“Unlucky” innocent defendants

You know what they said about Adnan in Serial? Something like “If he’s innocent, he’s the unlikeliest person alive.”

Sorry- if Knox is innocent, then there’s someone unluckier than Adnan:
Forensic chemicals revealing bare footprints matching Knox’s foot size
Coincidentally, a bare foot print in the victims blood on the bathmat with no prints leading up to it
Coincidentally, Knox’s DNA found mixed with Merediths in those same bare foot prints revealed through the use of Luminol which matched her foot size
Coincidentally, only Knox’s DNA being mixed with Meredith’s blood in the bathroom
Coincidentally, only Knox’s DNA found in one of the luminol prints in another roommate’s bedroom
Coincidentally, Knox and Sollecito’s cell phones turned off during the time Meredith was murdered.
Coincidentally, only Sollecito’s DNA ending up on the bra clasp in meredith’s room, not the DNA of any of the other three individuals who lived in the house
Coincidentally, Knoxs own blood found on the tap in the bathroom that meredith’s blood was found in
Coincidentally, erroneous cell tower evidence undermining Knox’s alibi
Coincidentally, Knox’s boyfriend refusing to affirm that Knox stayed with him all evening
Coincidentally, Knox and Sollecito’s memories of this critical time period fogged by the use of drugs
Coincidentally, a rocky relationship between Knox and Meredith prior to the murder

More yet to come…


Errors in Lifetime’s “Murder on Trial in Italy” about Amanda Knox

The movie provides a confused look at the case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The flashbacks are difficult to connect. For an overview of the evidence in the case, visit the evidence page on The Murder of Meredith Kercher Wiki.

  1. Knox was NOT “tried twice” for the same crime; her original conviction from 2009 was affirmed in 2014 by the Florence appeals court. 
  2. Most of the dialogue is fictional.
  3. The relationship scenes with Meredith are not based on available evidence. Meredith did not like confrontation, despite what the film shows on the stairs. The only accurate scene is that Meredith did attend the classical concert with Knox and left half way through.
  4. Postal police did not show up looking for meredith; they were looking for Filomena, as they had that information from the cell phone. Meredith’s british phone was foreign-registered, and they did not have that registration data.
  5. Postal police did not drive right up to the house and stop; they took some time finding the house, as it was off a long driveway to a main road intersection.
  6. The cottage was not connected to other structures, as shown. Thus you don’t get a view of the 2nd floor window that was broken.  The Cottage
  7. Knox wouldn’t have to “go upstairs” after entering the house; the driveway entrance leads directly to their apartment. Knox also did not notice the broken window when she first came home as Hayden says; Knox showered, left, then came back with Sollectio before the broken window was allegedly found.
  8. The movie implies Knox didn’t take a shower but “ran back” to sollecito’s. Knox actually did take a shower in her bathroom, according to her testimony and stories.
  9. The layout of the cottage is wrong; it shows porch doors off the kitchen next to the entryway; in reality this is the location of the bathroom that Guede’s excrement was found in.
  10. The drops of blood were on the sink, bidet, light switch, and door frame.
  11. Knox did not “run back to” Sollecito’s after seeing this evidence; she took a shower, returned with a mop to Sollecitos, mopped the floor in Sollecito’s kitchen, and may have had breakfast with him before telling him what she saw at her apartment.
  12. Filomena’s bedroom was actually off the kitchen; not across the hall from Knox’s as shown in the movie.
  13. Knox did not come down to meredith’s door after it was broken; she never saw into the room. Knox and Sollecito remained in the kitchen.
  14. Meredith wasn’t in town when Knox moved in; she had gone back to visit her parents.
  15. Knox did not go to the chocolate festival with Sollecito; the festival occurred prior to Knox meeting Sollecito.
  16. Knox and Sollecito did not go on a picnic (as also mentioned by Nikki Battiste) .
  17. The film does not mention the other guys Knox hooked up with and/or brought home prior to Sollecito; thus Meredith’s comment “you’ve already got a boyfriend” would never have been said about Sollecito.
  18. The luminol prints were found when the police returned in December; not the same day the murder was discovered.
  19. Knox and Sollecito did not wander around the city after the murder was discovered; they were taken to the station.
  20. Knox and sollecito were not at the memorial for Meredith; they had been getting pizza. The memorial happened on the evening of the 5th.
  21. Knox was introduced to Patrick (and the job) by someone else.
  22. The bloody footprint on the bathmat wasn’t from a shoe, as shown; it was a bare foot print.
  23. The luminol was not used before Knox and Sollecito’s arrest; it was used several weeks after.
  24. The movie claims the luminol prints were all of the same smaller size; in reality one of the prints was measured and found to match Sollecito’s footprint measurements. 
  25. Nikki Battiste claims Knox didn’t mention at the police station that Meredith’s throat was cut; according to her trial testimony, Knox admitted she referenced Meredith’s throat being cut.
  26. Qunitavalle did not provide his statement until some time after Knox and Sollecito’s arrest. He was discovered by a reporter, who encouraged him to come forward.
  27. Qunitavalle did not testify Knox bought bleach; only that she headed to that section of the store.
  28. Sollecito and Knox were not walking down the street when called in on the 5th; they were having pizza, missing the memorial. Sollecito delayed going in to the station so they could finish dinner.
  29. The investigators did not “manhandle” Sollecito during his questioning.
  30. The reason Sollecito gives for retracting his support for Knox’s alibi is that police didn’t “give him a calendar” to know what day they were talking about (per “Honor Bound”).
  31. Knox was not by herself in the hallway when doing yoga/gymnastics; she was with a policeman.
  32. Knox was taken into the questioning room because she was providing the policeman with a list of names; not because Sollecito had retracted his support for her alibi as the movie shows.
  33. The police did not know about the text FROM patrick, as Knox had already deleted the incoming message. Her phone only contained an outgoing text TO patrick, but her sent folder did not have the name associated with the number. Police were questioning her about the text she sent, not the one she received.
  34. Mignini was not present during Knox’s initial questioning and statement. According to an interview with him, it was Knox that wanted to continue talking after her 1:45am statement, leading to the 5:45am statement.
  35. Her questioning on the night of the 5th was not for “13 hours” as Hayden says; Knox started talking to police at about 11:30pm and blamed patrick within about 2 hours, then signed her first statement at 1:45am. After that there was a break; she again made the statement leading up to her 5:45 am statement.
  36. Knox wasn’t immediately told she was under arrest after blaming Patrick; she didn’t understand this until later that day.
  37. It was not a finger print that led to identifying Guede; it was a partial palm print.
  38. The police did not wait to tell Knox the first HIV test may have been a false positive; Knox was told immediately the HIV test result could have been a false positive.
  39. The police did not request a list of Knox’s sex partners after the HIV test; she decided to make a list and write it in her diary after a prison official said she may want to think about who she caught it from.
  40. Guede did not say “Knox wasn’t involved;” he gave an alibi that he met Meredith for a date, and when he showed up for the date Knox wasn’t home. His alibi claimed he was in the bathroom when Meredith was murdered.
  41. Guede didn’t change this story substantially.
  42. Guede’s DNA was not “all over the bedroom;” the instances of Guede’s DNA were only the specific ones discussed- bra, sleeve of sweatshirt, on her body, and on the purse. 
  43. The blood on the bathroom tap was not mixed; the tap blood contained only Knox’s DNA. This blood was not on the tap on the previous day, per Knox’s own testimony. 
  44. Meredith’s DNA was on a scratch in the blade on the knife taken from Sollecitos, not the tip.
  45. The prison doctor did not ask Knox to make a list of her sex partners. 
  46. Knox did not wave and smile to the press; she waved and smiled to her family when she entered court and laughed with her lawyers.
  47. It wasn’t Deanna who said “she only lived there for two months; she barely knew you.” This is a statement Knox made:

    But in the end, I only knew her for one month, and more than anything, I am trying to think how to go forward with my own life. (Knox, Translated Trial Testimony, The Murder of Meredith Kercher Wiki)

  48. The dialog about the first phone call Knox makes to her mother on the 2nd is not what is recorded in the court testimony, though Knox does testify she didn’t remember this first phone call.
  49. Knox was not asked about Quintavalle’s testimony. She did not say anything about being in his story previously.
  50. The closing statement by Mignini is fictional and contains several errors that he wouldn’t have made.

Nencini sentencing report

The Nencini sentencing report has been translated into English by a team of independent, unpaid translators from PMF.org. This is an appellate level sentencing report. The Italian Supreme Court annulled the results of the first appellate court and remanded the case back down to the appellate level.

This is how the case has progressed, with links to the judgments:

Massei– First level/Trial Court

Hellmann– Perugia Appellate Court

Court of Cassation– Italian Supreme Court

Nencini– Florence Appellate Court

According to Knox’s own lawyer, Carlo Dalla Vedova, these are not retrials, but a “continuation of the same case on appeal.”

The Disclaimer from the translation of the Nencini sentencing report is after the break:

Continue reading

The debate that never was

On this past Sunday, blogger Lisa Marie Basile was intending to debate criminal profiler Chelsea Hoffman on the case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito . Both are feminists who have published articles on the case against Knox. Basile published two articles on international news site The Huffington Post arguing for Knox’s innocence. Hoffman has published articles supporting the case against Knox on All Voices and on her own site. The debate started being advertised about a week prior. About twenty minutes before the scheduled debate, Basile cancelled the debate, but still appeared with Hoffman to have a discussion.

I was not surprised by Basile’s withdrawal; in fact I was quite surprised she did it so late. I was pretty certain she would withdrawal earlier in the day when I saw a tweet from Basile to Hoffman mentioning second thoughts. Why, then, did the final decision only occur twenty minutes prior? The reason given for Basile’s withdrawal was the public response to her articles. She said she received “nonstop threats and harassment”.  She also detailed some of the other harassment she received, but she did not call out any specific instance; she was reacting to the overall reaction and her desire to not want to deal with the public response to her articles. I’m not aware of the personal exchanges between Hoffman and Basile prior to the show, but somehow Hoffman still convinced Basile to appear, albeit without the debate format. Basile’s reasons for withdrawing from the debate the tone and primary topic for the discussion that followed.

They started out in supposedly “safe” territory by discussing the reasons Basile withdrew from the debate. The pair discussed responses to their public writings. Basile stated it was her first time writing about crime, and asked Hoffman about how people respond to crime cases in general, and if the response in the Knox case is typical. While they did specifically address responses from people who have long followed the case, they generally criticized and condemned the responses they received.

Many have criticized Basile and Hoffman’s sweeping indictment of twitter and other responses. Almost everyone who responded to the two of them prior to the show were apparently thrown into the same basket. Basile showed little willingness to separate out claimed threats or the documented sexist harassment she experienced from other criticisms of her views.

Eventually, Hoffman drew Basile into a conversation about the Knox case. I commend Hoffman for her ability to create a space that fed in to Basile’s need for a “safe” space. I need to ask, why was it necessary to create such a “safe” space to begin with? Because of the public response, or because of Basile’s unwillingness to deal with the public response to her articles?

Basile acknowledges that when she published her first article, she knew she was stepping into a highly charged, polarized debate:

When I wrote the May 2014 piece “Where Are All The Feminists? Why Amanda Knox’s Story Is About More Than Murder,” I was well aware of how deeply polarizing this case has been over the past several years.

Her false claims in her published articles were publicly criticized (rightly so).  Shortly after her first article was published Basile demonstrated an unwillingness to engage in public conversation about the Knox case with her readers by requesting that people contact her privately to discuss the case. Despite Basile’s apparent reservations about the response to her article, she proceeded to publish a second article internationally, with an even more authoritative headline: “Almost Everything You’ve Read about Amanda Knox is Wrong.” When Basile published her second article, she tried to direct twitter comments to the Huffington Post article (the comments I added never seemed to appear).

Getting back to the non-debate, we should remember the two participants were feminist women. Part of the feminist perspective is that meaning is established by collaboration between individuals.  Viewed through this perspective, Basile and Hoffman had a nice little session of collaborative meaning-making. However, the outcome did not construct a shared meaning of Knox’s innocence or guilt, as was expected from the announcement of the debate on the Knox case. The shared meaning they generated was more on their interpretation of the online responses to their articles.

Basile’s feminist persona generally  (aside from the two articles she wrote) is that she engages with people expecting to establish this kind of collaboration. With two notable exceptions, Basile denounced responses to her articles as being “disrespectful.” The only two people she cites as being respectful are, in fact, two other feminists.  It seems Basile limits her view of “respect” to be only those who engage with her to establish this collaborative meaning making.  She rejects direct critiques of her views and arguments “disrespectful” of her “opinion.”

Judging by Basile’s stamp on what she considers “respectful” dialog, one interpretation is that Basile demands that readers engage with her with a feminist, meaning-making approach. My criticism is that if Basile had an expectation that she could make everyone engage with her in the same approach, or worse, an inability to deal with anyone in any other way, then she was simply unready to be published on the international stage.  Her style of writing authoritatively on the case  is also at odds with the way she presented her views as “opinions” in the chat with Hoffman. The contrast between the article and the show is so stark, it leads me to wonder if there was a ghost co-writer on the articles.

Basile also seems to lack any self-introspection of her own actions and approach. Her online article criticizes people for providing citations to biased articles. She critizes Nelson’s article by saying “all but two of her links to ‘evidence’ direct readers to private, biased anti-Knox sites.” Then during her chat with Hoffman she admits (with a laugh) that her own citations may also be biased; and indeed they are; the links she provides for case information include the Knox advocacy site Injustice in Perugia, journalist Nina Burleigh who advocates for Knox, and she extensively quotes the error-laden advocacy piece written by Sollecito’s co-writer, Andrew Gumbel.

In an ironic moment, one of Knox’s white knights came to Basile’s rescue. Former FBI man Jim Clemente tweeted at the end of the conversation to Hoffman and another twitter user for being understanding and supporting Basile’s decision. Why did Clemente feel the need he had to thank Hoffman on behalf of Basile?  According to follow-up tweets, Clemente didn’t seem to have been previously in contact with Basile regarding the with the alleged threats . Clemente also complemented Basile on her debate (which channel was he watching?) and on her articles. Basile was honored by Clemente’s admiration despite Clemente being one of the major violators of civil debate.

Viewers who turned in for a debate on the evidence and fact would have been disappointed by the style of conversation between Hoffman and Basile. My primary criticism is their grouping together all public responses, then basing their judgement on a sweeping categorization, instead of doing the harder work to “separate out the wheat from the chaff.”

weiner advocacyAnimosity and antagonism between camps has long been part of the case, but it can surely be traced to the early attempts by Knox family and advocates to suppress details of the case from the US. Direct attacks on people who believe differently has long been part of the strategy of Knox advocates. Knox advocates early on coined the phrase “guilters” (and its alternative, “haters”) for anyone who attempted to discuss the actual evidence against Knox and Sollecito. One of Knox’s white knight FBI men has been actively involved in pushing the “guilters” phrase, and even attacks the family of Meredith Kercher.

Despite appearances of a respectful discussion, this show wasn’t a vote in favor of two sides being able to really engage in meaningful debate on the evidence between two people of different sides. The two participants have had a passing involvement in the Knox case, and yet still weren’t able to get into a deep discussion of the case.  The evidence of the case was discussed nominally, stated as general beliefs about a scattering of case details. Hoffman seemed to state that she will continue with debates, albeit on other cases. It will be interesting to see how those debates go, and if respectful dialog and a deep discussion of contested case details can mutually exist.


The errors in Crime Time with Allison Hope Weiner

Crime Time with Allison Hope Wiener recently published a new video with guest Jim Clemente providing commentary on the Knox case. After their last show I pointed out many errors made by Clemente and offered to provide Crime Time and Wiener with research detailing the errors with citations to relevant documents. Wiener declined to take me up on my offer. Wiener and Clemente have produced yet another show full of errors. Below I detail some of the most blatant errors in their latest show.

Wiener started out the show by commenting on the Twitter conversations and feedback she received about her last show.

Allison: Most of [twitter] is completely not constructive, not intelligent, not based in facts. I just have to say most these tweets are just ad hominem attacks.

clemente personal attacksLike Jim Clemente’s, perhaps? Clemente provides multiple examples of ad hominem attacks, as seen in the graphic to the right. Wiener has thus far not condemned any of Clemente’s documented ad hominem attacks.

Clemente and Wiener get down to business spinning the Knox case to argue for her defense.

Allison: After holding [Knox] without any kind of preservation of her rights.

Knox was not being “held” during her questioning; she showed up unexpectedly at the station and started talking to police in the hallway (Knox, Waiting to be Heard, p107) , then moved into a room as Knox had been talking about possible people involved in the crime (Knox, p108).

Knox placed herself at the scene of the crime in her signed statements of 145am and 545 am (Knox, p118 & p122). The Italian supreme court ruled the first signed statement could not be used against her for the murder charge, thus actually upholding Knox’s rights as a witness: “Because there is one transcript which was declared inadmissible and the other admissible against others but not against Amanda. ” (Knox’s lawyer Dalla Vedova, Knox trial testimony)

Jim Clemente: The knife that Rudy Guede owned was a pocket knife with no hilt, and so when you stab somebody with it, his hand slipped down to the knife, and that’s how he cut it. We see that thousands and thousands of knife assault cases.

There is no evidence Guede was found with a pocket knife- it was Sollecito who had two pocket knifes confiscated from him and tested (Massei; Stefanoni court testimony).

Clemente must be referring to an incident where Guede was found in a kindergarten in Milan. Guede was found with a 40cm (16 in) kitchen knife he took from the kindergarten (The Borsini-Belardi Sentencing Report, P11; Massei, p45). The prosecution argues only one wound is compatible with a large kitchen knife; the wound on the neck that ultimately killed Meredith. The defense contends that a smaller penknife made all of the wounds. If you accept the defense’s argument, then Guede was NOT found with a knife that was compatible with the wounds. Clemente’s claim that the knife Guede was found with in the kindergarten is compatible with the wounds on Meredith is in conflict with Knox and Sollecito’s defense.

Jim: Nobody will answer the question how did Raffaele get two high-priced lawyers to travel to Germany to represent him before the Perugian cops got there. How did that happen? Who knew that he was there? Who would actually want him to be represented so that he wouldn’t talk to anybody, make any statements that didn’t coincide with the prosecutor’s case?

Clemente obviously doesn’t mean to be so blatantly wrong about the evidence to say that Sollecito ran to Germany, so we’ll set that one aside.  Guede (not Sollecito) was arrested in Germany on Nov 20th, but not extradited back to Italy until December 6th.  His arrest on the 20th was announced worldwide in the media.  The documentary “Is Amanda Knox Guilty?” had an interview with Guede’s lawyer where the lawyer describes why he went up to Germany to represent Guede. Clemente should do his research before engaging in such hyperbole about the case.

Jim (talking about the bra clasp): The DNA expert couldn’t find his DNA on it. She blew it up and blew it up and blew it up.

Clemente is confusing the defense arguments against the bra clasp with the defense arguments against Meredith’s DNA on the knife.  The bra clasp evidence is not LCN DNA (Massei).

Allison: Spare us all. We don’t really want to hear about how other people agree with that evidence.

As evidenced by this recent thread, Crime Time also doesn’t want to hear about the errors they publish on their own show.

Jim Clemente: People don’t understand the job of the defense attorney. The defense attorney is to help his own client, period. The fact that Raffaele is now separating defense from Amanda seems to be a strategy here.

Clemente seems to be arguing that defense attorneys will say anything to get their clients free. Justification for lying from a former FBI man? Really?

Jim Clemente (on what Knox was told during the questioning): Raffaele is testifying that you did it.

Clemente is wrong again. Knox was not told Sollecito “is testifying that you did it,” she was told  “‘he’s taken away your alibi'”(Knox, WTBH, p114).

Jim Clemente: People say that she was only questioned for two hours and they wrote, the interpreter came. Two hours is when she got, she signed this thing. But they waited 10 hours, or eight hours at least, before they called in the interpreter. They think “no its not in the file.” Amanda tells us she got there 1030 and left at 630. So there was a long time that went by. Anybody can write a different time on that damn statement. It doesn’t make it when it’s actually happen.

This is the most laughable claim of Clemente’s, that an interpreter wasn’t called for 8 hours. Knox doesn’t support Clemente’s claim: “The interpreter […] arrived at about 12:30 am” (Knox, WTBH, p113). None of the Knox advocates have stood by Clemente’s claim; Weiner also has declined to stand by Clemente’s statement.

Allison: And given the behavior in this case, they haven’t really proven themselves, the Italian police, or the Italian courts to be particularly trust worthy, so we can infer that most of this case is probably not trustworthy. If you see somebody lying in one segment of the case, and denying somebody’s rights in one segment of the case, what would stop them from changing the time.

Here, Weiner veers completely into conspiracy theory territory by alleging corruption of both the Italian police and courts… to justify an allegation of changing time on a document. This allegation of changing the time the interpreter was present Knox herself doesn’t even support.

Jim Clemente: People keep bringing up that Amanda Knox lied. Well if Amanda Knox lied about using marijuana, it’s because she didn’t want to admit doing something that’s a crime. That’s typical. And any time when a law enforcement officer, and experienced law enforcement officer does an interrogation like that they can expect those kinds of things.

Is a former FBI man actually JUSTIFYING lying to police during a murder investigation? Really? And did Clemente REALLY just say that if Knox lied to police “its because she didn’t want to admit doing something that’s a crime”?

Jim Clemente: It doesn’t mean she’s guilty of murder. If she lied, if she lied to get, if she wrote that, if she signed that “statement” against Lumumba to get out of that interrogation, then that was a self-preservation move.

Here, surprisingly, Clemente agrees with the courts; Knox’s statement against Lumumba was a self-preservation move to get out of her questioning with the Perugian police.

Response to Gumbel’s Guardian article

This letter was sent to the Guardian’s Reader Editor on 4 May 2014, and again on 3 June, 2014. The Reader’s Editor did not respond to either of the email submissions.

Gumbel’s May 1st, 2014 article in the Guardian is a thinly veiled advocacy piece for Sollecito and Knox. He left out a significant phrase from a Nencini passage he cites; this phrase he omitted undermines one of his main claims.

To the Guardian:
I’m writing to you about Andrew Gumbel’s “comment” on developments in the murder of Meredith Kercher case. Gumbel writes about the recently released Nencini court motivations document, which outlines the court’s reasoning for affirming Knox and Sollecito’s conviction for the murder of Meredith Kercher.
Gumbel waits until the end of the third paragraph in his article to provide his disclaimer: that he is a co-author of the book by one of the defendants. Its hard to understand why Gumbel waited so long to disclose his vested financial interest in the innocence of one of the defendants on trial. By this time, Gumbel has already levied allegations of impropriety upon the Italian courts and judges. For example, he alleges “the country’s institutions of justice have covered themselves in shame.” He continues specific allegations that “judge after judge has twisted the available evidence […]”.  If Gumbel had provided his disclaimer appropriately at the beginning of his letter, readers would have had a more appropriate understanding of Gumbel’s perspective and motivations for writing his letter.
Despite being a co-author of a book by one of the two still on trial for Meredith’s murder, Gumbel’s statements on the court process are wrong. Gumbel pushes the perspective that Knox’s reps have pushed in the US; that Knox and Sollecito have been “convicted again” after an acquittal. Gumbel leaves out any mention of the Italian Supreme Court ruling that overturned Knox and Sollecito’s acquittal and sent the case back to the appellate level. After the acquittal was annulled, the original 2009 conviction remained in place. Gumbel is no doubt aware that the Florence court is an appellate court.  (Curiously, Sollecito’s co-defendant Knox also wrongly claims on her website that the Italian Supreme Court “annulled all previous verdicts”; ref: http://www.amandaknox.com/about-contact/‎).
Gumbel’s omission of the Italian Supreme Court ruling is odd, because the entire point of his article is the integrity of the judicial decisions. Gumbel left out that the Italian Supreme Court has already made one ruling regarding the integrity of a judicial decision in this case. The Supreme Court’s ruling wasn’t in favor of Gumbel’s co-author and defendant Raffaele Sollecito;  perhaps this is the reason that Gumbel failed to mention the actual outcome of the acquittal.
Or perhaps Gumbel left out this information so he could present the evidence the way it is framed by supporters of Knox and Sollecito. Later in the the same paragraph, Gumbel expresses confusion about why evidence remains in the case. He states “the underlying forensic evidence has been both exposed as a sham and, mystifyingly, reinstated.” As the co-author of the book with Sollecito, Gumbel is again no doubt aware that after the appellate-level acquittal was thrown out, the original conviction (with all of the evidence) remained as a part of the case. Any decision made by Hellmann on the evidence was also thrown out of the case, including Hellmann’s conclusions on the knife DNA evidence and the Sollecito’s DNA on the bra clasp. Further, if Gumbel had indeed read the Nencini decision, he would have read the passage where Nencini takes to task the “independent experts” in the Hellmann trial (detailed here:http://thefreelancedesk.com/amanda-knox-trials-meredith-kercher-case/). Gumbel should be well aware after his reading of Nencini why the evidence still contributed to the Florence court upholding his co-author’s conviction.
In his second point on the Nencini decision, Gumbel leaves out a key phrase that completely undermines his claim. By this time in his article, one is forced to wonder if this omission is deliberate. Gumbel’s claim is that Nencini contradicted himself by writing that Knox and Sollecito only left a “single, hotly disputed trace of themselves” despite the other evidence that Nencini also talks about. But the start of the passage Gumbel cites is:
“Una peculiarità è, ad esempio, il rilievo che all’interno della villetta di via della Pergola quasi non sono state rinvenute tracce di Amanda Marie Knox – se non quelle di cui si dirà e riferibili all’omicidio – né di Raffaele Sollecito.”
The phrase Gumbel deliberately left out is this: “se non quelle di cui si dirà e riferibili all’omicidio”, which, roughly translated, is “except those which will be discussed and related to the murder.”  The Nencini Motivations document explicitly contains a clause that accommodates the other traces related to the murder. Gumbel’s point is provably false. As someone who arguably puts himself forth as an expert on the case, this omission is highly concerning.
In Gumbel’s third point he highlights what is a minor error in the Nencini report. Calling out one word in a longer passage, Gumbel points out the report states that Sollecito’s DNA was found on the knife that is alleged as a murder weapon. If Gumbel truly read the report, as he claimed in a twitter exchange with me, he would be aware that the rest of the section that is contained in makes it clear that the finding is Knox’s DNA on the knife, not Sollecito’s. This minor error is hardly cause to overturn the full conviction.
I could continue, but the rest of Gumbel’s article is largely a diatribe against the length of the trial and the Italian justice system. Gumbel cites an article written by Douglas Preston, another author who has financially benefited by being openly critical of the prosecutor in Knox’s case. Knox and Sollecito’s case has gone through three levels of the Italian court system, and back to appeals. Cases in the US that follow a similar path have not happened any faster than the one in Italy. For example, in the Scott Peterson case in the US his defense still filed appeals eight years after his first-level conviction.
That the Guardian has allowed itself to be used as a platform to push the defense’s perspective is not only a disservice to the family of the murder victim who lives in the UK, but is also a disservice to the victim of a violent, brutal murder.