The case of the murder of Meredith Kercher has moved to a new phase with the reconviction of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito on January 30th in a court in Florence. They were originally convicted on December 4th 2009 by a Perugia court and sentenced to 26 and 25 years in prison respectively. On appeal, which in Italy is in effect a retrial carried out to higher standards with a more educated jury, they were not simply found ‘not guilty’, but were, in fact, declared to be completely ‘innocent’ of the crime. This is a much stronger statement.

But the Court of Cassation in Rome then decided that the appeal court had not taken into account ‘osmotic evidence of guilt’ and ordered a retrial in Florence, which ended with a reconviction and increased sentences for both defendants.

Key to the case are two items of DNA forensic evidence found on a large knife and a bra clasp. They have been used as the most important evidence by the prosecution to argue that Knox and Sollecito were involved in the crime. However but the accuracy of the DNA tests has been strongly disputed by many forensic experts, both in court and outside. During the Appeal Trial, two independent forensic experts, Conti and Vecchiotti, were appointed to look at the DNA evidence impartially. Their report documented in detail the procedures used for sampling and the subsequent analysis of these two items of evidence. They concluded that both were seriously flawed, and therefore, they argued, the DNA evidence could not be used as evidence of guilt.

The large knife had been taken from a drawer in Raffaele Sollecito’s apartment four days after the murder. That particular knife was chosen from a series of possible knives by  a police officer, who chose it based on ‘investigative intuition.’ Subsequently it was found that that knife was too large to fit most of the cuts on the body of the victim, the cuts on Guede’s hands and the bloody imprint of a knife found on the pillow. These cuts had all been caused by a smaller knife.

The prosecution have argued that there must have been two knives involved.  This large knife, which they say produced one slash on the victim, and was cleaned and returned to drawer where it came from, and another knife, which has never been found. However it is clear from testimony in court that the precautions used when sampling that large knife were seriously flawed. The police officers who took the knife from the apartment were wearing ordinary clothes and when they got to the police station the knife was not properly sealed before storage.  When it was analysed by standard DNA procedures, which require 0.5-1.2 ng/μl of DNA, the key sample (B) was found to be too low.

Instead of accepting that result, Stafanoni, the police forensic geneticist, then concentrated the sample to 10 μl and carried out LCT high[MK1]  sensitivity analysis. It is well known that the principle problem of LCT analysis is contamination and it requires especially careful handling and storage because it can easily result in false positives due to its extreme sensitivity. There are internationally agreed protocols to minimise the risk of false results. The Conti and Vecchiotti report lists in detail that many of these protocols were not followed. In particular, all samples must be run in 2-3 replications to confirm alleles are indeed from the victim. This is the required procedure of the Carabinieri Forensic laboratory. No replicates were run. The sample lab must run the LCN samples before reference samples, and in particular before samples which are known to contain the DNA of the victim, in order to avoid cross contamination. In this case the samples were run in the middle of a long run containing many samples with the victim’s DNA. It is essential to run both positive and negative blanks associated with LCN samples to reduce the chance of random contamination. This was not done.

The 2nd item of evidence which has been strongly disputed is the DNA on the bra clasp, which was retrieved from the floor of Meredith’s room 46 days[M2]  after the murder, The bra clasp had previously been photographed in the room but not retrieved. It had been moved several times and when it was eventually retrieved it was demonstrably contaminated, being a darker colour than it had been initially.

As with the knife, the standards used to handle the clasp were seriously below those normally accepted.. The glove used to pick up the bra clasp was grimey. In this case there was sufficient DNA for a normal analysis. The major DNA signal unsurprisingly was the victim’s. In addition there were minor signals, including some that were associated with male Y chromosomes.

Stefanoni stated in court that she had identified only two persons from the DNA, Kercher and Sollecito. However in order to identify Sollecito, Stefanoni simply ignored 14 significant peaks in the analysis as ‘stutter’ peaks. This selective interpretation is against the specific recommendation of the DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics concerning the correct interpretation of mixtures. If these peaks are not ignored then there were 3-5 male minor contributors present in the trace besides the victim, of which one of the haplotypes may correspond to the Y haplotype of Sollecito. Since nobody has ever suggested that a series of men were involved in the murder, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that this is demonstrable contamination.

The only place Sollecito’s DNA was found in the apartment was on a cigarette butt, together  with Knox’s. The prosecution tried to argue that ince her DNA was not found on the bra clasp, he must have been in the room. This argument is clearly flawed since many of the places where Sollecito had clearly left his DNA had not been analysed. This includes the door handle, which he had touched when trying to open the door before the postal police arrived, broke the door down and found the body.

In the Florence retrial, the serious criticisms of the procedures carried out, which were identified in the Conti and Vecchiotti report, were not addressed. They were simply ignored.  The court accepted the view of a prosecution witness and the assertion by the prosecutor that the lab where these analyses had been done are world class and therefore their results must be trusted. No lab anywhere in the world has the right to be considered immune from mistakes. Indeed the best labs are especially keen to document and share with anyone relevant, the steps they take to minimize the chance of contamination.

In this case the Court of Cassation demanded that the defence prove that contamination had occurred.  Furthermore, they were asked to do so without full disclosure of the Electronic Data Files. This is a reversal of the natural law of all justice systems, where the accused are considered  innocent until proven guilty and have the right to examine and challenge the evidence against them.

Given the very high media attention that this case has attracted throughout western Europe, we are particularly concerned that not only has this gross misuse of DNA forensic science resulted in the wrongful conviction of two young people ersons but that these standards of proof will could be used in the future in courts throughout Europe and N.America to justify other wrongful or doubtful convictions on the grounds that such standards were good enough in the case of Knox and Sollecito.

By Professor Michael Krom from Leeds University

Share

I will try to explain better my system (the italian juridical system in few words) … If you don’t understand, please ask me any question.

The italian judges (when I talk about judges I mean prosecutors and court judges because they are all the same in our system: the difference is only about the point of growing in their careers) in Italy have unlimited power, that means that they can state: “The cows fly” and the only way for an italian citizen to argue against this statement is to appeal to another court … which takes a year at least after the statement has been made.
The tragic fact is that in the meanwhile nobody can say a word against that statement because a Judge, who is the authority, has the power to say that make it be the law.
Even more tragic is that, if the Supreme Court in Italy accept the judge ruling: “The cows fly”, then ALL the italians HAVE to accept that statement as a LAW in all the senses and from that moment on, if you’re italian you HAVE to accept that THE COWS FLY, otherwise you are arguing AGAINST THE ITALIAN CONSTITUTION AND LAW accepted by the italian citizens.
That said any Judge in Italy can rule or state whatever he or she likes and no one has control on them.
Since at least 30 years in the italian government, the bureaucrats are talking about how to reform the juridical system, but nothing serious ever happened.
Many right italians are angry at Berlusconi because when he had the power, he didn’t reform the juridical system and it was his main plan when he governed.
Because of the mad insane juridical system in Italy, the italian government has been sanctioned by the European Civil and Human Rights Court for 858 times. I repeat 858 TIMES! And the result is that the italian government pissed them off completely!!
Because Italy is a sovereign government and their power and rules is accepted by the citizens!
That said a Judge in Italy can be completely mad and he can throw you in jail for no reason and nobody will ever stop him.
To let you understand, let’s say the Judge is a surgeon … Would you ever put yourself in the hands of a mad surgeon? If your answer is no, then you can understand the reason why I fear the italian government, they are completely out of control.
If me and Amanda subscribe a petition to the EU civil and human rights court, then let’s say we win … they Italy will be convicted and sanctioned again … it will be the 856 TIME … the result .. NOTHING WILL CHANGE IN ITALY! They just will piss you off like always because the citizens gave them that power.
All that said, if anything isn’t clear please ask me any question.
Raffaele Sollecito
Share

During the second site inspection, the police has brought out with Luminol some barefoot prints only in the hallway between Meredith’s and Amanda’s rooms and in Amanda’s room.
All these prints have been tested by the local C.S.I. team to verify if these prints had been left after stepping over the victim’s blood. The tetramethylbenzidine tests effected in the laboratories of the C.S.I. Rome, gave a negative result, as also testified by WPF (work in progress files), normally filed in Court. The First Grade Court did not sentence anything different than this.
The Second Grade Court adfirms that these footprints were not left with the blood and stating also that the tetramethylbenzidine test is so sensible that a minimal qualtity of blood – like 5 red blood cells – is sufficient to get a positive result.
Nothing different from the First Grade verdict is reported in the appeal by the Attorney General where also no mention is made of any footprints left with the victim’s blood.
The Supreme Court instead, goes way beyond the First Grade verdict and the appeal from the Attorney General of Perugia and against the verdict of the judges of the Second Grade Court of Perugia stating clearly that the footprints are blood prints and that the blood of these prints was Meredith’s blood.
Therefore, the Supreme Cout goes deep into the case on the evidence (which they cannot because not entitled by the law), steps over the evaluations made and decisions taken by the only judges that were entitled by law to evaluate the case; all this without reading any files or paperwork related to the case inviting the Appeal Cort of Firenze to convict Amanda.
These are the horrible and obsene consequencies when a high and irrevocable Supreme Court does not stick with the only duty required by law to express only a verdict of Legitimacy.

Share

“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” – Lewis Carroll

dna

2008

Stefanoni: Here are the DNA results. I believe that they show that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade of the knife that was taken from Raffaele’s apartment and Amanda’s DNA was on the handle. The bra-clasp that was recovered from the floor of Meredith’s room 46 days after the murder, which had been kicked around, picked up, passed around, replaced on the floor and picked up again, contained a partial DNA profile that we believe might be consistent with Raffaele (and also possibly with millions of other people). There is also evidence of DNA profiles of other unidentified males. We used ‘low copy number’ technology to obtain these results (although our lab is not accredited with having the correct procedures and equipment for this type of work) and we used all the samples up so there is no control and we will never be able to repeat these tests. This does not matter because we are experts.

Defence counsel: Please may we see the computer records and reports of your procedures?

Stefanoni: There is no need for me to give you any more information. I am an expert so you should trust my results.

Three years later

Defence counsel: Please may we see the computer records and reports of your procedures?

Stefanoni: No – you do not need any more information. I am an expert. You should accept my results.

New Scientist: International DNA experts state that the DNA samples that Stefanoni claims are proof of Knox and Sollecito’s involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher are too low to prove anything and that she was not working in a lab that is capable of providing the low level detail that she has claimed.

Judge Hellmann: Please let the defence lawyers and the independent DNA experts that I have appointed see your workings.

Stefanoni: No – they do not need any more information. I am an expert. You should accept my results.

Two months later

Judge Hellmann: Please let the defence lawyers and the independent experts see your workings.

Stefanoni: Oh, all right then. You can have some of the information, but not all of it.

Independent DNA Experts: These results are an unreliable heap of doo doo and there is no way we can replicate any of the tests because you used up all the samples the first time round. The bra clasp was not kept properly and is now rusty. It was kicked around the floor for 46 days and the crime scene was not properly secured so we have no idea how many people visited, who they were, or what else they did. We have all seen video evidence that the clip was picked up by people with dirty gloves, passed from one person to another and then dropped on the floor and picked up again. In these circumstances it is impossible to exclude contamination especially when attempting to use low copy number technology. In any case the profile that was claimed to match Raffaele would also match about half of the men in Italy including his honour Judge Hellmann and nobody from the prosecution has been able to explain how Sollecito’s DNA is supposed to have got on the clasp but none of his DNA was found anywhere else on the bra. This item of evidence should be dismissed because of contamination.

The knife was never collected and stored properly. The lab is not equipped for low copy number DNA work and the staff are not qualified to attempt this kind of work anyway. If you think ignoring machine controls and carrying on when you see the message ‘too low’ is groundbreaking science you are very much mistaken. The only thing we can say is that the substance found on the knife is consistent with bread starch (it was a bread knife, no?), the knife was never cleaned with bleach and there was never any blood on it. Will that do? Can we go home now?

Judge Hellmann: Not guilty.

Eighteen months later

Italian Supreme Court: Knox and Sollecito must be declared guilty in another trial. The prosecution does not have to prove anything. What do you think this is, a criminal trial with a requirement for proof beyond reasonable doubt? Hogwash!! This is Italy. We are not restricted by legal niceties here. We know what we want and we want Knox and Sollecito back in jail. It is that simple. If we say there was no contamination, then there was no contamination. Is that clear? The defence must prove that contamination has occurred otherwise the results stand and they cannot do this. We have already decided. We will not allow anyone to infer that Stefanoni is anything other than a world class scientist who should be awarded the Nobel Prize for services to Criminology. We have a record to defend. Italy is not the most ruled against country by the European Court of Human Rights in all of Western Europe for nothing. Read out the motivation!

The reasoning of the judgment, settled on the evaluations of experts, would be this: even if one wants to share the findings of the forensic attribution of DNA extracted from the two objects (knife and hook), it cannot be excluded that the DNA was placed not by contact, but by contamination, arising in any of the stages in the examination by the reporting laboratory.

The non-exclusion of certain events is not the same as their successful verification, and here we see the nth logical flaw, where the Court although they cannot actually affirm the contamination occurred, assumes such a contamination invalidates results of genetic testing carried out in the course of the investigation, adding that the onus of proof falls on the prosecutor, who has to provide the impossible positive proof of its non-occurrence.

Whereas Prof. Novelli warned that it is not enough to say that the result arises from contamination, but its origin must be shown. The error of reasoning should be clear where the burden of proof is upon he who alleges it, not on the one who denies it: if the refutation of scientific proof concerns a factual situation such as contamination of a specimen, that fact must be specifically proven. Nothing was said in the judgment about how the DNA found on the knife blade and the DNA of Sollecito on the bra hook worn by Meredith could have resulted from contamination, considering the interval between which the two tests were made in the laboratory. Not only that, but it was said that there were no negative controls of contamination run by the forensic biologist and geneticist, while in contrast it turned out they had been carried out by the experts, nor were the experts able to indicate any specific source of contamination, confining themselves to saying that anything could happen. Moreover the same experts have instead shared the findings that led to identify the trace of Knox on the same knife that bore the traces of the victim, provided that if the error is suitable to invalidate the results of the analysis, everything is swept away regardless.

The Daily Fail: Foxy Knoxy in retrial shock. She did it all right. We always said she did. We published the verdict Judge Hellmann did not dare deliver. We even use a journalist called Nick Pisa and they don’t come any more Italian than that.

Nigel Scott

Share

According to Nina Burliegh, author of A Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox, Rudy Hermann Guede was born on Christmas Eve, 1985 in Agou, a town on the Ivory Coast of Africa near the city of Abidjan. His father, Roger Guede, was from the Bete clan, a Christian tribe on the Ivory Coast where the culture is strongly divided between Christian and Muslim. Although a Cristian, Roger Guede was a practicing polygamist and Rudy has a half brother remaining in Agou, born within weeks of Rudy’s own birth.

Rudy’s mother seems not to have been maternal. Rudy was sent as an infant to live with his father’s sister, Georgette, who was his only real parent. Rudy’s mother never had any other children and makes her living today as a novelty merchant in an Abidjan bizarre.

The Ivory Coast is a French speaking area of Africa, so Rudy was raised until he was 5, speaking French and patois.

Roger Guede’s father was a ranking officer in the Ivory Coast military. Roger had a talent for numbers and was training in a college for mathematics when his father died suddenly. After his father’s death, there were not sufficient funds for Roger to continue his education. He was bitterly disappointed and came to believe if he could immigrate to Russia he would be able to complete his degree with government assistance from that country. He was not, however, able to secure a Russian visa.

Someone advised him that a Russian visa might be easier to obtain if he fist immigrated to Italy. Roger arrived in Italy in November of 1987, but quickly realized that he would not be allowed to go to Russia. Roger enrolled in a school for masonry, became a stone mason and brick layer and has made a good living at these trades for 20 years. He owns several houses and real estate on the Ivory Coast paid for with the money he earns at his trade in Italy.

Roger brought Rudy to live in Perugia in 1990, when Rudy was 5. He apparently had little interest in the child. Rudy’s teacher, Ivana Tiberi, noticed that the little boy came to school in winter dressed in only a tee shirt and shorts. Mrs. Tiberi, on meeting Roger Guede, decided that he was too immature to take care of a child and organized teachers and parents to take turns caring for Rudy after school until his father finished work. They also purchased clothes for the boy, especially his all-important suit for First Communion. Mrs. Tiberi’s son, Gabriel, ten years older than Rudy, was like a brother to him and apparently cared deeply about him. He says of Rudy today, that he had many friends and many people loved him. He sites that Rudy was polite, never expressed anger, was melancholic and non-violent.

These people who loved him, however, apparently did not include his father. Roger punished Rudy by locking him out of the house. The child could frequently be seen wandering the streets of Perugia late at night. Rudy has also accused his father of physical abuse, beating him with a stick for example. At the time of Rudy’s arrest for the Kercher murder, his jailers were instructed to deny his father any access to him.

Rudy found substitute father figures in the priest who officiated at his First Communion, and several basketball coaches who recognized innate talent for that sport in the child.

In 1997, at age 12, Rudy returned to Abidjan to vacation with his mother. Whatever occurred during that trip, Rudy afterwards refused to ever go back.

In 2004, Roger returned to the Ivory Coast for a brief vacation, and lost his passport. He became entangled in a Muslim uprising against Christians, narrowly avoided execution, and was unable to return to Italy for 7 months.

During this time, Rudy was supposed to be living in Italy with Roger’s common-law wife but the two did not like each other. The wife had several small children of her own and had little time for an uncooperative teenager. Rudy was enrolled in a vocational high school for the hotel industry. He stopped coming home at night and he stopped going to school.

There’s no suggestion what Rudy was doing at this time or who he was with when he left home. Once again Ivana Tiberi stepped in to help him. She introduced Rudy to Paolo Barbini, coach of Perugia’s semipro basketball team. Rudy became a valuable asset to the team. From his jail cell he wrote this letter to Barbini which Ms. Burleigh uses as a chapter introduction:

“What can I say of the games we won and lost together? It was great when we went to the away games in the Mitico minibus. There was laughter on board with Segoloni, who called me “Little Chocolate.” God. What beautiful moments… I remember also from that time that I knew that little all-black dog that you found abandoned and took to your house and that often I took him for a walk… What can I say, Paolo? It would be a lot to remember, but these pages wouldn’t be enough… I thank you, Paolo, your Wife and Son… Your Son Francesco (THE BROTHER I WOULD HAVE WANTED TO HAVE). And that little black dog.”

Through his work on the basketball team Rudy became friends with the son of wealthy entrepreneur, Paolo Caporali, owner of the Liomatic Vending Company, a company that made and maintained vending machines primarily for coffee. Caporali was the wealthiest person in Perugia and Liomatic owned the basketball team, and the gym in which they played and practiced. Rudy became friends with the children, who, after becoming familiar with Rudy’s circumstances, petitioned their father to adopt Rudy until he turned 18. Rudy was 16 at this time.

Iliana Caporali was Rudy Guede’s adopted sister for 3 years. She remembers him as a sweet, shy boy who was afraid of the dark. She says he was affectionate, loved dogs, and tended to be absent minded.

Paolo Caporali apparently treated Rudy just like a member of the family. He learned to live in the best society and became used to comfortable and beautiful things. He was sent by chauffeur driven car to a school for mathematics, but when he didn’t do well, he lied about it. Caporali hired a tutor to help him get through, but the tutor called to inform Caporali that Rudy was not coming to their meetings.

As academics was apparently not Rudy’s forte, Caporali got the boy, nearly 18 now, a job as a gardener, but Rudy wouldn’t go to work either. He always arrived late and lied about what he’d been doing. Iliana Caporali observed that he appeared not to know right from wrong.

When Rudy was 18, Caporali dismissed him from the home and refused to allow him back.

Rudy moved to Milan where his aunt, Georgette, had immigrated. She was married to a man named Vincent who apparently liked Rudy and developed a good relationship with him throughout the winter and spring of 2007. Rudy took a job in a café and was very proud of his uniform. He started dating an Italian girl. One night at a night club, he had his photograph taken with Giorgio Armani, the men’s clothing designer. He was very proud of this photo, too, and was seen to use it as the desktop photo on his computer.

In the spring of 2007, however, he lost his café job and drifted back to Perugia.

With the help of Mrs. Caporali, who still held affection for him, he managed to rent a student apartment on via Canarino off Corso Garibaldi. There is no indication of what he did for a living at this time. He started to inject himself into the student life of the town and he sometimes passed himself off to European students who did not speak English well, as an American, Kevin Wade.

Rudy played basketball at the Piazza Grimana basketball court right across the street from 7 via Della Pergola, where he was known to all of the other basketball players, but none knew his real name. Some called him, Body Roga, after the Serbian basketball star, Deja Bodiroga, but most called him The Baron, because they found it difficult to say the name Byron. Guede styled himself after NBA star, Byron Scott.

He developed a relationship with an American student, Victor Oleinikov, who happened to be from Seattle. Many Seattle students come to Perugia to complete their language requirements, because Seattle is said to be Perugia’s “sister city.” Although Oleinikov found Rudy to be eccentric and weird, the two formed a strong friendship and spent many evenings together in Perugia’s bars and clubs. Rudy told Oleinikov that his father was a computer programmer in Florence who gave him a weekly allowance. Oleinikov, himself, was living on money from his parents in Seattle. He says that Rudy never once asked him for any money.

Oleinikov remarked that Rudy was a particularly fine dancer and had no difficulty finding girls who wanted to dance with him. Oleinikov says that news reports stating that Rudy was creepy are completely inaccurate. One night when they went to the club Domus, however, the bouncer inexplicably refused to allow Rudy entrance. Rudy accused the management of racism, but as it turns out, there were many things about his new friend Victor Oleinikov did not learn at that time.

Rudy never wanted to go home and was always happy to sleep on the floor of the apartment Victor shared with roommates. This only became a problem when Rudy started displaying very strange sleeping disorders. His eyes were normally droopy and during these attacks one couldn’t tell if he was awake or asleep. Rudy would rise in the middle of the night and, using a dresser as a black board, teach a lesson as though he was a professor, moving seamlessly between Italian and English. The students found this particularly unsettling. When he awoke in the morning he had no memory of the event. He told his friends that at home he had to hide his keys from himself because he tended to get up in this state and wander the streets, only to awaken miles from his home.

He also had periods of crawling on the floor and barking like a dog.

After his arrest, these behaviors were classified as psychogenic dissociative state or Fugue State, often associated with multiple personality disorder and nearly always the result of childhood sexual and physical abuse.

Oleinikov also says that Rudy was a light weight drug user, becoming incapacitated on even small amounts of hash. He observed Rudy on many occasions falling asleep while sitting on the toilet listening to his iPod. He said Rudy expressed a deathly fear of drug dealers who transacted business on the church steps. He often cited fear of drug dealers as a reason to stay at the students’ apartment rather than walk home to his own. Eventually the sleep walking episodes became too frequent and intrusive and the students ejected him. Oleinikov returned to Seattle shortly after this event.

Although Rudy never asked Oleinikov to borrow money, he did try to borrow ten euro from another student, two days before Meredith Kercher’s murder.

Rudy also developed a friendship with the Italian men who lived downstairs from Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher. None of them seem to have known his real name and after the murder they all tried to distance themselves from introducing him to the house. Rudy, himself, spoke about meeting Amanda Knox for the first time and fantasizing about her with the other men who lived in the house. On meeting Meredith Kercher, which he did at a small gathering in the downstairs apartment, he was equally attracted to her.

Throughout the fall of 2007, a number of events figure into stress factors for Rudy Guede.

On September 27, bartender, Christian Tremontano, was awakened in the middle of the night by sounds of someone in his apartment. On coming downstairs, Tremontano discovered a young black man whom he later learned was Rudy Guede, going through his possessions. Being confronted, Rudy first grabbed a chair to fend Tremontano off, as a lion tamer might, then pulled a pocket knife on the man and managed to get out the door. Tremontano reported the break in to police officer, Monica Napoleoni who asked him to come in to file an official complaint. When Tremontano arrived at the police station, the line was too long and he gave up the idea. He had not been injured and nothing was stolen.

One night Tremontano recognized Rudy at the Domus Disco and had him removed by the bouncers. He also kicked him out of the bar, Merlin, where Tremontano, himself, worked.

Around this same time up in Milan, a nursery school owner named Maria Del Prato came into her school on a Monday morning to allow plumbers to complete some work. She found the kitchen to be a total mess. Someone had prepared a vast quantity of food, pasta and frozen spinach, and left the debris all over the room, in the sink, all over the tables. Also the pallets where the children take their naps were disarrayed and obviously had been slept on. She was also missing 2000 euro, the tuition she’d accepted from parents the previous Friday.

On October 13, the law offices of Paolo Brocchi on via Del Roscetti in Perugia, was broken into from the back yard. The alarm had been disabled and then a window broken with a rock to allow thieves entry. The perpetrator turned up the heat so that the office was stifling. They removed the shards of broken glass from the window, carried them into another room, and arranged them neatly on a desk. They drank a Fanta soft drink from the refrigerator, 3 coats were strewn on the floor. Stolen from the office were a laptop computer, cell phones, USB sticks, and a printer.

On October 23, Maria Mandu Diaz, who lived next door to Rudy, was attending Vendemmia, the grape harvest festival, when police arrived to inform her that her home in Perugia had been badly damaged by fire and her cat had been killed in the blaze. Thieves entered the home through window and started the fire on the 3rd floor by throwing a scarf over a lamp. They cooked a meal and tossed food all around the kitchen. They left the stove on and the refrigerator open. A fireman commented to her: “Loro hanno gozzovigliato,” they feasted here.

The cat had died as a result of the thieves leaving the pantry door open and closing off his retreat.

Ms. Mandu-Diaz also had her jewel box looted. She was most distressed by the loss of her mother’s gold watch which was irreplaceable.

Ms. Mandu-Diaz knew Rudy casually because when walking her dog, Rudy was often outside his apartment, trying to get a cell signal. She noted he was friendly and petted her dog.

Back in Milan on October 27, Maria Del Prato walked into her office in her nursery school to find a young black man unhooking the cable to her computer in order to plug it into his laptop. This was Rudy Guede and Ms. Del Prato said he was very relaxed. He advised her not to worry. He hadn’t taken anything.

Ms. Del Prato immediately called the police to whom Rudy gave a story about being told he could purchase lodging there for fifty euro. The police went through his back pack and found, along with a large kitchen knife he’d taken from the nursery school kitchen, a laptop and cell phone and a woman’s gold watch. The laptop was identified as belonging to the law firm of Paolo Brocchi that was recently burglarized. Rudy told police he’d bought the laptop from a man at the Milan train station.

The Milan police wanted to hold Rudy but the prosecutor said he had more important cases and that Rudy was Perugia’s problem. They sent him back to Perugia.

On Monday morning, Rudy presented himself at the law offices of Paolo Brocchi to apologize for having their laptop. Once again he told the story about the man at the Milan train station.

On October 31st, Rudy dressed as a vampire and went dancing with the young women who lived downstairs from him. If anyone saw him with Meredith Kercher that night, as he maintains, they have yet to come forward. In 24 hours Meredith Kercher would be dead, Rudy’s DNA in her body and his bloody handprint on her pillow.

Share

Supreme Court Report – Considerations

The judgment of the Supreme Court is final.  If the judges of the Supreme Court want to be fair, they must issue judgments that are intelligent and detailed.

In our case, what the judges have written contains numerous errors — or what might be referred to more precisely as numerous “horrors.”

The judges’ report seems to suggest that in a criminal trial in Italy the role of the defense is, at best, marginal.  In fact, throughout the Supreme Court Report, nothing is said concerning the contributions of the defense in search of the truth in this case.  The contributions of the defense consultants have been completely ignored, as if they never existed.

The most obvious “horrors” are:

It is not true, in the case of the bra-clasp DNA, that the designated expert ever claimed that DNA from the crime scene showed a mixed DNA profile specifically of Raffaele Sollecito.  The expert said that because it was a mixed sample and not identical with different alleles for each of the 17 profile loci, a DNA profile of anyone could be found in the sample, even that of the President of the Court, if it were available for comparison.

It is not true that in the sample there was a Y chromosome that corresponded only to Raffaele Sollecito. At least two other Y chromosomes were found, but it was not possible to identify them because there were no available profiles for comparison.  Neither of the two corresponded to those of the convicted murderer, Rudy Guede.  Hence, the other 2 contributors are still unknown.

It is not true, in the case of the knife DNA, that the trace of DNA isolated by the Office of Experts was located close to the point where the biologists of the Scientific Police had found small traces of DNA, which they then attributed to the victim, Meredith Kercher.  This sample was in fact in the graft of the blade into the handle, the area where organic and inorganic materials are most likely to be found, and from which the Scientific Police inexplicably had not done any sampling.  This is the reason the Office of Inspectors asked to disassemble the knife, a request that was denied by the Court of Appeals, possibly because of the firm and seemingly unreasonable opposition by the General Prosecutor of Perugia and the Civil Parts.

It is not true that designated expert Professor Carla Vecchiotti decided alone and as an individual not to comply with the instructions of the Court of Appeal by not proceeding with the analysis of this trace of possible DNA.  Dr. Vecchiotti, in a meeting with all of the official consultants of all parties, including Professor Giuseppe Novelli and Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, clearly expressed her intention not to proceed with the analysis.  Vecchiotti’s reasons included the inability to carry out a second amplification of the sample based on its extremely small size and limited quantity.   On the occasion of the meeting, all parties agreed with the Appeal Court’s Expert, and put their signatures on the analysis document with no further objections.

It is not true that the house where the crime was committed remained protected by police seals between the first visit and the visit when the bra clasp was allegedly acquired.  On the contrary, in the 46 days following the discovery of the crime, at least three different searches were conducted, one of which was not even documented by police.  Hence, no one can know who or how many people may have entered the house over the course of the 46-day interval.  During this time, the contents of the house were moved and removed to the extent that the bra clasp eventually was found in a location entirely different from where it had been photographed immediately after the crime.   As the bra clasp allegedly was found the second time in a floor mat that was balled up under the murder victim’s desk, it is reasonable to conclude that during the 46 days, it had been moved around the house many times, perhaps even under the feet of the people who participated in the searches.

It is not true, in the case of the broken window, that the fragments of glass in Filomena Romanelli’s room were on top the clothing that lay on the floor.  Rather, all fragments of glass were on the floor, on a mat next to the bed and next to the clothing, as evidenced by the numerous photos and videos made by the Scientific Police in Rome during the first day of the first inspection, before there was any alteration of the crime scene.

It is not true that convicted killer Rudy Guede had no wounds on his right hand.   Photographs taken by German police shortly after Guede’s arrest in Germany a week after the crime show superficial wounds in the process of healing, on the palmar surface of Guede’s fingers.

It is not true that on the morning of November 2nd Amanda made a single call to only one of the two cell phones in use by Meredith (as stated by the Court of 1st degree), allegedly in order to make sure that no one had yet found the phone.  As shown instead in Amanda’s phone records, Amanda made an initial call to Meredith’s Italian SIM (registered to Filomena Romanelli) at exactly 12:11:02.  Amanda then made a second call to Meredith’s English SIM, the phone Meredith used to call her parents, whose number was saved with the label HOME.  The second call was made at exactly 12:11:54, showing that Amanda called Meredith on both of her mobile phones in the hope of contacting her.

It is not true, as stated on page 70 of the judgment of the Supreme Court, that the prints of bare feet enhanced with luminol in the corridor and in Amanda’s room were made with the victim’s blood.  Luminol enhances traces of many substances in addition to blood.  All of the tests done to highlight blood in those tracks were negative.  The footprints were left with other substances, such as cleaning fluids or as bubble bath, leaving evidence that is harmless and irrelevant in assigning responsibility for the murder to Amanda.  Amanda told the Court of First Instance the same thing during her hearing: that the morning of November 2nd she went to her home, took a shower, and that immediately after the shower, she went barefoot into her room, drawing with her the bathmat, which was on the floor outside the shower.

It is not true that the mixture drawn into the bidet in the bathroom of Meredith is taken from the blood, says the Supreme Court ruling, but the report describes the scientific “hypothesis of a mixture of biological substances, containing human blood belonging to Amanda to a lesser extent  and Meredith and to a greater extent.” So you cannot say that there is the blood of Amanda.

It is not true that there is “a given assumed real point that only after midnight the phones of the victim were not clinging anymore to the antenna in via della Pergola, but clung to Via Sperandio, where they were eventually found, which meant that from the house of Via della Pergola unknown hands had tossed the phones just after midnight,” as it is written in the first-instance judgment (Massei Report), and subsequently endorsed by the Supreme Court in its judgment, on page 71.  In the trial of first instance, Sollecito’s defense carried out an analysis that evaluated both of the two phones in use by Meredith and their phone records, which contain evidence that is objective and irrefutable. The analysis shows that the last action of the two phones, one with an English SIM card and the other with an Italian SIM card, was at 22:13 on November 1st and consisted of an incoming MMS on the English SIM card.  Following this contact, which connected with the antenna in Via Sperandio, are two more calls, both made on November 2nd: the first was an incoming call to the Italian SIM card at 12:11:02, and in the direct succession a second call to the English SIM card at 12:11:54. Both of these incoming calls are exactly the two calls that Amanda made on the morning of November 2nd, in the hope of hearing Meredith.

From all what has been expressed here is one question:

HOW WOULD YOU DEFEND AN ITALIAN CITIZEN an accusation in a criminal trial, WRITE OR TELL IF A SERIOUS INACCURACIES THAT HAVE THE DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF RUIN THE EXISTENCE OF PEOPLE AND THEIR LOVED ONES, ARE NOT OF HABITUAL CRIMINALS THAT AT A CERTAIN POINT ADDRESS THE LEGAL CAPACITY OF EMPLOYEES OF JUSTICE, REGRETTING SINCE, AS HAPPENED IN TORTORA CASE. BUT IS THE SUPREME COURT WHICH JUDGEMENT IS UNAPPEALABLE?

 

Share

Pre-trial detention is established by Article 275 CPP.
Article 280 regulates the applicability
CUSTODY
Also known as preventive detention, it indicates the imprisonment of the accused, ordered by the judge with arrest warrants, at the request of the prosecutor, when there are special needs. First of all, an accused must be charged with serious clues (serious indications of guilt). In addition, there must be needs related to the investigation (for the acquisition and avoid manipulation of the evidence), founded fears of escape, danger of use of weapons or other means of personal violence and all other measures must be found inadequate (such as the prohibition of expatriation, the obligation of going to the offices of the judicial police, the prohibition of residence in a determined location or, instead, the obligation to live there). The maximum duration of detention may not exceed two years (maximum penalty six years), four years (maximum penalty twenty years), the six years (maximum penalty equal to life imprisonment or up to twenty years). Obviously, the period of custody will be deducted from the term of imprisonment.

The abuse usually made of this measure is in contradiction to Article 13 of our Constitution:

Personal liberty is inviolable.
No form of detention, inspection or personal search are admitted, The same applies to any other restriction of personal freedom, except for a rule initiated by the judicial authority and only in the cases as allowed by the law.
In exceptional cases of necessity and urgency, strictly defined by law, the public security authorities may adopt temporary measures, which must be reported within forty-eight hours to the court and, if the court does not ratify such measures within forty-eight hours, they are revoked and become null and void.
Every physical and moral violence on individuals under restrictions of freedom is punishable. The law establishes the maximum period of preventive detention.
The reasons usually applied are 3:
manipulation of the evidence;
danger of escape;
re-iteration of the crime.

In your case, your lawyers requested the repeal just once at the GUP(The Judge of primary investigation) hearing, Judge dr. Micheli(GUP), denied for one reason only (the other two having failed): REITERATION OF CRIME. Since he could decide upon a less restrictive measure, such as house arrest, we can conclude that Micheli decided to deny you this because you could repeat the crime even being forced to stay in your home. Ergo you could have killed me, or Mara, or Simona. I think this is a blatant abuse of the law by the Judge.

You must tell the lawyer that for our code the opinion of the Magistrate counts more than any lack of evidence of guilt. The defendant therefore is NOT ‘PROTECTED BY THE LAW, because if the judge is convinced of your guilt, he convicts you even without any evidence or worse still AGAINST the evidence itself. Make known, in reference to this, that at the end of the first trial the Court presided by President MASSEI completely ignored the testimony of five individuals who were in front of the house on Via della Pergola continuously from 22.30 to 23.30 on the evening of 1 November 2007 and declared in the courtroom that they did not hear any screaming coming from the house, nor did they see anybody coming to the house, nor did they see anyone exiting from the house, nor did they see any lights being put on in the house. In other words, they did notice anything out

of the ordinary. Massei instead, wrote that you and Amanda alone or with Rudy (you name it) at around 23.00 left Grimana square and went to Meredith’s house (also Amanda’s house) to kill her(Meredith). Not only did he also write that the crime was carried out between 23.00 and 23.30 and that Rudy could have arrived at a later time, but always within the same time span, because he had to take a shit. Even the prosecution’s own key witness, Curatolo, stated in the courtroom to having seen you and Amanda in the square continuously from 21:30/22:00 to midnight and to not having seen you leave, before he himself leaving to look for a place where to sleep and to have left you and Amanda there. He did not grant the independent review on DNA and stated in the judgment that to identify an individual from a complete profile of DNA, it is enough that his map corresponds to 9 of 16 loci, even when Stefanoni(prosecution DNA advisor) said in court that: even if a single locus out of 16 does not correspond to the person that imposes the exclusion of identification.

In your case the PM(Chief Prosecutor Mignini) has committed a crime of falsification.
In fact, he lied to the court when he stated that he had issued, in accordance with Article 104 CPP a restrictive measure which was intended to prevent your lawyer to meet you in prison.
The fact, in itself extremely serious, for which we are presenting a complaint to the Prosecutor of Florence, for irreparably harming your right of defense. But what is worse is that the fact itself suggests that it is true that you were denied to talk to a lawyer during interrogation on the night of 06 November. In fact, if a PM(Chief Prosecutor) figures out to have issued a restrictive measure, to prevent a trusted lawyer to talk with a suspect in custody and lets the Director of the prison say it, all the more reason you were denied it that night when you were alone against everyone.
In this regard, I will send you the judgment of the Supreme Court, which relates to Amanda and not you, because that asshole of our then appeals attorney, GAITO, forgot to write it in the application, in which it is stated that this interrogation, conducted without legal counsel, IS NOT VALID NEITHER AGAINST YOU NOR AGAINST OTHERS.

Chapter #2

Wiretapping

The law on wiretapping in Italy has not been changed, although there have been many proposals for legislation, all ended in nothing.

It is the 266 CPP

Instruction art. 266 Code of Criminal Procedure

Sources → → Code of Criminal Procedure BOOK THREE – Tests → Title III – Measures of investigation of the test (Articles 244-271) → Chapter IV – interception of their conversations or communications

The interception of telephone conversations or communications, and other forms of telecommunications (1) is allowed [295 3] in proceedings relating to the following offenses:

a) intentional crimes for which is expected to imprisonment for life or of imprisonment for a a maximum of five years, determined in agreement with Article 4 (2);

b) crimes against the public administration for which it is expected the penalty of imprisonment of not less than five years, determined in agreement with Article 4 (3)

c) offenses relating to narcotic drugs or psychotropic substances (4);

d) offenses relating to weapons and explosive substances;

e) crimes of smuggling;

f) crimes of insult, threat, wear, improper financial activities, harassment or annoyance to individuals by means using the phone (5);

f-bis) crimes provided for in Article 600ter, third paragraph, of the Criminal Code (6).

2. In the same cases is allowed interception of communications between the current speaking people (7). However, if these occur at the places specified in Article 614 of the Criminal Code (8), the interception is allowed [3a 295] only if there is reason to believe that there is taking place the criminal activity [103 5; cp 615bis] (9)

The interception is proposed by the PM(Prosecutor) and authorized by a judge for preliminary investigations. The authorization has a duration of 15 days, renewable from time to time by a new judge decree.

In our case it was proposed by the Judicial Police, validated and authorized by the PM(Prosecutor Mignini) from time to time by different judges for about 6 months.

Were intercepted in order: Francesco Sollecito, then his wife, then his daughter Vanessa, then his brother Joseph and his sister-in-law Sara, and finally her sister Theodora. A total of 39940 calls were intercepted. The authorizations were granted for the following offenses text:

“THE FATHER FRANCIS is working to LIGHTEN THE POSITION OF EVIDENCE OF THE SON RAFFAELE.”

In other words Francesco Sollecito was committing the crime of defending his son.

None of these calls was used during the 2 trials of Raphael. So have served only to make known to the investigators all the moves of the defense and to try to put on trial all the Sollecito’s family intercepted for defamation against the victim.

Now, the Sollecito’s intercepted has been filed for this type of offense, then all this investigative activity has ended in nothing, only causing serious economic damage to the community.

Therefore remains a shameful abuse of our judiciary.

Chapter #3

INSPECTION ON CRIME SCENE

On 01 November afternoon starts on the 1st on the crime scene from the Scientific Police in Rome (considered the best in Italy). At 00.15 on 02 November the body of the victim was moved and at its back was found a piece of bra clasp with cloth and attached 2 hooks closure. The object was a fine show if the center of the room(that is the crime scene), in an area of the floor clean, because it is protected from the body of the victim. It was immediately photographed and has been identified on the precise point where the bra clasp was, as were the measures taken in centimeters of the distance between it and the front wall and the left side of the room, immediately after the object DISAPPEARED, there is no trace of it, when the next morning at around 10.00 am the inspection is resumed, interrupted by fatigue of operators around 01.30, the bra clasp isn’t on the list of objects filed in the crime scene.

During this inspection, the forensic biologist Stefanoni from Scientific Police, erased each track of blood came to his observation (partial-or total shoe sole, left with on thee victim’s blood, blood stains on the handle door, on the light switches, on the faucet of the sink, on the edge of the bidet etc..) with a little gauze soaked in saline, not before having photographed, with the aim to detect traces of DNA. The lady did not consider it appropriate to await the arrival of his colleagues, experts on fingerprints, to give them the ability to detect at the stains on the door and switches, the palmprint of those who left it, I thought, to detect DNA, would be enough to make withdrawals Random, without erasing the tracks.

Finished the inspection, the house is left at the disposal of the Police of Perugia which carries, within 40 days, 3 perquisition, one of which is not even put on record (so you do not even know who and how many people entered and if they had the guards), during which the house is put literally turned upside down: the furniture are disassembled and their parts are moved from room to room, furnishings, books thrown to the ground on the murder scene and so on. The logical consequence of this, and that the crime scene had been completely and permanently contaminated and rendered useless then.

On the contrary, it happened that the Director of the Scientific Police in Rome in person to the Judge asks permission to make a second inspection to the house, stating its reasons for the need to photograph from another angle the shoeprints on blood (those which had been erased by the his collaborator Dr. Stefanoni) …. unbelievable …………..

After receiving authorization, a team of forensic team back to the house, exactly after 46 days, to carry out the second inspection and, before entering, as it was surrounded by cameras of all kinds and a host of consultants armed with cameras super professional , is protected with suit, gloves, masks and boots, not to contaminate a crime scene, by this time completely and permanently contaminated.

Once inside, operators together with the various scientific advisors of the parties, can not find even a footprint, as it was obvious, but they start a random filing of anything: all kinds of objects and clothes of Meredith, which were put in bulk in a large suitcase.

In the late afternoon of the same day, by which time all the consultants were gone, an operator, poking around under the desk in the room of the victim, found beneath rugs crumpled the piece of bra clasp with two hooks.

This is first photographed, then taken with a dirty glove, that was already used during the inspection, it is passed from hand to hand among other operators, who also wore drity gloves for the same reason. the bra clasp is eventually put back on the floor dirt, and finally re-photographed and filed.

What emerges from this discussion is that with a false reason the Director of the Scientific Police asked to make a second visit only and only to allow the discovery of this object, sidetracking all consultants.

Only on bra clasp hooks the Stefanoni discovered, by chance, a trace of mixed DNA, produced by at least 4 contributors, among whom, in her point of view, was Raffaele, Meredith and two other male contributors not detectable because she could not compare them as they had only the complete profiles of Meredith, Rudy and Raffaele.

In its judgment the Court of First Instance with its President MASSEI writes that there is no contamination, because it’s not the prosecution that has to prove the authenticity of the find, but it’s the defense that needs to prove contamination, SIC ………. And that even if the DNA is not dated, that of Raffaele on the hooks is dated and was left during the crime occurred.

The in-house experts designated by the Appeal Court of 2nd degree, instead, have established that the finding is contaminated and that, given a track mixed with other contributors, knowing the profile of a person, this could be found on that track. Indeed, responding to a question by the court Pratillo Hermann, said that, knowing the DNA profile of the judge, they could also identify him.

In May 2009, a consultant forensic scientist Raffaele, authorized by the court of first instance, was able to analyze the pillow on which it rested Meredith’s body and discovered the presence of spots, due to CUM, a full ejaculation, not detected by the Scientific Police, which was right next to the vagina of the victim.

Our defense officially asked at that time the Court of Assise of FIRST degree, with President MASSEI to carry out an analysis of these spots, to get the identification of the person who had left them. Well, the court rejected the request, (and therefore we still do not know who they belong to) writing in that judgment: the DNA is not dated (while that of Raffaele yes) and those spots would have been belonged to Meredith’s boyfriend. Omitting to consider that the girl has not been seen with her boyfriend for at least 4 days before his death. So we can assume that this poor girl, according to the Court of Assise with President Judge Massei, slept quietly for at least 4 days on a pillow, whose pillowcase was dirty of the full ejaculation with sperm of her boyfriend.

Share