in order to hurt anybody.”
I’d be interested in your take on these words, in light of the apparent ‘change’ in his account. Talking of changes, Kokomani seems to have added a little detail too. He apparently testified, for what it’s worth, that as he was outside the cottage with RG, AK and RS, he heard voices and shouts from inside the cottage. This is ‘new’ as far as I am aware.
If the reports in the Italian press are accurate, these three ‘changes’ introduce elements of doubt.
Anyway, I think the scientific evidence will decide the outcome of this trial.
———–
PS. Sorry for not getting back to you on your questions. Drug laws are pretty draconian in Italy and people believe that the police may have wanted to in someway ‘teach’ Aldo a lesson.
March 31, 2009 at 8:19 pm
“I’d like to point out that I’m not saying these things in order to hurt anybody.”
I think this is a sensitive man who would rather not judge and argue. I don’t believe that his testimony meant the RF and AK were in the square continuously. I certainly don’t think he has given them an alibi….far from it.
April 1, 2009 at 10:13 am
Hi Damiano and bucketoftea,
Damiano I agree there seem to be a few inconsistencies between what the witnesses’ first claim to have seen and what they stated in court.
With regard to Ms Formica she described the person she saw as a ‘person of colour’ because that is what she saw. She didn’t make a formal identification of RG and I can imagine she was shown pictures or saw his photograph in the paper. Under these circumstances and especially if she was trying to be helpful or please the investigating officers it would be more likely that Ms Formica would ‘reconstruct’ her memory to identify this ‘person of colour’ as RG than to state it definitely was not but I agree the fact that she stated the person she was a ‘person of colour’ could be highly suggestive to a jury.
This is the problem with eyewitness testimony especially seeing as we do not know the circumstances in which the witnesses were interviewed and we do not know the individual set of questions they were asked i.e. whether they were asked open ended questions and probed for more detail (as is correct procedure) or whether they were asked leading questions that could have encouraged certain witnesses to ‘reconstruct’ their memory of what they saw or heard that night. Leading questions are dangerous, they can and have corrupted witness testimony in the past and I have no doubt that a few miscarriages of justice have taken place as a result.
For me Mr Curatolo seemed a credible and honest witness despite originally saying that he saw the couple in Pizza Grimana from 9.30pm until 11.30-12pm. If we take this one apart it’s could be argued that what Mr Curatolo stated for the court is in fact a more likely scenario. It would have been unlikely for Mr Curatolo to have been watching the couple the whole time even if he was curious as to what they were doing. Mr Curatolo probably spent a great deal of time watching people from his park bench yet it seems from his testimony (and more so from his original statement) that the couple were behaving in a way that kept his attention. Mignini’s question to Curatolo seems quite accusatory and loaded and Curatolo once again showed his sharp side by stating that no-one had asked him what he actually saw.
Mignini asked Curatolo to clarify as it does seem unlikely that Mr Curatolo would spend 3 hours watching a couple in Piazza Grimana without his attention wandering or them leaving at some point, as the evidence suggests that AK and RS were at the cottage that night and probably involved in the clean-up they couldn’t have been in Piazza Grimana from 9.30pm to 11.30-12pm the whole time. This seems to be reflected in the questions asked of him by the interviewer.
It would be very interesting to know the method in which Curatolo was questioned and the sorts of questions he was asked, despite this, I believe that Mr Curatolo would be less likely to want to ‘please’ whoever was questioning him and answered only the questions he was asked, it doesn’t sound like he was a particularly easy witness to question and he may have been mistrustful of the police.
Either way, despite his clarification I believe Curatolo is a very important witness for the prosecution, he may have been nervous on the day (though not nervous enough to avoid getting one over on Buongiorno which I must confess made me laugh, she must have been livid). I have also read some discussion elsewhere suggesting that Curatolo didn’t actually have a watch? Does anyone know if this is true? It doesn’t really change the fact that there was a clock in the vicinity but if he doesn’t own a watch it was a fib he probably shouldn’t have told the court.
With regard to giving the witness an alibi I agree with bucketoftea, Curatolo has always maintained he saw them in the Piazza and he definitely remembered the date as he saw the police and CSI arrive the following day, the defendants have always claimed to have been in RS’s apartment on the night of the murder (even if one refuses to give the other an alibi) and here we have a witness that has always maintained he saw them in the Piazza.
Damiano, you are of course the messenger and I do not mean to dispute what you read in the Italian press. Were these early reports? Is it possible that the press, having heard Curatolo had said he saw them from 9.30-11.30-12pm in Piazza Grimana before his clarification that they may not have been there the whole time, assumed that as a witness saw them in Piazza Grimana that they couldn’t have been at the cottage?
I believe that as AK and RS maintain they were elsewhere during the murder that a witness, who fared well under cross examination placing them in the vicinity of the cottage and not where they claim to have been, is far from an alibi.
With regard to “’I’d like to point out that I’m not saying these things in order to hurt anybody”, it did strike me as an odd thing to say but also indicative that Mr Curatolo knew his testimony was pretty crucial to the prosecution and pretty dangerous for AK and RS, he also said that testifying was a matter of principle and in all honesty was just as horrified by the terrible murder as anyone else in Perugia. This statement makes his testimony more reliable for me personally and I do believe that Mr Curatolo is sincere.
Hekuran Kokomani shouldn’t have been a witness, his testimony probably confused the jury and the prosecution would have been fine without it. Something is bothering me about HK and I can’t quite put my finger on what it is. I believe the drug connection is important and I still don’t know why he came to the police with what he claims he ‘saw’, it doesn’t make any sense and just sounds like the rantings of a lunatic.
I agree Damiano, the witness testimony should only form a small part of the trial and the DNA evidence will be pretty damning. Have you heard of the CSI effect? The tendency of a jury to place too much weight on the DNA evidence in a trial because of an incorrect perception (or overestimation) about what crime scene investigation can reliably show. Some experts believe this is down to certain TV shows (like CSI) depicting good-looking investigators solving a crime in a day armed only with a bottle of luminol, half a finger print and a piece of shrub. Do you know if this could be relevant in Italy? I hope it doesn’t appear that I believe the DNA evidence is anything other than crucial to this case I’d just be interested to know how popular shows like CSI are in Italy and whether you think the jury are likely to base their understanding of the DNA evidence in part on their previous knowledge gained from possibly watching shows like CSI.
Thanks for getting back to me on those questions and sorry for rambling on.
April 1, 2009 at 2:08 pm
I’d just like to say I loved the point you made regarding RS’s kick boxing skills. I have only had a few karate lessons but from them I learnt how to throw my weight behind a kick or punch, and actually feel quite confident I could break down a door if necessary- despite being a five foot four young woman.
On a certain other blog they dispute RS’s guilt by saying why would someone involved in the crime attempt to break down the door- I have always thought that this would be ridiculous ‘evidence’ of innocence- I would put a big front on, such as trying to help by breaking down the door, if I was involved, and your point makes me even more sure of this. Now he has been shown as ‘trying’ to help at the scene it gives a good excuse for his DNA to be at the scene- if he and Amanda had stayed away until someone else raised the alarm there would be no excuse why evidence of them being there was found at the murder scene (obviously RS more than AK as it was her home)
I also find it interesting that RS still doesn’t agree with AK’s version that she was at his all night, and that it is so often reported that the two defendants claim to spend the night round RS’s, when in actual fact RS claims he was may have been alone part of the night.
Also I am surprised neither has changed their story to allow for the activity on the computer at 5.30am- I was expecting one or the other to claim they woke early so put some music on, a perfectly acceptable thing to do.
Can a defendant change their story this far into a trial or do they have to stick with what they have said?
Keep up the good reporting.
April 1, 2009 at 6:14 pm
Hi Miss R. There’s a bit of news today which is kind of connected to what I wanted to say in response to you. According to La Nazione, the investigation into the transmission of video footage from the crime scene has been completed.
The list of suspects; RS’s father, sister, uncle and aunt, two people from Telenorba and two from Panorama.
The list of crimes; defamation, violation of privacy, publication of documents/film during the investigation, publication of shocking/horrific documents/film.
These people contacted two senator friends and asked them to intervene. They contacted the minister of justice who seemed most accomodating. Fortunately, the always accomodating Mastella had to resign soon after. Their lawyers miraculously found a knife in the bushes as soon as they got out of their car at one of the house inspections. They’ve apparently made threats to members of the investigative team. In one conversation, they were talking about ‘skinning them alive’. They tried to get officers taken off the investigation. They’ve apparently threatened journalists too. It wouldn’t come as a surprise if they were suspected of being the brains behind the two break-ins at the cottage. In a relatively recent interview in ‘Panorama’ (see above. This magazine is not like Gente or Oggi, it’s a serious publication.), RS’s father was quoted as saying this;
“The only thing I regret is giving that video (to Telenorba.d). We used it badly, it became a sort of boomerang.”
This type of person is well-known round these parts. People were under no illusion as to who we are dealing with. Perhaps the only surprising thing has been the mistakes they’ve made. This rather ‘pro-active’ defence is very common here and it’s always the things you don’t see which are most effective.
On Bongiorno, she got the gig because of her ‘political’ contacts. The people who pay her admitted this themselves. If you’re interested in these ‘contacts’, I recommend a trip to the cinema to watch ‘Il Divo’. He’s the big boss man.
The ‘changes’ and ‘additions’ to the prosecution witnesses accounts, all, as far as I’m aware, unbeknown to the prosecutor and all favourable to the defence, could be interpreted in this context. I have no idea, maybe it’s just my suspicious mind, or maybe it’s because I’ve ‘seen’ it many times before.
A little aside; I hate the word ‘giallo’ because to me it represents the hundreds of ‘unsolved’ murders and massacres in Italy. It’s a horrible mix of fact and fiction, it always involves corruption, depistaggio and incompetence and the end result is confusion. I’ve always said that this case is different because the world is watching, although I do think we need to remember how things often work here.
———–
CSI and similar shows are pretty popular here. I don’t know how they might influence a jury though.
All the Italian reports I referred to about Toto’s testimony were from last Sunday.
I’m also intrigued by Kokomani. There are a couple of things there which don’t add up. We might find out more down the line.
April 1, 2009 at 7:16 pm
Hi Damiano and Ginny,
Damiano, thanks for your comment it was informative and interesting, if I’m honest the only insight I’ve had into the way the Italian justice system works is this case though I was aware that a certain amount of political back scratching goes on. I found the leaked video to have been in the most appalling taste and the source of the leak doesn’t surprise me, just goes to show what sort of environment RS came from I guess and it could go along way to explaining his seemingly ‘invincible’ attitude in the courtroom though he does appear to be deteriorating somewhat.
Ginny, if I’m honest, having seen photographs of the door I could probably have kicked it in myself (I’m petite too!) and I don’t think RS was being entirely honest when he claims to have attempted to kick it down. What I’d like to know is, if it is true and they did attempt to get into the room, why? And, where on earth are Meredith’s keys?
RS doesn’t support AK’s alibi because she wasn’t there and neither was he but he’s worried that if the prosecution can prove she wasn’t there they’ll also assume he was with her, by distancing himself from AK and her alibi he probably has a better chance of getting off and my own personal belief (especially in line with what Damiano has written above) is that he is the most likely to walk.
April 1, 2009 at 8:01 pm
A couple thoughts I’ve had about Hekuran Kokomani are:
Whatever the shape and reliability of his testimony, for a few minutes the jury had to imagine AK, RS & RG together with a knife.
He makes the other witnesses look even more reliable.
Re: Karate Kid Sollecito & the Chamber Door of Secrets- Yea, even if you were a chainsaw, you will not break down what you do not want to find. Or what you can’t be caught finding.
April 1, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Hey Shirley,
Haha! Yeah you’ve got a point about HK making the other witnesses look reliable I can only imagine how painful it must have been attempting to a) interview him b) take a statement from him c) cross examine him and d) sit as a member of the jury and listen to what he had to say. Guy’s not all there, but that’s what you get for doing copious amounts of coke I guess.
Despite this I still wonder why RS even bothered to mention he had ‘tried’ to kick down the door and ‘failed’ it’s just another example of him adding too much detail and getting caught out. He seems to be the smarter of the 2 defendants but not by much.
April 1, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Hello Miss R,
Thank you so much for the pieces you have published on this case, they have been very excellent.
I see above reference to RS and his kickboxing skills and everytime I read anything of the same my mind goes (for some reason) into a vision of someone kicking a door in.
I cannot help thinking that it is a lie that he tried kicking the door in in the morning and failed – but it needed some big butch friend of Filomena’s to do so.
I really do think it is a lie – same as the “WTF?” Knox spun to everyone in her long, detailed, lucid and rambling email – she comments regarding the vaseline and Merediths possible sexual habits.
This to me is Knox further humiliating Meredith by the mere suggestion of it.
It is my opinion she damn well knew about this aspect of the assault and this is why she mentions it in her email, it is pre-emptive.
It is the same pre-emption as RS being unable to kick down the door, as I think to get to Meredith that night he did indeed kick the door open.
April 1, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Hi all,
Regarding that door that RS couldn’t kick in: I may be mistaken, but, I think that when the police arrived, the door in question did show some damage. RS and AK claim to have been trying to kick it in before the police arrived. But I have often wondered if that previous damage to the door had been done the night before. Perhaps Meredith tried to seek refuge in her room and phone for help? I’m just speculating here. But I have often wondered why AK and RS made such a point of saying they tried to kick in the door.
The Sollecito family sound like they are deeply involved if those new reports are true, Damiano. Pretty damning information. And no one knows where in the world Chris Mellas is at this point. Speculation on other sites that he may have been given the boot (or strongly suggested)out of town by the lawyers. It is a deeply troubling and trying time for these two families and I guess they are under the magnifying glass of world scruitny with the media interest in this case. A true test of their metal, so to speak. And also a glimpse into their coping skills.
Thanks again, Miss R for your site and the thought provoking comments it generates.
April 2, 2009 at 8:14 am
Hey Jodyodyo and DeathFish 2000,
I wasn’t actually aware that Meredith’s door was damaged when the police arrived. I tried briefly looking for some information on this but I couldn’t find it, yet I suspect that any damage caused by RS to the door would have been masked by Luca’s successful attempt later and I do think, in light of what we know about RS and his tendency to elaborate or include detail in his ‘version of events’ that could explain or refute accusations later (like pricking Meredith with the knife for example), that his claim to have tried to break down the door is slightly suspicious.
Firstly, if his claim to have tried to break down the door is true, why did he bother? Surely neither of them would have wanted to have been the first ones to find the body as this would have roused even more suspicion. I think it is certainly possible that they wanted to retrieve something they had left in the room or that they wanted to conceal any earlier damage done to the door when trying to get to Meredith. The only problem I have with the latter theory is if RS had kicked the door in to get to the victim, how did they lock the door after? Surely the door would be damaged and wouldn’t lock? I think another possibility is that RS wanted to make it look as if he and Amanda had ‘made an effort’ to get into the bedroom in order to give the impression that they were ‘concerned’ about Meredith, the only problem with this is that RS hadn’t yet called the Carabinieri and they certainly weren’t anticipating the arrival of the postal police. So who was this ‘show’ for? Filomena? Or were they really trying to get into that room? If so why? And where the hell are Meredith’s keys?
So many questions….
DF2000: The mention of Meredith’s sexual habits was crude and unnecessary, I have no doubt (as several others following the case have also noted) that AK probably derived some sort of humour or pleasure in writing those words.
April 2, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Hi,
First of all I just want you to thank you all for your comments and let you know that English is not my first language, so I hope you d understand what I am going to say here.
What I think the jury must look at carefully is AK testimony against LUMUMBA, and the fact that she did not (if I am right) strongly told the police that she voluntarily accused LUMUMBA to avoid being accused herself. Why did she not say it during two weeks? According to truejustice.org she only apologized to LUMUMBA after he had been released. Strange indeed
Now the other opinion concerning her testimony against LUMUMBA is purely psychological. Hey, I am only speculating but people who know more about psychology can say if I am totally wrong. Now let’s see, AK talked about a scream in her testimony against LUMUMBA. She heard MK scream. But now her defense says she was not there. In other words she could never hear that scream. AK claims that she made up that testimony. What about the SCREAM, did she make that up too? That testimony was giving to the police just after the murder. Now we have witness telling us that they, two heard the scream. The only difference is that AK now claims to have just lied. I do think (although I could be wrong) that the scream that AK was talking about is the same that the other witnesses said to have heard. How could she know that MK screamed? I know that it may sound stupid as a question, but by analyzing that part of her testimony, doesn’t she sound like the two witnesses? The scream was too disturbing that one witness had problems to sleep and can still remember it now. AK said in her first testimony that she heard MK when she screamed and she then covered her ears. When do we often decide to cover our ears? We do it when we don’t want to hear a noise or someone that we find disturbing. I think just like that witness who can still remember that scream AK does remember it now. Maybe now she has managed to forget about everything, but I think she can still remember that scream, and during the day she was questioned by the police, it was even fresh in her head.
So I will say the reason why AK talked about the scream, it was because she was there, when MK was attacked and if her neighbors head it, it is because they were present at their own locations. The reason why AK said that she covered her ears is because that scream, (the real scream that came out of MK’s mouth) was still disturbing her when she was at the police, that she wished she had covered her ears the night that the poor girl screamed. As for the witness, if she still remember, it is simply because it was so terrible, so disturbing. I think both AK and her, wish they never heard that.
I just want to end my comment by saying that all I have said is simply speculation.
May god help the jury take a decision that is fair. Those people could be innocent but they could also be guilty. Personally I think they are guilty. But let’s see until the trial ends.
THANKS
April 2, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Hi Miss R. Sorry to keep going on about Toto’s testimony;it’s just that I think it’s important and I’m trying to understand exactly what he said. Here are a few quotes from Sunday’s Italian press, to give you an idea of where I’m coming from.
La Repubblica.
‘He was supposed to be the key witness for the prosecution but..he gave the two suspects an alibi. For the defence lawyers, he proved to be an unexpected help. The fact that the witness, upon whom the prosecutors had been counting, placed the two accused in the square at the moment the crime was committed, undoubtedly represents a hard blow to the prosecution…At the 13th hearing, the prosecution’s achile’s heel seems to be their witnesses, especially Kokomani, masochistically called to testify by the prosecution…’
Il Messaggero.
‘One of the most important witnesses for the prosecution, instead of supporting their reconstruction of events, unexpectedly supplied the two accused with an alibi…A third witness, who claimed to have seen the three with the victim…with Amanda wearing a red coat which in reality , she’s never owned. Rather than a murder trial, yesterday seemed like being at a show from the theatre of the absurd…He had said that he saw the couple at around 11’30pm. Yesterday, he said he had indeed seen them at 11’30pm but had been watching them since 9’30pm. So he was watching them while Mez was being stabbed in via della Pergola…’
Giornale dell’Umbria.
‘Curatolo had previously told the police that he saw RS and AK from 11pm until ‘before midnight’. In court however, he took a leap back (in time d)…not even when Mignini contested this, holding a copy of the statement he had made to the police and asking him if he remembered it, did Toto change tack; for him, the new sighting times remained his definitive answer. Bongiorno didn’t let this ‘assist’ slip by. (‘assist’ is a football term; it’s a lovely through ball or perfectly weighted cross which leads to a goal.d). She ended her cross-examination convinced that her client had a new alibi.
Il Corriere dell’Umbria.
‘Bongiorno. The Prosecution’s reconstruction of events has fallen apart. They claim AK and RS were in via della Pergola on the night of the murder. Today, a witness, not called by the defence, said the two were elsewhere…Maori. ‘It’s incompatibile with the shout heard by other witnesses. Mignini. ‘The murder could have happened afterwards.’
Il Corriere della Sera.
‘…Anyway, Amanda didn’t seem to want to make use of the alibi supplied by the homeless man; ‘I was at Raffaele’s house that night’, she told her lawyer. Prosecution. ‘The only certainty is that Amanda and Raffaele, contary to what they’ve claimed, were not at home sleeping. Anyway, it’s not true that the times don’t coincide; the witnesses could have made a mistake by about a quarter of an hour, it’s human.’
I’m often critical of these journalists. It is sometimes easy to see which articles have been, for want of a dirtier word, ‘guided’. In fact, I think I used that dirtier word to describe the Panorama article under investigation when it came out. I think Sunday was different though because all the papers were, in effect, saying the same thing. Il Messaggero is generally sympathetic to the police and Il Giornale dell’Umbria were talking about one of the witnesses they found.
April 2, 2009 at 6:05 pm
Miss R said;
“Mignini’s question to Curatolo seems quite accusatory and loaded and Curatolo once again showed his sharp side by stating that no-one had asked him what he actually saw.”
I imagine Mignini was really surprised by the significant change in his witness’s testimony. Toto went to the police in February 2008 and told them what he had seen. He was encouraged to do so by a local journalist. I think it’s reasonable to believe that Mignini asked him what information he had that could be relevant to the investigation. I imagine he listened to the man and asked him further questions. I also think that you are probably right when you say his question in court seems accusatory and loaded. I guess that Mignini, there and then, couldn’t understand why Toto hadn’t said the two were apparently in the square for a very prolonged period of time. It’s very important and represents a significant change to his original statement. I also think it’s indicative that Mignini’s question sounds more like something a defence lawyer would ask a prosecution witness; it’s hardly a nice little prompt that you might expect a prosecutor to ask his key witness.
“Is it possible that the press, having heard Curatolo had said he saw them from 9.30-11.30-12pm in Piazza Grimana before his clarification that they may not have been there the whole time, assumed that as a witness saw them in Piazza Grimana that they couldn’t have been at the cottage?”
This ‘may not have been there the whole time’ sounds very vague to me. I suggested a possible scenario in which he could have said that earlier. I have no idea if that’s right.If he said they were in the square the whole time on the stand, as all reports say, and was then forced to admit (by Mignini) that he couldn’t be 100% sure because he was reading his magazine, that could perhaps be compared to other witnesses taking little steps back under cross-examination from the defence lawyers. It’s just weird that Mignini had to press him on this and not Ghirga or Bongiorno. If however, Toto said that he saw the two coming back to the square at a time which coincided with other other witness accounts, this would be very important, obviously.
Mignini used Toto’s Februaury statement as part of his reconstruction. Since Toto has changed his version, so too must Mignini. Times before which coincided, coincide no more. Anyway, the judge doesn’t have to accept the prosecution’s reconstruction of events in order to find the suspects guilty, as Micheli demonstrated.
April 2, 2009 at 7:05 pm
Thanks Damiano you’ve made the issue of Toto’s testimony clearer in my mind. I did not know that the Italian press had latched on to the possible benefits for the defence in response to these differences in versions of events, it is important that the defence get a bite of the apple too.
And as for the reconstruction I too found it a little too much and felt it was a shame that Mignini went for the ‘violent manga blood-lust orgy’ theory. Ah well the guy is bound to make a few mistakes he’s only human as his questioning of Toto and original crime reconstruction shows.
April 2, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Hi talameno and welcome,
I’m of the opinion that AK spoke about the scream because she probably heard it, if she didn’t hear it, and she actually did pull that ‘vision’ story out of nowhere she would be constructing the ‘story’ or ‘vision’ according to what she thought an attack would sound like.
Amanda didn’t tell the police that Lumumba had nothing to do with the murder because, for a short time she was probably trying to figure out how best to ‘use’ him to her advantage at that point. I think Amanda knew how stupid she had been in pointing the finger of blame at Lumumba which is why she took steps the next day to distance herself from these allegations, she didn’t however do him the decency of admitting she’d made it all up until the police eventually released the poor guy.
I’d like to add a bit of speculation of my own, sometimes, when I look back and realise the amount of lives that have been destroyed by this whole sorry affair I do get really rather angry at Amanda and Raffaele and it is my small and speculative opinion that they really aren’t very nice people at all.
April 2, 2009 at 8:09 pm
Hi all,
Miss R, it is such a great relief to me to be able to come on to your site daily(and TJMK)to get the latest news as well as opinions and insights from people across the world that, like me, have been deeply moved by this case. My thoughts often linger on poor Meredith, I want to see justice and punishment handed out for this disgraceful and heinous crime. I will NOT be viewing the graphic images of her corpse, I too believe that her death should be treated with more dignity. Shame on RS and his dodgy family, are they perhaps connected to ‘the mob’ to have all these connections?
Miss R do you think that there is a remote possibility that AK, RS and RG were involved in some sort of sect or cult initiation murder? Crazy as it seems these things do happen, in 1997 Asimakis Katsoulas, 24, Manos Dimitrokalis, 23 Dimitra Marieti, 22 (girlfriend and boyfriend couple from Greece plus friend)were found guilty and given life sentences on two counts of rape and murder and one count of kidnapping. These killings were cult initiations.
I’m not suggesting they are satanists, I am merely proposing the idea that they may have gotten involved in some sort of sex/vampire cult. Perhaps they feel calm (AK & RS ability to smile and laugh in court) because they feel they will be ‘taken care of’ or ‘looked after’ by the cult.
I find it disturbing that in Amanda’s email she says”I thought the blood could have been from Meredith’s period…..ew” this too, as Deathfish says re: the vaseline is incredibly disrespectful to Meredith. And how did she KNOW Meredith was menstruating at the time? I often wonder if this is connected..her remark and the possibility (that as far as I can remember reading) Meredith was not raped but sodomised. I come from an African country where rape statistics are very high and I know from hearing about past cases that a lot of men WILL NOT rape if the woman is menstruating.
I must just add that I completely agree with Talameno about the scream being on Amanda’s mind while accusing Lumumba. Her lies are all catching up with her…I’m looking forward to seeing her buckle.
Once again thank-you Miss R for all the work you have put into this case and for the opportunity to share my views.
P.S does anybody know if there is a charitable fund running for the Kercher family?
April 2, 2009 at 8:32 pm
Hi saturday’s child and welcome,
With regard to the cult thing it would be very hard to prove for a number of reasons, firstly AK and RS hadn’t known each other long, secondly nobody has yet been able to prove how or even if AK, RS and RG knew each other prior to the murder, that’s one of the mysteries of this case. Sure there have been theories but nobody can prove how one way or another or indeed why the evidence indicates all three were at the cottage that night.
The comments made about Meredith by Amanda with regard to to the vaseline, her period and anal sex were offensive and crude. I’m not sure that AK saying she thought MK was on her period should be taken with anything other than a pinch of salt, but yes its possible and could have been a factor in the sexual assault, I did read something about a mistranslation of the word tampon which may have led some people to believe MK was on her period when she was killed. I certainly don’t know if this was the case. I also think that had the sexual assault been anal the autopsy would have recognised this and the defendants would be charged accordingly.
Oh and the Kercher family always insist on paying their own bills
April 2, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Funny, I had heard too that the Kerchers always insist on paying their own bills. It is strange living so close to where Meredith lived. Every time I drive up the road I think of her. I wondered today about sending the family a card of support and some daffodils, but I think perhaps they are best left in peace to deal with it in their own way. I cannot imagine how they must be coping, especially with the more harrowing evidence coming up this weekend. They have asked for privacy for Meredith – the only thing they can do to protect her dignity now…
On the subject of Curatolo’s evidence there is a really thorough discussion of this on Perugia Murder file, and maybe on the True Justice for Meredith Kercher site. Someone was explaining that the way the questions are asked and answered is very rigid in Italian courts. So Curatolo was asked ‘when were you there?’ and he replied he was usually there from 9 – 9.30 until 12. He could not add extra details, and the way the questions were framed led to the confusion. He was not saying that RS and AK were there all that time. Go and hunt for the posts about it as it was partly a translation error, partly trial format etc that makes it seem unclear. In reality it was clearer than it sounds. If someone else knows the page where that discussion is perhaps they could add it. I can’t remember the details, but it was very interesting and explained that Curatolo had not given the defendant an alibi AT ALL. This is just spin by the defence.
April 3, 2009 at 12:12 am
Hi Bard. I’m not quite sure why it would be a translation error. He’s Italian. I think the ‘confusion’ was caused by what he said. I’m sure Mignini would have preferred it if he hadn’t had to ask him ‘why didn’t you say that before?’ He wasn’t expecting Toto to say what he did. I still think that there’s a possibility that Toto, if he is to be believed, got his nights mixed up. He said that there were lots of people out that night; there weren’t. It was a holiday, most of the students had gone home. It was very quiet. The stuff about people with their faces painted and wearing masks would seem to suggest the night before too. I know this isn’t news and I don’t know if it will have any bearing on his testimony, but these elements are a little puzzling. Do we know what the suspects did on Oct31? I remember AK sent Meredith various text messages, asking her what she was up to. Do we know anything else?
I’m still not sure if it would be positive for the prosecution if Toto is considered credible by the judge.
April 5, 2009 at 6:41 am
Started reading about this story in depth about a week ago. In that time I have read, reviewed and watched everything I could find about it. Obviously passions seem very high on both sides. I have yet to come to a conclusion as to how I feel though. The one point that keeps bothering me however is where is the DNA of Amanda or Raffele on the body? If what transpired is as the prosecution surmises than anything short of a complete wipe down/bath of Meredith’s body would have yielded a treasure trove of DNA samples of all three. Multiple samples of Rudy’s seem to be there however the only mention of the other two is a bra clasp that was sitting around on the floor for 6 weeks, was moved and may have been mishandled. I have never read anything about finding the other’s DNA on the body. It just doesn’t make sense.
April 5, 2009 at 11:09 am
Hi John,
Where did you here that RGs DNA was found all over Meredith’s body? According to TJMK (from the Micheli report:)
“Guede’s DNA (from epithelial cells) was found inside Meredith, on toilet paper, on the right side of Meredith’s bra, mixed with Meredith’s DNA on the her purse zip, and on the left cuff of Meredith’s light blue sweater.”
Nothing ON her body, although some inside… There was a pretty thorough clean up, so maybe there was a wash down of the body or maybe that is why the washing machine was still warm with a mixture of Meredith’s and AKs clothes inside? Also AKs DNA was found on the handle of a knife with Meredith’s DNA on the tip. Also in terms of the bra clasp, it never left Meredith’s bedroom so if it did pick up RS DNA from being moved around the bedroom it would mean that his DNA (and thus RS himself) must have been in the room in the first place!
April 6, 2009 at 6:07 am
Hi Jessica,
How do you selectively clean up DNA, you cannot see it? I just have a hard time believing that you could clean up all of your DNA and yet leave another person’s. As I said it just doesn’t make sense to me. You would think that somewhere in the room, on the floor, on the body or on the clothing, somewhere, you find Amanda’s DNA. I am not professing her innocence, but it still remains, to me at least, a seriously unanswered question.
April 6, 2009 at 7:26 am
Hi John,
I don’t think the issue here is whether any of AK and RS’s DNA was found on Meredith’s body, it wasn’t, this we know as fact.
What RS will have to explain is how copious amounts of his DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp in a room he claims he has never been in, AK will need to explain how her DNA was found on the handle of a knife at RS’s apartment and more importantly how the victims DNA was found on the tip, Meredith had never been to RS’s apartment and I don’t think I need to tell you that RS’s deeply dubious ‘I pricked her with the knife’ story is precisely that, dubious. ‘
AK and RS will have a hard time convincing the court that they are telling the truth as they have repeatedly lied and contradicted themselves. Neither have an alibi. Nor did they manage to avoid rousing the suspicions of investigating officers and those close to Meredith following the discovery of the body. A lot of criticism has been handed to the crime scene officers for supposedly contaminating the crime scene, a question I have is if the crime scene was contaminated where was this endless abundance of AK and RS’s DNA coming from? Was it floating around the house waiting for the CSI guys to pick it up and deposit it in incriminating places? I seem to recall suspicions of a clean-up and reports that only a couple of AK’s fingerprints were found in the whole cottage, a place she lived. This in itself is suspicious.
If AK and RS or their lawyers can find an explanation for this I’m sure the jury will consider it but it simply remains that they don’t have an explanation for it, at least not one that has convinced judges at previous hearings and most crucially judge Micheli who believed there was enough evidence to bring both defendants to trial.
If the defendants have an adequate explanation that fits the facts of the case I’d love to hear it but they don’t John and that’s the problem.
In my experience people who lie have something to hide AK and RS have repeatedly lied, rather than concentrating on the places where AK and RS’s DNA was not found, perhaps you have an explanation for where it was found?
April 6, 2009 at 2:54 pm
Hi John,
Rudy Guede’s DNA was found on a vaginal swab, which is one of the main reasons he was found guilty of sexual assault. However, his DNA was not found anywhere else on Meredith’s body, which is surprising as he actually sexually assaulted Meredith. DNA is not like wet paint, sticking to everything it comes into contact with.
If Guede had flushed the toilet paper down the toilet and wiped the purse, he would have removed two more traces of his DNA from the crime scene. Theoretically, he could have left none of DNA on Meredith’s body or the crime scene. This wouldn’t mean that he didn’t sexually assault Meredith and take part in her murder.
Knox and Sollecito did not selectively clean up all their DNA. Sollecito left an abundant amount of his DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp. Forensic experts Patrizia Stefanoni and Dr. Renato Biondo have categorically excluded the possibility of contamination. Sollecito’s DNA got onto Meredith’s bra clasp because he touched it.
The argument that his DNA got transferred onto the bra clasp because a policeman had stepped on a globule of Sollecito’s spit and then stepped on the bra clasp is clearly nonsensical.
It should be noted that Sollecito’s forensic expert also found Amanda Knox’s DNA on Meredith’s bra. What are the chances of Knox’s and Sollecito’s DNA getting on a piece of Meredith’s underwear by contamination? Remember that Meredith’s bra was removed some time after Meredith had been killed. It wasn’t Guede because he had fled the scene and gone to a club.
There are three pieces of forensic evidence that link to Knox to Meredith’s room on the night of the murder:
1. A woman’s bloody shoe print, which matched Knox’s foot size, was found on a pillow underneath Meredith’s body.
2. According to Sollecito’s forensic expert, Knox’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra.
3. Knox’s DNA was found on the handle of the double DNA knife and Meredith’s DNA was found on the blade.
The whole cottage is considered a crime scene and not just Meredith’s room. Knox’s footprint was set in Meredith’s blood in the hallway outside Meredith’s room and there are also mixed traces of Knox’s DNA and Meredith’s blood on the fixtures in the bathroom the girls shared.
There wasn’t a single one of Knox’s fingerprints in her own room and just one of her fingerprints in the entire cottage. This does mean that Knox never went into her own room or that she didn’t live at the cottage. It means that she deliberately cleaned her own room and the cottage in order to remove all traces of herself. Why would she do that? Bear in mind that Knox had upset the other housemates because of her general uncleaniless and refusal to do her share of the household chores.
April 6, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Hi to all,
Thank you for responding. As I said I only recently read in detail about this story. It is obvious that many of you have far more detailed knowledge about the case than I do. But having said that I am willing to play devil’s advocate here and throw out thoughts and concerns that I see.
To Harry, do you have a link to a site where there is more information on Knox’s DNA on the bra clasp. I have never read anything about that.
To Miss R, you will get no argument from me that Knox and Sollecito have been all over the place with their stories. I also agree with you (based on my experience) that people who are lying are in fact generally hiding something.
I will throw out another point for discussion here. As a student of human nature I find it very perplexing that one consideration for the guilt of Knox and Sollecito is their apparent nonchalant attitude in the days following the tragedy. We all know that people react very differently to stressful situations and there should be no “right way”. If they were involved (and they may be)would it not be a more reasonable expectation to have them play the role of the devastated friend. How many times have we seen the distraught husband/parent/wife pleading for the return of their loved ones only to find out later they were responsible. If Knox and Sollecito were involved and covering their trail would we not expect them to assume that role and behave in a similar manner to deflect attention.
April 6, 2009 at 7:42 pm
John wrote: “I will throw out another point for discussion here. As a student of human nature I find it very perplexing that one consideration for the guilt of Knox and Sollecito is their apparent nonchalant attitude in the days following the tragedy”
If I’m honest with you John this in itself would not be a very important issue were it not for the matter of the DNA evidence placing Knox and Sollecito in the cottage that night, the evidence of a clean up and the lack of consideration shown to the victim and her family following the arrest, hearings and now at the trial.
A lot of criticism has been thrown at the investigating officers, witnesses and to a certain extent some of those following the trial for seemingly basing the entire case on the notion that ‘Amanda and Raffaele didn’t conduct themselves appropriately’, this is not the case at all but it is a factor in why they stuck out to investigating officers so it is highly relevant.
I’m not sure what it is that you find perplexing. Amanda and Raffaele behaved differently, their conduct was noted and roused the suspicion of not only investigating officers but those close to Meredith. It is being discussed because the trial is being conducted in chronological order, therefore it makes sense to explain to a jury how and why these two were flagged immediately.
Perhaps it was their cold demeanour, perhaps it was their woolly alibi, perhaps the flirting, kissing, cuddling and face pulling in the police station. Maybe they didn’t play the role of devastated friend because they were so overcome with excitement/fear/arousal/panic etc they couldn’t control themselves, your guess is as good as mine, but its not really relevant, what is relevant is how Knox and Sollecito actually behaved in the days following the murder and how they are behaving now
The fact of the matter is, Knox and Sollecito acted odd, they aroused the attention of the police who began surveillance on the couple, Sollecito retracted Knox’s alibi and Knox in a panic framed Lumumba, the evidence started to slot into place leading to what a judge later described as ‘strong indications of guilt’. Their behaviour and its consequences cannot be ignored.
As a ‘student of human nature’ you will probably not be surprised to learn that a lot of investigative work requires good instincts especially for those little things that may not seem important at first glance but a little voice somewhere tells you that something just isn’t right. Something was amiss with these two and it still is.
Again you are in danger of questioning what they did not do rather than what they did.
April 6, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Hi John,
The revelation that Amanda Knox’s DNA was on Meredith’s bra was made by Raffaele Sollecito’s lawyers at Rudy Guede’s fast-track trial last year. Sollecito’s forensic expert, Professor Francesco Vinci, claimed that he had found Knox’s DNA on Meredith’s bra.
Richard Owen wrote an article about it in The Times last year:
Amanda Knox implicated by boyfriend as being at scene of Meredith Kercher death
“Lawyers for Mr Sollecito have told the judge that, according to a forensic expert called by the defence, Ms Knox’s DNA is on Ms Kercher’s bloodied bra-strap as well as that of Mr Sollecito and Rudy Guede.” (The Times, 28 October 2008).
Miss Represented has provided links to the best blogs that cover the Meredith Kercher case:
True Justice For Meredith Kercher
Perugia Murder File
The Eclectic Chapbook
I highly recommend the powerpoint presentations by Kermit and Nicki, which can be found on TJMK. It’s quite clear from Kermit’s powerpoint presentation about the bloody footprints that there were three people at the crime scene on the night of the murder. Nicki’s powerpoint presentations help the layperson gain a better understanding of the complex subject of forenic science and the Italian legal system.
I have no problem with anyone playing devil’s advocate, but I’d appreciate it if you would actually address the points that I have raised rather than ignore them. It gives the impression that you’re following a carefully prepared script and that you don’t discuss anything that isn’t on the script.
April 6, 2009 at 8:34 pm
I’d like to say hello to Damiano and I hope he won’t mind if I display his translation of Judge Micheli’s explanation of why he does NOT believe there was any contamination of the crime scene. John, perhaps this will help?
From Damiano:
“This was in CU a while back. They are extracts from Micheli’s 17 page refusal of house arrest. He would have been responding to things the defense lawyers said in their formal request for release. It’s all very technical stuff and my translation is lousy. I think the main points are clear though, even if in Italian ‘suona molto meglio’.
“It makes no sense to imagine that contamination occurred during the collection of evidence or during the wait (there shouldn’t have been the delay in collecting the bra clasp) between November2 and December18. Although one can think that in times of crisis (‘vacche magre’) gloves which are meant to be used once are used again, gloves and shoes were definitely changed when going from one house to another. In any case, the inspections of the houses were carried out by different people at different times. Studying the documents with regard to successive inspections of the house (in fact, there were at the same time) not involving the scientific police, at via della Pergola7 and corso Garibaldi110; 9’40am November6 at the house where the crime was committed, Napoleoni, Bigini, Gubbiotti, Barbadori e Zugarini; 10am at Sollecito’s house Chiacchiera, Finzi, Passeri, Ranauro, Camarda, Rossi e Sisani. Where’s the source,or even the suspicion for the contamination?” Micheli however, also makes a criticism. “It needs to be said that leaving the bra clasp for 46 days, which was moreover at a scene where there was evidence of sexual violence and after taking the bra, represents a serious oversight. It is also worth remembering though that the consequent risk connected to this oversight was that evidence could have been lost, not the discovery of new traces that got there who knows how….It is incorrect to say that things were taken from the victim’s room, sorted in a different place where there could have been Sollecito’s dna (who knows how?) and then taken back. It is true that the black lamp was near the bed on November2, with the cable near the door. On December18 it was on the desk and the cable was hanging down and ended up under the small rug, near the bra clasp. Looking at the images however, one can see that the cable was a few centimetres from the bra clasp; it wasn’t on it or in contact with it. How could that cable, which for reasons of physics was touching just certain parts of the floor since it was not morphologically uniform, have acted as blotting paper for the accused’s dna? Likewise, how can one imagine that Kercher’s dna ended up in a shirt box, in which the knife was placed more or less in accordance to the protocol.”
It helps to revisit these Judge’s reports for enlightenment about this case.
Thank you very much DAMIANO!
April 6, 2009 at 10:06 pm
To all,
The questions that I posed were because certain things did not make sense to me. There is no “script” and I take offense to that. If one cannot discuss the subject openly without one’s credibility being challenged than it is time to leave. I will leave now.
April 6, 2009 at 10:19 pm
Hi Miss Represented,
I really appreciate your insights to this case, your blog is a must-read for anyyone who is interested in the truth about the murder of Meredith Kercher.
What you say about investigative methods is absoutely true. The current approach of investigators is to use both traditional AND modern science techniques, the latter supporting-among others-psychological and behavioral observations of the suspects,including repeated contradictions, lack of sound alibis, post-crime peculiar behaviors etc. So instict surely plays an important role in every criminal investigation.
This approach is not unique to the Italians, e.g. it mirrors the investigation techniques used by the Swiss police, as it is explained on their website http://www.ti.ch/DI/POL. I am sure more detectives in Europe and in other countries share a similar approach.
April 7, 2009 at 12:22 am
Hi John,
I don’t know why you wrote you last post to “all” when it was me that made the comment about a script. I didn’t say you had one. I wrote that when you ignore the points I had raised, it gives the impression you have a script and you don’t discuss anything that is not on the script. I don’t think that is such a terrible insult and warrants you storming off the blog so melodramatically.
Discussing the case openly should mean discussing all the points raised and not just the ones you cherry pick because they suit the particular point you were trying to make. Miss Represented brought up the very importnat point about Knox and Sollecito repeatedly lying and you responded as if wasn’t particularly important and not worth discussing in any depth or detail. You didn’t offer any explanation for their numerous lies.
I got the distinct impression you didn’t want to discuss the incriminating evidence and you proved me right.
April 7, 2009 at 4:45 am
Due to my work schedule I don’t have time to look back at the issues covered by the other sites but has anyone raised the possibility that rather than the accepted scenario, attack-murder-clean up-staged burglary, that the initial event was the theft and a staged burglary with Meredith walking in and her death being a result of interrupting the staging of the burglary and her brutal murder committed to cover up the theft of money and or possibly the keys to the down stairs apartment where there were allegedly cannabis plants.
I read on another site about the cannabis plants and that Meredith had the keys for the other apartment.This would not preclude Rudy as in my experience drug users make some odd friends.
This is just something that is bothering me and I would like some clarification if possible that this scenario has been suggested and if so why it was discounted.
If it is true about the plants and keys I wonder why they asked Meredith who was a new arrival rather than Amanda.
April 7, 2009 at 8:27 am
Hey guys, thanks for the comments and Nicki it’s nice to see you here
Harry Rag I agree, it’s a shame John sulked off but then again something tells me he didn’t really want to debate or discuss the points of the case.
Hey Tony, I have the same problem sometimes and often wonder how other people following the case have enough time in the day especially those who manage to work and run PMF and TJMK!
I also read the interesting discussion about the keys and the cannabis plants. The only problem I have with this scenario is the brutal way in which Meredith was attacked and sexually assaulted. Though I have suggested that the group dynamic could have caused the level of violence in the cottage that night I find it hard to fit a robbery motive in with this theory, it could certainly be a possibility but it would challenge quite lot of the literature on violent sexual homicide.
With this sort of offence it is usually hard to discern a specific motive and this level of violence resulting from a burglary is rare. Motive and literature aside…
Were the plants ready to ‘harvest’? How many of them? What was their street value? Was Cannabis hard to find in Perugia at the time? Plus you can’t just pluck a leaf of a Cannabis plant roll it up and start puffing away, these plants need cutting and drying before they are suitable to smoke. And why bother with the keys? Why not just smash the window of the downstairs apartment and make off with the weed? If this is a credible scenario these points need clarification, as do the following:
With regard to Meredith possibly interrupting a staging attempt to cover up a robbery of money, how do we explain the knife? Why would they need to take it to the cottage if they weren’t planning on using it to either frighten or assault Meredith? You don’t need a knife to rob a set of keys and a few hundred quid; neither do you need keys to rob an apartment.
The evidence available so far seems to indicate that Meredith was the principle target of the attack. It also seems that the group assembled at the cottage at roughly the same time, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Meredith arrived a short while later. I have always found it hard to believe that the attack began as the result of Meredith ‘surprising’ one of them doing something they shouldn’t have been. Just my humble opinion of course.
I think it’s likely that Giacomo asked Meredith to look after the plants because they were dating. Maybe they didn’t trust Amanda or noticed she didn’t spent enough time at home to warrant them asking her to look after them instead. Maybe they thought she smoked too much and couldn’t be trusted?
April 7, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Hi. While, I know it’s not directly related to this post, I just wanted to comment on RG’s appearance in court. I don’t know much about the Italian justice system, but does “double jeopardy” exist there? Meaning, can he be tried and convicted of the same crime twice? Besides him being a disgusting human being, I don’t understand why he would not just give up the goods. He is stupid to be sure, so maybe he actually thinks that he’ll get a sentence reduction on appeal? He couldn’t. His lawyers couldn’t, could they. Essentially he’s safe, if he is worried about a reputation (He couldn’t possibly be, could he?) he’s late on that so what is it. I’m so confused. I can’t decide if he’s just dumb or he thinks they’re all in it together or he thinks that he’s above the other two (morally or however else). Why not just say what happened since I’m sure he didn’t stab her. Surely, if he had, the other two would have been singing like canaries by now no matter their level of involvement.
People like the three of them frustrate me so much. I was watching a news segment on the case that showed pictures of them and their families and pictures of the Kerchers and I know this may be silly of me but the Knoxes and the Sollecitos just look like something is amiss, as though there was never a sense of real comfort and nurturing among them, or like a “big, hot, steaming bowl of crazy,” as a friend of mine is wont to say. While the Kerchers just seem the complete opposite even with the fact that the parents were divorced. I find it so fascinating how people (children especially) ‘evolve out’ of adverse backgrounds, whether it be poverty, neglect, overindulgence, abuse, or moral bankruptcy. The four young people in the case, from what we can see without knowing them personally, seem to be archetypes of a certain sort of person.
Sorry again for rambling. Just reflecting…
April 7, 2009 at 1:49 pm
If I remember correctly, there were about 7-8 pot plants downstairs. There was some discussion quite awhile ago on the TC board about the alleged murder weapon being a good size for cutting the plants for transport in the back of a car. I don’t remember if they were ready to harvest or not.
The downstairs flat and blood from Giacomo Silenzi’s cat’s ear is mysterious! Chris Mellas or Goofy stated over at Frank’s that the cat was in heat. How did the animal’s blood get on the lightswitch downstairs? Up and down the stairwell? Was somebody other than the cat down there that horrible night?
If only the little feline could talk, I’d bet he’d have a frightening story to tell!
April 7, 2009 at 3:15 pm
John wrote:
‘We all know that people react very differently to stressful situations and there should be no “right way”.’
I think another possible explanation for their post-crime behavior might be that they were still coming off some drugs. Also, possibly, fatigue at being up most of the night and fatigue from the clean-up.
Tony wrote:
‘…has anyone raised the possibility that rather than the accepted scenario, attack-murder-clean up-staged burglary, that the initial event was the theft and a staged burglary with Meredith walking in and her death being a result of interrupting the staging of the burglary…’
Correct me if I’m wrong someone, but part of why I lean towards the staged burglary happening after the murder is because I believe bloody luminol footprints were found in Filomena’s room.