Amanda Knox: BBC Documentary Gets Over 700,000 Viewers


A BBC documentary exploring whether American Amanda Knox is guilty of helping murder her flatmate Meredith Kercher drew over 700,000 viewers on average.

The broadcast especially drew a young crowd, according to ratings advisory firm Attentional. 

The one-hour special focused on the latest developments of the case–Knox’s guilty verdict was upheld by an Italian judge on January 30 after the verdict was previously overturned in a lower court.

Filmmakers and journalists Paul Russell and Andrea Vogt, who have followed the Meredith Kercher murder case since it began in Nov. 2007, produced the special, reported The Hollywood Reporter.

It included itnerviews with experts from both sides as well as Stephanie and Lyle Kercher, Meredith’s brother and sister.


  • Fredly

    Andrea Vogt has been in bed with the prosecution for 7 years. Why did the BBC not find an objective filmmaker if they were going to ask if Knox is guilty or not?

    • Le Cochon Bleu

      Even for the BBC with their immense sense of self-kept reputation contrasting with ever dwindling quality of reportage, thought and production, this was a stoop too far. As the weeks have continued over the last 5 years, more and more I’m less and less a supporter of BBC. But I have to say, even so, I had to pinch myself to be reminded that I wasn’t watching Channel 5 or some cable channel version of the Daily Mail with this documentary.

      • Fredly

        Next will be the Michael Winterbottom film where he cast a model to play Knox and has her having wild sex on a train with a stranger.

  • Le Cochon Bleu

    However it was a disappointing, rather poor and tabloid documentary from the BBC. That ought not to be forgotten.

    The production team’s narration seemed not to want to disturb the huge amount of British people (judging by Daily Mail comments etc. over the years) who only want blindly to see someone pay for the murder of the young Surrey woman, Ms. Kercher. (Many are very happy that this can go with a young lady who has been sexualised by the media in a very negative way.) Therefore, not only did detailed objectivity and critical analysis go out the window, so did the hope of much adult reporting. Some of the things said by the female narrator were misleading, downright old reportage that has more recently turned out not to be true, or just of very little thought. Even, what was typical of some of the documentary was a keen, straight fire running away from needed, basic thought at certain, obvious points.

    It seems the BBC feels that, where there is no credible evidence against Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito, there is still every room for a central balance and even to be biased against the pair. Though we never found out why. (Again, apart from the British want for a simple resolution, or in other terms, a handy a scapegoating for the Italians who knew they had to cover up their early stitch-up from every moment since.)

    Where was the reportage of the ever changing so-called proposals for “motive” by the Italians? Where was the highlighting of the utter unacceptable behaviour and seeming illegality of inserting in a new trial, years after the first with earlier unsustainable “motives” lodged, of alleging Ms Knox killed Ms. Kercher because of sudden, personal embarrassment at seeing excrement in the toilet bowl? Where was the reportage of the absurdity of the recent Italian court “decision” being based squarely upon an admission of no evidence, but instead a court belief it would be too much of a coincidence if Ms. Knox hadn’t killed Ms. Kercher? (Where was the discussion of how in fact there is a complete absence of such suggested great, unavoidable probability from the known facts that Ms. Knox rather than Mr Guede killed Ms. Kercher?)

    Where is the discussion about if whether or not an Italian court can accept purported probability (even where there isn’t even any) as evidence beyond reasonable doubt of murder, will a higher court such as the European Court of Justice or European Court of Human Rights (or an international court)?

  • eyesthatsee

    Despicable propaganda at the expense of an innocent. No mention of Raffaele, also innocent and yet paying dearly. “They” are profiting off the murder of Meredith Kercher and yet they point the finger at Amanda for daring to tell her story, as is her right, free speech in America. How else is she to pay for her defense in this witch trial, because that is what it is. Where’s the doc of “Is Rudy Guede Guilty?” eh? Oh that’s right he was allegedly a police informant, don’t want to go there, plus not sexy to consider the real murderer whose DNA was all over the crime scene, plus he has no none. Science is not what counts but slander works. Keep repeating something over and over and those who don’t know better take it as gospel. Pun intended. Prostitutes have more integrity, class than these paid shills no doubt to push the civil suit at about $34 mill. last I heard, and distract the populus from the real issues, major issues, of our time. BBC in the toilet with this one. Will not be watching. How much money did they make on all the ad revenue for the hits? It’s all about the hits. The U.S. will not extradite her, so get over that. Oh but count the viewer numbers, it’s all about the numbers, follow the money. They won’t win. They need to give it up already. Enough!!!! Leave her alone, Raffaele too. They didn’t do it. Welcome to trial by media. A nightmare and no justice for Meredith Kercher. May she rest in peace someday.

  • floriana08

    BBC 4 radio ran a more balanced programme last night and concluded that there was no, or certainly insufficient, evidence to prove Amanda and Raphael’s guilt.

  • NoName

    This country has around 65 million people – 700, 000 doesn’t impress me.
    I understand the media has a strong anti Amanda bias and this program was also anti Amanda so 700,000 although not as good as zero is still not too bad.

    • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

      check out tv ratings it is quite outstanding for a documentary!

      • NoName

        I love you. :D *kisses*
        Not being sarcastic either, here is my happy face when I think of you :)

    • Tzimis Maetsos

      If there is a bias, that´s a pro Meredith, not an anti-Amanda one

      • NoName

        Oh, I am SO glad you cleared that up. *rolls eyes*

  • Matthew

    These comments make for depressing and frustrating reading. There are far too many coincidences and suspicious actions and inactions in this case for it to have only involved Rudy Guede. Please just read the Massei Report as fully as you can. Please study the photos and videos of the house and crime-scene. There was almost certainly a partial clean-up of the house, and rearrangement of the crime scene. The burglary was probably staged (the Massei Report explains why), and Meredith’s death already known about long before the Police arrived at the flat. This was a psychopathic assault and murder made to look like the work of entirely one sex-crazed person. Meredith Kercher died from a combination of strangulation and blood loss. She was held down around the elbows whilst someone strangled and stabbed her brutally in the neck. The sexual assault, vile though it was, in the end was secondary to the main part of this crime. Someone filled with terrible rage and other serious mental disturbances killed Meredith. They ran away and left Meredith to die. Guiltless people do not have any reason to alter a crime scene and delay the discovery of a body – unless they had some involvement. And they don’t smile and smirk when on trial for that brutal assault and murder. And they don’t leave an innocent bar-owner in jail on suspicion of this crime.. Patrick Lumumba could not be reasonably confused with Rudy Guede. They have quite different builds and appearances. Either the former was there, or he was not there. Thanks to a Swiss businessman’s alibi, Lumumba was totally exonerated. Neither do the guiltless need to keep changing their alibis and other statements; and neither do they need to keep blaming other people for these changes. I don’t believe that the BBC documentary was biased; if anything, it was too general and left out a lot of damning detail. Please, also do some research into the habits and interests of all the suspects prior to this appalling crime. Then, like me, you will realize how clever and determined some people are in their desire to hide the whole truth and be seen as “the poor victim”.

    • Ken Dine

      ////Matthew: “Guiltless people do not have any reason to alter a crime scene and delay the discovery of a body – unless they had some involvement.”////

      KEN: Knox and Sollecito where then ones to alert authorities, and there was ZERO credible evidence that Knox or Sollecito had attempted to cover-up anything.

      INDEED, outside of Kercher’s bedroom, there were ONLY two (2) visible signs of blood in the other rooms.

      1 – there was a tiny smudge of blood on the faucet of Kercher’s and Knox’s shared bathroom.

      2 – there was a vague reddish footprint (dried blood) on the blue bath-mat in Kercher’s and Knox’s shared bathroom.

      The #1 and #2 above were pointed out to the Postal Police (the initial responders), and the Postal Police were NOT that alarmed (they were onl there to return Kercher’s two cell phone that Guerde had tossed a short distance away).

      IN FACT, after observing everything that Knox could have had seen that morning, the Postal Police had to still be coaxed into breaking into Kurcher’s bedroom to discover her body.

      If Knox had wanted to clean the crime scene, then why didn’t she put the small blue bath-mat into the washing machine (or hide it)? That would have been easy to do, yet Knox pointed that stain out to the Postal Police as one of the reasons she was alarmed that morning.

      ////Matthew: And they don’t smile and smirk when on trial for that brutal assault and murder.”////

      KEN: She was smiling at her parents, you nimrod!

      ////Matthew: And they don’t leave an innocent bar-owner in jail on suspicion of this crime.. Patrick Lumumba could not be reasonably confused with Rudy Guede. They have quite different builds and appearances.”////

      Either the former was there, or he was not there. Thanks to a University Professor’s alibi, Lumumba was totally exonerated.”////

      KEN: As for Knox’s supposedly false accusation implicating Patrick Lumumba (which many have idioticaly claimed points to Amanda’s culpability), on DAY-1 the Italian police had found black negroid hairs at the crime scene, and FBI profiler John Douglas explains how the police had forced Amanda into implicating her African boss:

      —-snip—-

      John Douglas: “The police knew they had negroid hairs at the crime scene. Amanda exchanged texts the night before with Patrick Lumumba, who’s of African descent, like Guede (Note: Lumumba owned the bar where Amanda worked as a waitress. He told her she wasn’t needed for work that night).

      “Because the DNA evidence had not come back yet, the [police] jumped to the conclusion the hairs belonged to Lumumba. They interrogated [Knox] accordingly. The tactics used was to have Amanda say what the police wanted. You get people to confess under this psychological torture.”

      —-///—-

      FBI profiler John Douglas discusses the Knox case here:

      http://womanonawire.blogspot.com/2011/09/unarresting-arrested-famed-fbi-profiler.html

      Knox’s interogation in the wee hours of Nov 6th was NOT video-taped!

      You may want to read what FBI agent Steve Moore has to say about the usefulness of improperly coerced statements after such an IMPROPER all-night interrogation of Knox:

      http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/FBI7.html

      Another source:

      http://blog.simplejustice.us/2010/09/15/confessions-voluntary-reliable-and-false/

      Beyond Good Cop/Bad Cop: A Look At Real-Life Interrogations:

      http://www.npr.org/2013/12/05/248968150/beyond-good-cop-bad-cop-a-look-at-real-life-interrogations

      The Reid interrogation technique

      http://www.secondcalldefense.org/self-defense-news/reid-interrogation-technique

      They no longer allow that type of interrogation in the UK (good for you), but sadly in some USA jurisdictions, the ‘REID’ style of interrogation is still used, which is notorius for causing false confessions.

      ////Matthew: Neither do the guiltless need to keep changing their alibis and other statements; and neither do they need to keep blaming other people for these changes.”////

      Other than in that all-night police interrogation (inquisition) of Nov 5th & 6th (that had used coercive tactics), Knox and Sollecito had consistent stories.

      If you want to see the ‘Reid’ style of interrogation in practice, then watch this 6 MIN VIDEO where our American police forced a 14 y/o boy (who was later cleared) into admitting he had killed his younger sister (in my book, this is child abuse):

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmTu9wOocMY

      ////Matthew: I don’t believe that the BBC documentary was biased; if anything, it was too general and left out a lot of detail. Please, also do some research into the habits and interests of all the suspects prior to this appalling crime. Then, like me, you will realize just how clever and determined some people are in their desire to hide the whole truth and be seen as “the poor victim”.////

      Mathew, I have researched this matter enough to know that you’re an utter idiot!

      This was a joke start to finish – fortunately, the idiot Italians filmed their CSI ineptness.

      You can view the films here as retired FBI agent Steve Moore talks about the inept Italian evidence processing in this video (starting at 40 min):

      http://www.westseattleherald.com/2011/04/04/news/slideshow-amanda-knox-panel-makes-case-her-innoce

      At 1hour, 8 minutes into that same video, Scientist Mark C. Waterbury spoke about standard DNA collection and processing protocols, none of which the Italians had adhered to.

      In short, the Italians had ZERO reliable forensic evidence linking either Knox or Sollecito to the murder, but there was a mountain of exonerating evidence that the Italians had conveniently ignored.

      • Matthew

        Ken,

        Your answers are at best very partial; at worse something too depressing for words. You have missed out SO much with regard to the Police (AK and RS were surprised by the Postal Police who THEY did NOT call), the further possible clean-up of anything in the flat being curtailed by the arrival of those Postal Police, the actual amount of blood spots, some mixed (at least five in the bathroom), the very visible bloody bath-mat footprint (matched in court to Sollecito); the Luminol revealed footprints (one of which had AK’s and Mereith’s DNA mixed); the lack of any other print in the main part of the flat (suggesting a clean-up). Not to mention the staged burgalry (the glass on top of objects, the lack of any marks on the exterior wall or grass below (despite being wet earlier that night), the lack of any shards of glass on the ground beneath, the very large size of the rock. AK and RS apparently stating that nothing was taken (how could they know: Maybe the Italian girl had cash, or a camera, or jewelery, etc. hidden away). And AK’s prank against fellow students back in Washington? By her own recent admission: a staged burglary.

        The statement by Knox about Lumumba was made after about two and a half hours following the retraction by Sollecito of his alibi – and not as a result of any all-night brain-washing session. You want me to read again theories from profilers who have already completely failed to convince me of their case. Sollecito’s DNA profile on the bra strap has been found to be comprehensive enough by an expert on DNA to rule out secondary transfer (i.e. contamination). Oh, and RS and AK are visible smiling and smirking (as opposed to an ordinary smile) on many occasions during the first half of the murder trial, and not usually at their parents.

        Knox and Sollecito did not go anywhere near the bedroom with the Police: they were in the living area when the door was broken down); Knox freaks out when the knife-drawer in the flat is examined by the Police; Also said that it’s normal for Meredith to have her door locked (NOT at all normal by other flat-mate accounts); AK stated details of Meredith’s injuries and death to others that apparently no one knew or stated either in the flat or at the Police station.

        I could go on, but it’s very late here.

        It’s all in the Massei Report and makes for intuitive sense. The US media portrayal has been biased… and very partial.

        You, Sir, are the idiot.

        • Ken Dine

          KEN: Matthew, in responding to you most of my links will be to the Hellmann-Zanetti report, which found both Amanda and Raffaele innocent on appeal:

          http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/contents/

          If you prefer using the first MASSEI-CRISTIANI report (which I’ve read), well most of that court’s idiotic facts & conclusions were ripped apart by the Hellmann court’s very logical analysis.

          While Hellmann was overturned too, I feel that the Hellman trial was the only fair and balanced trial Amanda received –– this is a very good article that explains what’s going on in Italian courts today (The author was born in England and has worked in Italy), and Gumbel explains explains why the Hellmann decision was overturned (face-saving):

          Trial By Osmosis: Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and the Nightmare of Italian Justice by Andrew Gumbel – February 11th, 2014

          http://lareviewofbooks.org/essay/trial-osmosis-amanda-knox-raffaele-sollecito-nightmare-italian-justice

          On Being Off: The Case of Amanda Knox by Tom Dibblee – August 12th, 2013

          http://lareviewofbooks.org/essay/on-being-off-the-case-of-amanda-knox

          ////MATTHEW: “Your answers are at best very partial; at worse something too depressing for words. You have missed out SO much with regard to the Police (AK and RS were surprised by the Postal Police who THEY did NOT call)////”

          KEN: Define “surprised?” Amanda and Raffaele were outside sitting on a low wall waiting for the Cabenerri, who they had called moments earlier. When the Postal Police arrived within moments of their call to the Carabinieri they were indeed surprised that the response to their call was (seemingly) so fast, but that confusion was eventually sorted out when the Carabinieri arrived later.

          ////MATTHEW: “… the further possible clean-up of anything in the flat being curtailed by the arrival of those Postal Police, the actual amount of blood spots, some mixed (at least five in the bathroom), the very visible bloody bath-mat footprint (matched in court to Sollecito);////“

          KEN: The Postal Police didn’t observe Amanda or Raffaele doing anything suspicious when they arrived unexpectedly, such as being found inside the house cleaning.

          While the Carabinieri had found other blood traces in the bathroom (on the bidet, on a jar of cotton swabs, light-switch and back of door), Amanda had only noticed the footprint on the blue bathmat and some drops on the sink, which she promptly pointed out to the police.

          It would have been a simple matter for Amanda to have washed the blue bathmat and cleaned the sink and bidet (etc.), but she obviously didn’t attempt to do that.

          http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/traces-of-blood-in-the-small-bathroom/

          ////MATTHEW: “the Luminol revealed footprints (one of which had AK’s and Mereith’s DNA mixed); the lack of any other print (except part of one fingerprint on a glass) in the main part of the flat (suggesting a clean-up).////“

          KEN: “SUGGESTING” a cleanup?

          In any event, the footprints you mention were collected on December 18th 2007 (incompetently 6 weeks after the murder), and the prints weren’t even properly photographed or tested, and the prints you mention were NOT the result from tracking Meredith’s blood around:

          http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/prints-revealed-by-luminol-without-useful-biological-profile/

          ////MATTHEW: “Not to mention the staged burgalry (the glass on top of objects, the lack of any marks on the exterior wall or grass below (despite being wet earlier on), the lack of any shards of glass on the ground beneath, the very large size of the rock.////”

          KEN: Easily explained:

          http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/staging-of-burglary/

          ////MATTHEW: “AK and RS apparently stating that nothing was taken (how did they know that the Italian girl didn’t keep cash, or a camera, or a watch or jewelery kept in drawers or a cupboard or bag?).////”

          KEN: Again, easily explained by the Hellmann court:

          http://hellmannreport.wordpress.com/contents/reasons-for-the-decision/behavior-following-the-discovery-of-the-murder/

          ////MATTHEW: “Knox’s desk-lamp left on the floor in Meredith’s room.////”

          KEN: Meredith may have borrowed the lamp from Amanda …do you really find that to be credible evidence against Amanda?

          REALLY?

          • Matthew

            KEN: Matthew, in responding to you most of my links will be to the Hellmann-Zanetti report, which found both Amanda and Raffaele innocent on appeal:

            http://hellmannreport.wordpres

            If you prefer using the first MASSEI-CRISTIANI report (which I’ve read), well most of that court’s idiotic facts & conclusions were ripped apart by the Hellmann court’s very logical analysis.

            While Hellmann was overturned too, I feel that the Hellman trial was the only fair and balanced trial Amanda received –– this is a very good article that explains what’s going on in Italian courts today (The author was born in England and has worked in Italy), and Gumbel explains explains why the Hellmann decision was overturned (face-saving):

            Trial By Osmosis: Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and the Nightmare of Italian Justice by Andrew Gumbel – February 11th, 2014

            http://lareviewofbooks.org/ess

            On Being Off: The Case of Amanda Knox by Tom Dibblee – August 12th, 2013

            http://lareviewofbooks.org/ess

            MATTHEW: Hellman is overturned because of its very partial analysis. I find it to be unsatisfactory in its coverage; and that’s when I still thought AK and RS had been treated unfairly. That sort of reporting cannot “rip apart” another report. The full and factual report remains Massei. It is Hellman that is redundant and disrespected by many. My own research has built on Massei and draws on in-depth material; including independent and expert analysis, and witnesses at the cottage and Police Station. I draw the most likely and logical conclusions from the many suspicious occurrences and factors in this case. This is logic; not idiocy. Much of the defense is partial, biased, stretching credibility (or even non-existent). Call that what you will.

            ////MATTHEW: “Your answers are at best very partial; at worse something too depressing for words. You have missed out SO much with regard to the Police (AK and RS were surprised by the Postal Police who THEY did NOT call)////”

            KEN: Define “surprised?” Amanda and Raffaele were outside sitting on a low wall waiting for the Cabenerri, who they had called moments earlier. When the Postal Police arrived within moments of their call to the Carabinieri they were indeed surprised that the response to their call was (seemingly) so fast, but that confusion was eventually sorted out when the Carabinieri arrived later.

            MATTHEW: “Surprised” as in they were not expecting the Police at all at that time. Judge Micheli’s report found that the cellphone records do not support RS’s claim to have called the flying squad before the postal police arrived. It is maintained that RS called the 112 emergency number after the Postal Police had already arrived. Sollecito and Knox may well have used the arrival of Luca and Marco as their opportunity to go into Knox’s room and make the calls.

            The earliest the Postal Police could arrive that would be after the 112 calls were made is 12:56pm, as Sollecito’s phone records indicate that the call ended at 12:55:36pm. The latest estimate for Filomena and Paola’s arrival is 1:05pm with all the other estimates being 1:00pm or earlier. Unless everyone is wrong about when Filomena and Paola arrived it was suggested to be impossible for the 112 calls to have happened before the arrival of the Postal Police.

            ////MATTHEW: “… the further possible clean-up of anything in the flat being curtailed by the arrival of those Postal Police, the actual amount of blood spots, some mixed (at least five in the bathroom), the very visible bloody bath-mat footprint (matched in court to Sollecito);////“

            KEN: The Postal Police didn’t observe Amanda or Raffaele doing anything suspicious when they arrived unexpectedly, such as being found inside the house cleaning.

            MATTHEW: That the Postal Police found AK and RS outside is one fact that seems to be in their favour. However, Inspector Battistelli testified that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito looked “embarrassed and surprised” when the officers found them standing outside the cottage. (Knox and Sollecito told them there had been a break-in, and that they were waiting out for the police to arrive. No prior phone call to the police has been proven.)
            Second, Inspector Battistelli testified that when he inspected Filomena’s room, he immediately thought that this was a staging of a break-in and not a genuine one.

            KEN: While the Carabinieri had found other blood traces in the bathroom (on the bidet, on a jar of cotton swabs, light-switch and back of door), Amanda had only noticed the footprint on the blue bathmat and some drops on the sink, which she promptly pointed out to the police.

            It would have been a simple matter for Amanda to have washed the blue bathmat and cleaned the sink and bidet (etc.), but she obviously didn’t attempt to do that.

            MATTHEW: The spots of blood could have quite easily been missed by very tired and disorientated people originally thinking that they had plenty of time in hand; the bathroom floor having been thoroughly cleaned. With Police of one sort already at the house, AK and RS had little or no choice but to lead them through the crime scenes. Remember, Meredith’s body had been moved and arranged onto a pillow, her bra removed, potential blood prints smudged. The blood-spray from the initial neck blows were found next to the cupboard. Whoever did this probably wanted to emphasize the sexual aspect of the murder. Guede’s DNA (dead skin-cells) was found inside Meredith. Whether the bloody foot-print on the towel was left deliberately or not is open to question. But it was demonstrably matched with Sollecito’s bare foot in court. So physical evidence for AK is the mixed blood DNA traces, and a disputed shoe-print under Meredith’s pillow.

            http://hellmannreport.wordpres

            ////MATTHEW: “the Luminol revealed footprints (one of which had AK’s and Mereith’s DNA mixed); the lack of any other print (except part of one fingerprint on a glass) in the main part of the flat (suggesting a clean-up).////“

            KEN: “SUGGESTING” a cleanup?

            In any event, the footprints you mention were collected on December 18th 2007 (incompetently 6 weeks after the murder), and the prints weren’t even properly photographed or tested, and the prints you mention were NOT the result from tracking Meredith’s blood around:

            MATTHEW: Yes, suggesting a “cleanup”. The prints were photographed and tested (the defence of course disputes the effectiveness of such procedures). The footprints were revealed by Luminol; typically used by Forensics to reveal blood (via traces of iron) that has not been completely cleaned away. 6 weeks after the murder does not detract from the fact that they were revealed as cleaned-up, bare bloody footprints. It can also allegedly reveal bleach and certain types of fruit juices (not normally walked around in and foot-printed by your average person).

            http://hellmannreport.wordpres

            ////MATTHEW: “Not to mention the staged burgalry (the glass on top of objects, the lack of any marks on the exterior wall or grass below (despite being wet earlier on), the lack of any shards of glass on the ground beneath, the very large size of the rock.////”

            KEN: Easily explained:

            http://hellmannreport.wordpres

            MATTHEW: Not explained; unless you believe a huge number of very suspicious circumstances combined are innocent, including the things above. Add in the relatively large size of what would be a heavy rock to throw upwards with first-time accuracy; and the lack of damage from this rock on the floor surface; add the complex and highly acrobatic maneuvers needed to complete both the breaking and then entering; and things become even more suspicious. Attempts to explain this very probably staged “break-in” do not convince me or many others at all. And this is just a fraction of the analysis which is readily available.

            ////MATTHEW: “AK and RS apparently stating that nothing was taken (how did they know that the Italian girl didn’t keep cash, or a camera, or a watch or jewelery kept in drawers or a cupboard or bag?).////”

            KEN: Again, easily explained by the Hellmann court:

            http://hellmannreport.wordpres

            MATTHEW: Not explained by Hellman. A house or room is burgled: You’re not familiar with the contents and potential valuables in that room. Do you simply rely on there being a laptop still in the room to confidently state that “nothing” has been taken? A thief might have had his or her fill of laptops; especially student ones. They also may not want to be carrying a laptop out of a building; especially with a prior record for such theft. But cash, watches, jewelery, cameras, etc

            ////MATTHEW: “Knox’s desk-lamp left on the floor in Meredith’s room.////”

            KEN: Meredith may have borrowed the lamp from Amanda …do you really find that to be credible evidence against Amanda?

            MATTHEW: It is credible circumstantial evidence. Meredith had her own working desk-lamp and a ceiling light. Knox’s lamp was found standing on the floor. Just the sort of thing you might miss at the end of an exhausting over-night clean up… along with spots of blood, and blood on the top half of the inside of bedroom door.

            KEN: REALLY?

            MATTHEW: Yes, Really, Ken.

  • Matthew

    I stand by everything I have said. Anyone can claim to “debunk” anything. Their claims do not necessarily make them correct. The PR machines brought into play have consistently glossed over facts and not accepted strong indicators of involvement. That is why it is far better for people to read the Massei Report, rather than spin and obfuscation. You make no points of any substance. My points are mostly either common sense, or known facts. They are not lies. Lies are what people tell to cover-up their involvement in horrible deeds. And altering the truth is a form of lying, as is glossing over cracked alibis and huge numbers of coincidences and false statements. I already know all about Guede. I’m far more shocked by what I found out about the other two. Some senses of so-called humour and types of behaviour are very nasty and disturbing, and usually a strong indicator of trouble in store. The theory you name is obviously very childish and pointless; and made me almost not want to bother replying.

    Yours is the same old party-line, and it smacks of great naivety… or something worse. If you think that two innocent people were framed, then you will believe whatever they and their supporters say. Their versions of the truth have changed far too many times. I reiterate: There are far too many coincidences and far too many suspicious actions and inactions in this case. Some of the excuses made have been clever..some, quite easily dis-proven. People will buy what makes sense. Open your eyes. The PR machine has cracked… like the alibis. Everyone: Please just read the whole Massei Report. The facts are there, and much of the defense has been disputation of the most desperate and thin kind. The fiction lies with the PR machines and apologists for those who are almost certainly guilty as charged..

    • JC Court

      Matthew. eyesthatsee above is right and you are wrong. Thanks.

      • Matthew

        I strongly disagree, thanks.

  • JC Court

    Shame on the BBC for promoting all the lies associated with the Knox case. Thanks.

    • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

      great documentary i have recommended it to all. thanks!

  • grimbal

    You can scream all you want she’s guilty and she;s going down and you can’t stop it. There is nothing you can do.

  • Andrew Conley

    Nice to see the Italian courts don’t fall for all the lies and B.S. that are common place in American justice system.

  • jo

    I have read the details of this case extensively now, and initially changed my views several times and became confused with all of the differing perspectives (plus I find Rafaelle quite convincing in interview, Amanda less so -she seems like someone who is acting, pretending to be sweet, as well as self centred). However, I am now convinced of their guilt. The constantly changing stories, the implications towards others in the triad without explicitly stating so (for fear that the person implicated may then drop the others in it), the lack of alibi and proof of lies. To me, the lack of (but not non existence) of DNA evidence just suggests a good clean up operation,maybe the use of gloves, and maybe that Guede was doing most of the holding/moving of Meredith immediately afterwards – likely as I believe the other two ran off leaving guede staunching the bleeding with towels (as he admitted). In fact, Guede showed the most remorse out of the three of them.

    I am a psychologist so have also considered the case from that angle. When asked in interview if she had killed Meredith, Amanda sweetly states ‘no I did not’, whilst closing her eyes to avoid eye contact. I have also seen Rafaelle when asked about Amanda’s behaviour afterwards and whether it was innocent , begin to state ‘even if it had been inn….’ before realising his error and rephrasing. So their acting is not perfect. Also, both parties anticipated scenarios and tried to prepare for them. E.g Rafaelle when hearing guede had been arrested said ‘I hope he does not make up strange things’ and Amanda, who was so unconcerned about Meredith’s locked door (actually she couldn’t make up her mind as to whether this bothered her) stated to Filomena ‘I hope nothing tragic has happened to Meredith’.

    I realise the possible impact of the media, but i believe Amanda shows narcissistic traits. With respect to the motivation, there is evidence that Meredith had displayed what Amanda may have seen as rejection towards her and Amanda may have perceived judgement from her, which is intolerable to a narcissist. It is clear that Amanda is highly self centred (even immediately after the murder talking about her own feelings, and frequently referring to her own feelings of hunger, stomach ache et. When her flatmate had just been murdered! ). She needs attention from males, cannot tolerate being disliked, is promiscuous and shows no empathy (except faked). I even thought that she seemed to be enjoying the court process, judging by her behaviour and speech during it, whilst she was also trying to charm. Rafaelle did not testify because he is a poor liarmore nervous and probably would have made things worse for himself. (Actually I also witnessed rafaelle smirking on entering court). The vibrator on display is also suggestive of socially inappropriate behaviour.

    When trying to imagine the innocent scenario, I had to discount so many things. In the triadic murder scenario, very little other than the fact that normal people do not do this, but perhaps they are not normal people.

    I think the murder, or assault that got out of hand, was initiated by her. It would be a tragedy of justice if she escapes jail whilst the other two don’t, however I am sure with her sense of entitlement she will think this is deserved and fair.

  • michael_mills

    The big problem with the conviction of Sollecito and Knox is the utter failure to establish any sort of connection between them and Guede on the night of the murder.
    There can be no doubt that Guede was present at the crime scene while the murder was being committed; he admitted as much in his first statement made to the German police on 21 November 2007 after his arrest by them. He stated that he had been admitted to the house by Kercher, and that they had had consensual sexual contact; he also stated that he was in Kercher’s bedroom after the murder and watched her die. According to his statement, he then just went home.
    Furthermore, Guede’s presence in Kercher’s bedroom and his contact with her body and blood is proved by forensic evidence.
    By contrast, there is no evidence of the presence of Sollecito and Knox in the house at the time of the murder. Furthermore, Guede confirmed in his statement of 21 November that Knox was at no time present in the house while he and Kercher were there, ie she was not present before, during or after the murder.
    On the night of the murder, Knox was expecting to go to work as normal at Lumumba’s bar; the only reason she did not do so was because she received a text message from Lumumba telling her not to come into work because business was slow.
    Sollecito was expecting to run an errand for a friend called Popovic; the reason he did not do so was because Popovic called at his apartment that evening and told him he was no longer needed. Popovic also saw Knox in Sollecito’s apartment.
    The net effect was that from 20:30 on the evening of the murder, Sollecito and Knox unexpectedly found themselves with free time on their hands. The most recent judgement against them claimed that, because they had that free time, they decided to go back to the house where Knox and Kercher lived and attack Kercher for some unknown reason.
    The problem with that claim is that it fails to explain the presence of Guede at the murder, a presence that is proved by forensic evidence and his own admissions.
    Since both Sollecito and Knox were expecting to be busy that evening, they cannot have made a prior arrangement with Guede to make a joint attack on Kercher on that evening.
    Once they found themselves with time on their hands, they would have had to get in touch somehow with Guede, and induce him to join in the attack. But there is absolutely no evidence of their having met up with Guede after about 20:30 on that evening.
    As of about 20:30, both Sollecito and Knox were in Sollecito’s apartment, since Popovic called by and saw them there at that time. Furthermore, the message from Lumumba telling Knox not to come into work was received at about that time.
    It is extremely unlikely that Sollecito and Knox, after 20:30 on the evening of 1 November 2007, could have somehow got in contact with Guede, whom they hardly knew, and persuaded him to join them in making an attack on Kercher. There is simply no evidence of any such collusion on the night of the murder, or on any previous occasion.
    The only rational conclusion from the evidence is that Guede alone killed Kercher, most probably for a sexual motive. One possibility is that Kercher had agreed to meet him at the house for a sexual dalliance, but at some point changed her mind, that Guede tried to force her and ended up killing her, which probably was not his initial intention.
    Kercher had previously met Guede, who was a friend of the young men who lived in the downstairs apartment, and with whom she spent a lot of time, being in a relationship with one of them. It is not at all impossible that Kercher was attracted to Guede; photos of him show him to be rather good-looking, and he was young, athletic and African, characteristics that many young women are drawn to.
    As for Sollecito and Knox, after being relieved of their expected duties, they most probably stayed in Sollecito’s apartment, watched a movie, had some recreational sex and then slept for the rest of the night, since they were planning to go on a day-trip to Gubbio the next morning. At the time of the Kercher murder they were both almost certainly in Sollecito’s apartment, and not in the house where Knox and Kercher lived.
    What they did the next morning is however open to doubt. My own belief is that they arose fairly early, before 06:00, as is shown by the early activity on Sollecito’s computer, and his mobile phone being switched on before 06:00; that would be consistent with their plan for a day-trip away from Perugia. They then might have gone back to the house to collect a change of clothes for Knox, and discovered Kercher’s body.
    They then may have decided not to alert the authorities immediately, but to alter the crime scene to make it appear that an unknown person with no connection to the house had broken in and committed the murder. Possibly they deduced that the murder must have been committed by someone who lived in the house or was otherwise known to the victim, and they feared coming under suspicion themselves, since there were no witnesses to their discovery of the body. Their observed actions suggest a desire to ensure that the “official” discovery of the murder would take place before witnesses, ie after the other residents of the house had returned from the All Saints holiday.

  • Matthew

    KEN: Matthew, in responding to you most of my links will be to the Hellmann-Zanetti report, which found both Amanda and Raffaele innocent on appeal:

    http://hellmannreport.wordpres

    If you prefer using the first MASSEI-CRISTIANI report (which I’ve read), well most of that court’s idiotic facts & conclusions were ripped apart by the Hellmann court’s very logical analysis.

    While Hellmann was overturned too, I feel that the Hellman trial was the only fair and balanced trial Amanda received –– this is a very good article that explains what’s going on in Italian courts today (The author was born in England and has worked in Italy), and Gumbel explains explains why the Hellmann decision was overturned (face-saving):

    Trial By Osmosis: Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and the Nightmare of Italian Justice by Andrew Gumbel – February 11th, 2014

    http://lareviewofbooks.org/ess

    On Being Off: The Case of Amanda Knox by Tom Dibblee – August 12th, 2013

    http://lareviewofbooks.org/ess

    MATTHEW: Hellman is overturned because of its very partial analysis. I find it to be unsatisfactory in its coverage; and that’s when I still thought AK and RS had been treated unfairly. That sort of reporting cannot “rip apart” another report. The full and factual report remains Massei. It is Hellman that is redundant and disrespected by many. My own research has built on Massei and draws on in-depth material; including independent and expert analysis, and witnesses at the cottage and Police Station. I draw the most likely and logical conclusions from the many suspicious occurrences and factors in this case. This is logic; not idiocy. Much of the defense is partial, biased, stretching credibility (or even non-existent). Call that what you will.

    ////MATTHEW: “Your answers are at best very partial; at worse something too depressing for words. You have missed out SO much with regard to the Police (AK and RS were surprised by the Postal Police who THEY did NOT call)////”

    KEN: Define “surprised?” Amanda and Raffaele were outside sitting on a low wall waiting for the Cabenerri, who they had called moments earlier. When the Postal Police arrived within moments of their call to the Carabinieri they were indeed surprised that the response to their call was (seemingly) so fast, but that confusion was eventually sorted out when the Carabinieri arrived later.

    MATTHEW: “Surprised” as in they were not expecting the Police at all at that time. Judge Micheli’s report found that the cellphone records do not support RS’s claim to have called the flying squad before the postal police arrived. It is maintained that RS called the 112 emergency number after the Postal Police had already arrived. Sollecito and Knox may well have used the arrival of Luca and Marco as their opportunity to go into Knox’s room and make the calls.

    The earliest the Postal Police could arrive that would be after the 112 calls were made is 12:56pm, as Sollecito’s phone records indicate that the call ended at 12:55:36pm. The latest estimate for Filomena and Paola’s arrival is 1:05pm with all the other estimates being 1:00pm or earlier. Unless everyone is wrong about when Filomena and Paola arrived it was suggested to be impossible for the 112 calls to have happened before the arrival of the Postal Police.

    ////MATTHEW: “… the further possible clean-up of anything in the flat being curtailed by the arrival of those Postal Police, the actual amount of blood spots, some mixed (at least five in the bathroom), the very visible bloody bath-mat footprint (matched in court to Sollecito);////“

    KEN: The Postal Police didn’t observe Amanda or Raffaele doing anything suspicious when they arrived unexpectedly, such as being found inside the house cleaning.

    MATTHEW: That the Postal Police found AK and RS outside is one fact that seems to be in their favour. However, Inspector Battistelli testified that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito looked “embarrassed and surprised” when the officers found them standing outside the cottage. (Knox and Sollecito told them there had been a break-in, and that they were waiting out for the police to arrive. No prior phone call to the police has been proven.)
    Second, Inspector Battistelli testified that when he inspected Filomena’s room, he immediately thought that this was a staging of a break-in and not a genuine one.

    KEN: While the Carabinieri had found other blood traces in the bathroom (on the bidet, on a jar of cotton swabs, light-switch and back of door), Amanda had only noticed the footprint on the blue bathmat and some drops on the sink, which she promptly pointed out to the police.

    It would have been a simple matter for Amanda to have washed the blue bathmat and cleaned the sink and bidet (etc.), but she obviously didn’t attempt to do that.

    MATTHEW: The spots of blood could have quite easily been missed by very tired and disorientated people originally thinking that they had plenty of time in hand; the bathroom floor having been thoroughly cleaned. With Police of one sort already at the house, AK and RS had little or no choice but to lead them through the crime scenes. Remember, Meredith’s body had been moved and arranged onto a pillow, her bra removed, potential blood prints smudged. The blood-spray from the initial neck blows were found next to the cupboard. Whoever did this probably wanted to emphasize the sexual aspect of the murder. Guede’s DNA (dead skin-cells) was found inside Meredith. Whether the bloody foot-print on the towel was left deliberately or not is open to question. But it was demonstrably matched with Sollecito’s bare foot in court. So physical evidence for AK is the mixed blood DNA traces, and a disputed shoe-print under Meredith’s pillow.

    http://hellmannreport.wordpres

    ////MATTHEW: “the Luminol revealed footprints (one of which had AK’s and Mereith’s DNA mixed); the lack of any other print (except part of one fingerprint on a glass) in the main part of the flat (suggesting a clean-up).////“

    KEN: “SUGGESTING” a cleanup?

    In any event, the footprints you mention were collected on December 18th 2007 (incompetently 6 weeks after the murder), and the prints weren’t even properly photographed or tested, and the prints you mention were NOT the result from tracking Meredith’s blood around:

    MATTHEW: Yes, suggesting a “cleanup”. The prints were photographed and tested (the defence of course disputes the effectiveness of such procedures). The footprints were revealed by Luminol; typically used by Forensics to reveal blood (via traces of iron) that has not been completely cleaned away. 6 weeks after the murder does not detract from the fact that they were revealed as cleaned-up, bare bloody footprints. It can also allegedly reveal bleach and certain types of fruit juices (not normally walked around in and foot-printed by your average person).

    http://hellmannreport.wordpres

    ////MATTHEW: “Not to mention the staged burgalry (the glass on top of objects, the lack of any marks on the exterior wall or grass below (despite being wet earlier on), the lack of any shards of glass on the ground beneath, the very large size of the rock.////”

    KEN: Easily explained:

    http://hellmannreport.wordpres

    MATTHEW: Not explained; unless you believe a huge number of very suspicious circumstances combined are innocent, including the things above. Add in the relatively large size of what would be a heavy rock to throw upwards with first-time accuracy; and the lack of damage from this rock on the floor surface; add the complex and highly acrobatic maneuvers needed to complete both the breaking and then entering; and things become even more suspicious. Attempts to explain this very probably staged “break-in” do not convince me or many others at all. And this is just a fraction of the analysis which is readily available.

    ////MATTHEW: “AK and RS apparently stating that nothing was taken (how did they know that the Italian girl didn’t keep cash, or a camera, or a watch or jewelery kept in drawers or a cupboard or bag?).////”

    KEN: Again, easily explained by the Hellmann court:

    http://hellmannreport.wordpres

    MATTHEW: Not explained by Hellman. A house or room is burgled: You’re not familiar with the contents and potential valuables in that room. Do you simply rely on there being a laptop still in the room to confidently state that “nothing” has been taken? A thief might have had his or her fill of laptops; especially student ones. They also may not want to be carrying a laptop out of a building; especially with a prior record for such theft. But cash, watches, jewelery, cameras, etc

    ////MATTHEW: “Knox’s desk-lamp left on the floor in Meredith’s room.////”

    KEN: Meredith may have borrowed the lamp from Amanda …do you really find that to be credible evidence against Amanda?

    MATTHEW: It is credible circumstantial evidence. Meredith had her own working desk-lamp and a ceiling light. Knox’s lamp was found standing on the floor. Just the sort of thing you might miss at the end of an exhausting over-night clean up… along with spots of blood, and blood on the top half of the inside of bedroom door.

    REALLY?

    MATTHEW: Yes, Really, Ken.


Top