Evidence List

From The Murder of Meredith Kercher
Jump to: navigation, search
This evidence list was compiled by PMF ORG, PMF NET & TJMK posters.

Evidence list and notes relating to the November 2007 sexual assault and murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy. The murder happened in a double apartment cottage, in Ms. Kercher's bedroom. She shared the apartment with Amanda Knox, Filomena Romanelli and Laura Mezzetti. References in parenthesis are to testimonies or motivation reports related to the case. 2009 testimonies are from the Massei trial:



  1. Meredith Kercher sustained 43 wounds during the assault that killed her. (Perna closing arguments 2009)
  2. She had 10 knife wounds and 33 other wounds. (Lalli 2009)
  3. She had at least 15 bruises: on her mouth, nose, cheeks, jaw, neck, elbows, right forearm, small of her back, left thigh, and right lower leg. The bruises indicate she was not only restrained, but also kept from screaming for help. (Lalli 2009)
  4. Some of the bruising on Ms. Kercher was in the shape of fingertips, with some fingertips being smaller, of a woman’s size. There were no ligature marks. (Lalli, Marchionni, Codispoti 2009)
  5. Some of the neck bruises indicate Ms. Kercher was being choked at some point during the assault. (Liviero 2009)
  6. The internal vaginal bruising suffered by Ms. Kercher happened before her death and was violent. (Lalli, Marchionni 2009)
  7. She had only 2 major knife wounds, one on each side of her neck. The remaining knife wounds were minor. (Lalli 2009)
  8. The wound on the right side of her neck was narrow and deep. The wound on the left side of her neck was wide, large, gaping and fatal. These two wounds were likely made with two different knives. (Bacci, Politi, Codispoti, Mignini)
  9. She had another knife cut just below the gaping wound on the left side of her neck. (Lalli 2009)
  10. She had 3 other glancing knife wounds on her neck and cheeks. (Lalli 2009)
  11. She had 3 small cuts on her right hand and one small cut on her left hand. (Lalli 2009)
  12. Her defensive wounds were virtually non-existent, especially when compared with other single-attacker knife attacks, where knife wounds on the hands and arms are prevalent. (Cingolani, Codispoti 2009)
  13. The wounds were compatible with an assault by multiple persons (Cingolani, Codispoti, Lalli, Liviero 2009).
  14. Bacci, Lalli and Liviero testified that the wounds could not be ascribed with 100% certainty to a single person or multiple person assault. However Lalli and Liviero preferred the multiple person assault scenario, given the quantity and different types of wounds. (Bacci, Lalli, Liviero 2009)
  15. Lalli confirmed under questioning by Judge Massei that if the rape happened during the assault, then the assault had to be carried out by more than one person. (Lalli 2009)

Blood traces

  1. Blood traces were found all around Ms. Kercher’s bedroom, not in one specific area. (crime scene photos)
  2. In Ms. Kercher’s bedroom, blood was found by the far wall, on and inside the closet, under the desk, by and under the bed, on the walls above the bed, on the mattress cover, on the floor in large quantities and on the door into the bedroom. (crime scene photos)
  3. Blood was also found on the floor in the form of partial shoeprints leading out of the cottage. Blood traces were also found on the small bathroom door, in the small bathroom (on the light switch, sink, bidet, bathroom floor mat, etc.), possibly on a few items in Knox’s bedroom, and also in Luminol-revealed traces found on the floor in the corridor, in Knox’s bedroom and in Romanelli’s bedroom. (crime scene photos, Codispoti 2009)
  4. No blood traces were found near, leading to or in the large bathroom where Guede defecated. (crime scene photos, Dr. Stefanoni Genetic Test report)
  5. Blood pattern analysis indicates Ms. Kercher was fatally stabbed around 40 cm above the ground, near to the closet door. (Camana 2009)
  6. Blood traces on the floor indicate objects were shifted or removed after Ms. Kercher had started bleeding from the fatal wound. (crime scene photos)
  7. Ms. Kercher's body was moved after she was stabbed, as can be seen from the blood smears on the floor. (crime scene photos)
  8. Blood traces on the mattress cover indicate that one or more knives used in the assault were placed on the mattress cover. (Politi 2009)
  9. Blood traces under the bed indicate someone was likely searching under the bed for something after the assault. (Codispoti 2009)

Clothing traces

  1. Blood was found on her sweat jacket, bra, jeans and socks. (crime scene photos)
  2. Ms. Kercher’s bra and sweat jacket indicate she bled on the right side, likely from the knife wound on the right side of her neck, for some time before these were removed. (evidence item photos in Dr. Stefanoni slide presentation)
  3. The sleeves on her sweat jacket were pulled inside-out. (Stefanoni 2009)
  4. Blood stains on her sweat jacket and shirt indicate these were pulled up around her neck after she had been wounded. (Codispoti 2009)
  5. Her jeans were also inside out, with blood spots inside her jeans. (Stefanoni 2009)
  6. Her panties were found near her body, and had no blood stains. (Stefanoni 2009)
  7. Ms. Kercher's bra was removed after she was dead, as can be seen from blood speckles on the bra that were not found on her chest. (Micheli Motivations report, Codispoti 2009)
  8. Her body was covered with a duvet, and she only had an undershirt on. (Micheli Motivations report)
  9. Police found a pillow, a bed sheet, a sock and two towels under her body. (Nencini Motivations report- citing Lalli’s site report)
  10. Guede’s bloody handprint was found on the pillow. (Sbardella 2009)
  11. Guede’s bloody shoeprint was found on the pillow right under Ms. Kercher’s leg. (Sbardella 2009)
  12. Police found Ms Kercher’s bra clasp under the pillow, and then later found it again under a carpet in the bedroom, 46 days after initial discovery. (Cantagalli, Codispoti, Stefanoni 2009, crime scene photos)
  13. A sock was found around one of Ms. Kercher’s purse handles on the bed. (crime scene photos)
  14. Ms. Kercher’s purse was found on the mattress cover, indicating it had been placed there after the duvet had been used to cover her body. (crime scene photos)

Ms. Kercher’s room

  1. Only the mattress cover remained on the bed. After the assault, someone removed the duvet, pillow and bed sheet from the bed, and placed Ms. Kercher on the bed sheet, two towels and pillow on the floor, then covered her body with the duvet. (Codispoti 2009, crime scene photos)
  2. Someone took Ms. Kercher’s wallet and credit cards from her purse and placed the purse on the mattress cover on the bed. (Profazio 2009, Nencini Motivations report, crime scene photos)
  3. Someone left receipts on the duvet covering Ms. Kercher’s body. (Codispoti 2009, crime scene photos)
  4. Someone took Ms. Kercher’s cell phones and tossed them over a roadside wall, inadvertently into the garden of another villa, some 950 meters from the cottage. (Nencini Motivations report)
  5. Someone took Ms. Kercher’s room and house keys. (Napoleoni 2009)
  6. An empty jar of Vaseline was found on her desk. (crime scene photos, Napoleoni 2009)
  7. The wall shelf by her closet had been knocked around, and objects on the shelf were tipped over. (crime scene photos, Codispoti 2009)
  8. Ms. Kercher’s nightstand lamp and Knox’s nightstand lamp were both on the floor next to the bed. (crime scene photos)
  9. Knox’s lamp was partially under Ms. Kercher’s bed, and it was the only functioning light Knox had in her room. (crime scene photos, Nencini Motivations report)
  10. Someone closed and locked Ms. Kercher’s bedroom door, and took her bedroom door key. (Battistelli, Romanelli, Altieri, Zaroli, Napoleoni 2009)
  11. Romanelli testified Ms. Kercher rarely closed and locked her own bedroom door, while Knox claimed Ms. Kercher normally locked her door. (Battistelli, Zaroli, Altieri, Romanelli 2009)
  12. Ms. Kercher’s bedroom door had a small crack in it before it was broken down. (Altieri 2009)


(Rinaldi & Boemia report)
  1. Guede’s bloody left shoeprints were found in Ms. Kercher’s room.
  2. Guede’s bloody left shoeprints were also found leading down the corridor, into the kitchen/dining room and out the front door, without any trace of prints indicating he turned to close and lock Ms. Kercher’s bedroom door.
  3. Five different papers and cards, most smudged with blood, were found on the floor in Ms. Kercher’s room. These papers and cards had at least two different types of shoeprints which did not match any of Ms. Kercher’s shoes.
  4. A similar card was found in Romanelli’s room, with a shoeprint not matching those on the cards and papers in Ms. Kercher’s room.
  5. A smaller shoeprint similar to Guede’s shoe type was found on the pillow found under Ms. Kercher. Police consultants estimate this was a female sized shoe.


(Rinaldi & Boemia report)
  1. Half of a bloody footprint was found on the bathmat. The heel of this footprint, which should have been on the floor, was missing, suggesting it was cleaned away. (crime scene photos, report)
  2. The bloody footprint matches Sollecito’s right foot size and characteristics.
  3. Five Luminol-revealed footprints were found on the floor in the corridor and in Knox’s bedroom.
  4. One of these Luminol-revealed footprints was compatible with Sollecito’s right foot.
  5. Two others were compatible with Knox’s right foot.
  6. None of the Luminol-revealed footprints were compatible with Guede’s feet.


(Fingerprint chart)
  1. Ms. Kercher’s fingerprints were found on Knox’s closet door.
  2. Knox’s fingerprints were only found on a glass in the kitchen. None of her fingerprints were found in her own bedroom, or elsewhere in the cottage.
  3. Sollecito’s fingerprints were on Ms. Kercher’s bedroom door and on the inside face of Laura Mezzetti’s door.
  4. Guede’s fingerprint was found in Ms. Kercher’s bedroom.

DNA testing- general

(Dr. Stefanoni Genetic Test, SAL report, Dr. Stefanoni slide presentation)
  1. 227 evidence items were sampled or bagged. 30 of these were not analyzed.
  2. From the remaining 197 evidence items, over 480 DNA and Y haplotype tests were prepared from liquids, solids or hairs. Many objects were sampled in multiple places.
  3. Out of the over 480 DNA and Y haplotype tests, only 193 of these tests actually yielded DNA useful for comparison. (40%)
  4. 24 tests were from samples taken from Ms. Kercher’s body. Of these, 1 test yielded DNA compatible with Guede’s Y haplotype, 17 tests yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s, and the remaining did not yield DNA useful for comparison.
  5. 11 tests were from samples taken from the exterior of the cottage. Of these, 2 tests yielded DNA compatible with an unknown female, 2 tests yielded cat DNA and the remainder did not yield useful DNA.
  6. 21 tests were from samples taken from the basement apartment at the cottage. Of these, 16 tests yielded cat blood, 2 tests yielded DNA compatible with an unknown male and the remaining did not yield DNA useful for comparison.
  7. 221 tests were from samples or items taken from the upper apartment at the cottage. Of these, 6 tests yielded DNA compatible with Guede’s DNA or Y haplotype, 82 tests yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA, 2 tests yielded DNA compatible with a mixture of Ms. Kercher’s and Guede’s DNA or Y haplotype (both tests from the same sample), 5 tests from 5 different samples yielded DNA compatible with a mixture of Ms. Kercher’s and Knox’s DNA, 2 tests yielded DNA compatible with a mixture of Ms. Kercher’s and Sollecito’s DNA or Y haplotype (both tests from the same sample), 4 tests yielded DNA compatible with Knox’s DNA, 1 test yielded DNA compatible with a mixture of Knox’s and Sollecito’s DNA, 2 tests yielded DNA compatible with an unknown female, 3 tests yielded DNA compatible with an unknown male and the remaining did not yield DNA useful for comparison.
  8. 4 tests were from samples taken (from bloodied tissue papers) found in the vicinity of the cottage, yielding DNA compatible with an unknown male or an unknown female.
  9. 16 tests were from samples taken from Sollecito’s car and no DNA useful for comparison was found.
  10. 102 tests were from samples taken from Sollecito’s apartment. Of these, 1 test yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA, 6 tests yielded DNA compatible only with Knox’s DNA, 7 tests yielded DNA compatible with a combination of Knox and Sollecito’s DNA, 7 tests yielded DNA compatible only with Sollecito’s DNA, 3 tests yielded DNA of 3 unknown males and the remaining did not yield DNA useful for comparison.
  11. 29 tests were from samples taken from Guede’s apartment. Of these, 14 tests yielded DNA compatible with Guede’s DNA and the remaining did not yield DNA useful for comparison.
  12. 6 tests were from samples taken from the pub Le Chic and no DNA useful for comparison was found.
  13. 50 tests were from samples taken from the defendants or defendant’s items during arrests or likely at the police station. Of these, 6 tests yielded DNA compatible only with Guede’s DNA, 8 tests yielded DNA compatible only with Knox’s DNA, 1 test yielded DNA compatible with a combination of Knox and Sollecito’s DNA, 2 tests yielded DNA compatible only with Lumumba’s DNA, 4 tests yielded DNA compatible only with Sollecito’s DNA, 1 test yielded DNA of an unknown male and the remaining did not yield DNA useful for comparison.
  14. Of the 82 tests yielding DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA at the cottage, 4 samples were taken from the corridor floor, 5 were taken from the kitchen/dining floor, 66 were taken from Ms. Kercher’s room and clothing, 1 was taken from the floor in Romanelli’s room and 6 were taken from the small bathroom.
  15. 17 tests yielded unmatchable DNA, with 6 tests yielding DNA compatible with 3 different females and 11 tests yielded DNA compatible with 7 different males. 13 of these samples were found in tissue paper outside the cottage and on cigarette butts in the ashtray in the cottage kitchen.

DNA testing- specific

(Dr. Stefanoni Genetic Test, SAL report, Dr. Stefanoni slide presentation, RIS Berti & Barni 2013 report)
  1. Ms. Kercher's DNA was found on the kitchen knife at Sollecito's apartment. Her DNA was found in a groove towards the cutting edge of the blade. The groove is part of a series of noticeable scratches running parallel along the blade.
  2. Knox’s DNA was found on the top of the handle of the same knife.
  3. A second sample of Knox’s DNA was also found on the same knife, where the blade goes into the handle. This second sample was an LCN sample of mixed DNA, and was statistically determined to be Knox’s DNA. (RIS Berti & Barni 2013 report)
  4. DNA mixture compatible with Knox's and Sollecito's DNA was found on another stained pocket knife that Sollecito had.
  5. DNA mixture compatible with Knox's and Sollecito's DNA was found on a cigarette butt in the cottage kitchen. Except for the bra clasp, no other samples at the cottage yielded Sollecito’s DNA.
  6. 7 samples yielded DNA mixtures compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA mixed with either Knox’s DNA, Sollecito’s DNA or Guede’s DNA.
  7. DNA mixture compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA and Sollecito’s DNA was found on the metal bra clasp. Sollecito’s Y haplotype was also on the metal bra clasp.
  8. DNA mixture compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA and Guede’s DNA was found on Ms. Kercher’s purse near the zipper.
  9. DNA mixture compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA and Knox’s DNA was found in three blood traces in the bathroom- on the bidet drain plate, in the sink and on a plastic container containing cotton swabs.
  10. DNA mixture compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA and Knox’s DNA was also found in a Luminol-revealed blood stain on the floor of Romanelli’s room, and in a Luminol-revealed bloody footprint in the corridor.
  11. A second Luminol-revealed blood stain in Romanelli’s room yielded Ms. Kercher’s DNA.
  12. A sample of blood from the small bathroom faucet yielded ONLY Knox’s DNA.
  13. Guede’s DNA was found on Ms. Kercher’s purse, the left sleeve of her sweat jacket, her bra strap, in Ms. Kercher and on the toilet paper in the large bathroom.

Other biological traces

(Dr. Stefanoni Genetic Test, SAL report, Dr. Stefanoni slide presentation)
  1. 3 samples of presumed blood traces were found in Knox's bedroom, on a pillow, on the night stand and on the wall by the head of the bed.
  2. No semen was found in Ms. Kercher.
  3. Guede left his feces in the toilet in the large bathroom.
  4. 3 fragments of toilet paper were found on Ms. Kercher’s desk; all three yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA.
  5. 2 tissue papers were found in Sollecito’s bedroom; both had blood that yielded DNA compatible with Sollecito’s DNA.
  6. A glass on Ms. Kercher’s night stand yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA.
  7. A strand of hair and a trace of blood were found on Romanelli’s window frame. The blood trace did not yield human DNA; the hair color was dark chestnut.
  8. 5 samples of blood traces on a towel and faucet in Guede’s bathroom all yielded Guede’s DNA.
  9. 4 samples of blood stains on Guede’s jeans and a museum ticket in his jeans also yielded Guede’s DNA.
  10. The range of digestive timing is, under normal circumstances, 3-5 hours. This range could easily be expanded depending on any number of factors, including stress and alcohol, both of which slow digestion. (Ronchi 2009)
  11. Based on body temperatures and the digestive process, the time of death range was estimated between 20:00 of November 1st and 04:00 of November 2nd, with the probability that the time of death occurred around 23:00 of November 1st. (Lalli 2009)

Luminol traces

(Dr. Stefanoni Genetic Test, SAL report, Dr. Stefanoni slide presentation)
  1. 1 sample of a Luminol-revealed blood trace was taken from Guede’s apartment.
  2. 9 samples of Luminol-revealed blood traces were taken from the cottage, including Knox’s room, the corridor and Romanelli’s room.
  3. Knox's and Ms. Kercher's DNA was found on the Luminol-revealed blood stain in Romanelli's room.
  4. Knox's and Ms. Kercher's DNA was found mixed in a Luminol-revealed bloody right footprint in the corridor.
  5. 14 samples of Luminol-revealed blood traces were taken from Sollecito's apartment.
  6. 6 samples were taken from Sollecito’s bathroom, including the door, floor and shower basin.
  7. 3 samples were taken from Sollecito’s bedroom, including the door and floor.
  8. 5 samples were taken from the floor of Sollecito’s kitchen.
  9. 2 of the Luminol-revealed samples taken from Sollecito’s apartment yielded DNA compatible with a mixture of Sollecito’s and Knox’s DNA. 1 sample yielded DNA compatible with Knox’s DNA.
  10. 1 sample yielded an unknown male’s DNA (unmatchable).


(Dr. Stefanoni Genetic Test, SAL report, Dr. Stefanoni slide presentation)
  1. Of the over 480 tests prepared on samples, 93 of these constituted hairs or fibers. 86 were human hairs of varying length, in varying colors. The most significant colors noted were black, blonde, chestnut, light chestnut and red chestnut.
  2. Only 3 hairs yielded DNA; all 3 hairs yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA. All 3 hairs were chestnut colored and over 15 cm long.
  3. 35 hairs were chestnut in color; the vast majority of these were found in Ms. Kercher’s room. 2 were also found on a kitchen sponge at Sollecito’s apartment.
  4. 7 hairs were black in color. 6 of these were 4 cm long or less, and so likely Guede’s hair. 4 of these were on the duvet and 1 was on the mattress cover, both in Ms. Kercher’s room. 1 was also on a sponge at Sollecito’s apartment.
  5. 21 blonde hairs were analyzed, and were likely Knox’s hairs. Most were found at Sollecito’s apartment, 10 on a sponge in the kitchen and 5 on a sweater.
  6. Of the 6 blonde hairs found at the cottage, 2 were on the duvet, 1 was inside the small bathroom sink, 1 was on Ms. Kercher’s purse and 1 was on her mattress cover.
  7. 4 light chestnut hairs were found. 3 of these were 9 cm long or less. 1 was found on the kitchen sponge; 1 was found on the bra and one was found on Ms. Kercher’s sweat jacket. Sollecito had light chestnut colored hair.

Witnesses on night of November 1st

  1. Jovana Popovic saw Knox and Sollecito at Sollecito’s apartment around 17:45. She saw Knox again at Sollecito’s apartment around 20:40. (Popovic 2009)
  2. Sophie Purton accompanied Ms. Kercher near to the cottage apartment Ms. Kercher rented. They parted company shortly before 21:00. (Purton 2009)
  3. Antonio Curatolo, who habitually lived at piazza Grimana, noticed Knox and Sollecito at the far end of the piazza 3-4 times between roughly 21:30 to 23:00. He noticed them whenever he stopped reading to smoke a cigarette. He noticed they talked quietly and at times animatedly. He noticed they stayed mostly in the same place at the piazza. He noticed Sollecito go to the railing of the piazza that overlooks the intersection where the car breakdown took place. (Curatolo 2009)
  4. A car broke down at an intersection very close to the cottage, in front of the cottage driveway gate and below the piazza Grimana terrace. The breakdown occurred at roughly 22:20, and lasted until the car was towed at roughly 23:15. The four witnesses involved neither heard nor saw commotion coming from the cottage. This includes the driver of the broke down car who waited outside the car from roughly 22:30 to 23:15 as well as a lady who sat in a second car facing east in front of the garage car park entrance, closer to the cottage. None of them heard a scream. (Coletta, Salsiccioli, Occhipinti 2009)
  5. Alessandra Formica noted that around 22:30-22:40, while descending the steps flanking piazza Grimana, a possibly dark skinned person ran into her boyfriend. She also noted the car breakdown as they went to the parking garage. (Formica 2009)
  6. Giampolo Lombardi, the tow truck driver, was close to the cottage from roughly 23:00 to 23:15. He did not see or hear any commotion from the cottage. He noticed a dark car parked in the cottage driveway, outside the gate, and noticed that the cottage driveway gate was ajar. (Lombardi 2009)
  7. Hekuran Kokomani saw Knox, Sollecito and Guede on the road in front of the cottage, though the time and date are not certain. He saw Knox had a green purse and she wielded a large knife with two hands. He saw Sollecito wield a knife. Guede asked to rent his car for 250 euros. (Kokomani 2009)
  8. Around 22:00 Antonella Monacchia went to sleep and was later awakened by a man and women shouting for a few moments, followed by a women screaming. The scream compelled her to look out the window but she saw no one. She estimated time of the scream was around 23:00. (Monacchia 2009)
  9. Around 21:00 Nara Capezzali went to bed. Due to diuretics she was taking at the time, she routinely awoke around 23:00-23:30 to go to the bathroom. While going to the bathroom, she heard a women scream. She looked out the window but saw no one. A few moments later, she heard running on the metal stairs leading from the parking lot to the street terrace on via di Melo, followed by running on the gravel driveway of the cottage. (Capezzali 2009)
  10. Around 23:00 Maria Dramis went to bed and sometime afterwards, she heard running footsteps pass by her window on via di Melo, the road that leads to the terrace where the metal stairs go down to the parking lot. She estimated this happened around 23:30. (Dramis 2009)
  11. Hicham Khiri and Francesco Bacelli were at the garage across from the cottage around 00:15 on the early morning of November 2nd and heard nothing. (Mignini closing arguments 2009)
  12. Alessandra Simoneschi heard a scream that changed into a kind of laugh and other strange sounds while walking home near the cottage around 1:00 on the early morning of November 2nd. (Mignini closing arguments 2009)
  13. Marco Quintavalle saw Knox at around 7:45 in the morning of November 2nd waiting outside his store while he opened it. He saw her go to the cleaning section, but did not see if she purchased anything. He saw she looked tired and had on a hat, grey coat, jeans and a light blue scarf, clothing that can be seen in a crime scene photo of Knox’s bed on November 2nd. (Quintavalle 2009)

Cellular phones

  1. Ms. Kercher had an “English” cell phone, purchased in England, which used the Italian Wind network in international roaming mode, and which she used to stay in constant contact with her family, as her mother was ill. (Romanelli 2009)
  2. Ms. Kercher also had an “Italian” cell phone using the Vodafone network. This phone was given to her by Filomena Romanelli, for Ms. Kercher to be use ‘locally’ so Ms. Kercher could avoid ‘long distance’ expenses on the “English” phone to make local Italian phone calls. (Romanelli 2009)
  3. Romanelli testified that Ms. Kercher always kept both her phones with her, particularly the “English” cell phone. (Romanelli 2009)
  4. At 20:18 on November 1st, Knox received a text message from Lumumba informing her not to go to work. (Tacconi 2009, Knox cell phone records)
  5. At 20:35 Knox replied to Lumumba’s text message. (Tacconi 2009, Knox cell phone records)
  6. Knox testified that she turned her cell phone off around 20:45 on November 1st and turned it on around 12:00 of November 2nd. (Knox 2009)
  7. At 20:56, 21:58 and 22:00 on November 1st, dialing attempts were made on Ms. Kercher’s “English” phone. It is not clear whether these were intentional or accidental.
  8. At 22:13 a cell phone internet connection was made on Ms. Kercher’s “English” cell phone for 8-9 seconds. It is not clear whether this was intended or not. (Latella 2009)
  9. At 00:10 on November 2nd, Ms. Kercher's “English” cell phone received a call through a coverage route incompatible with the cottage, a coverage route which instead covered the garden of the villa 950 meters away from the cottage. (Latella 2009)
  10. On November 2nd, both of Ms. Kercher’s cell phones were found in that garden by the villa occupants and taken to the Postal Police. (Bartolozzi 2009)
  11. Ms. Kercher’s “Italian” phone was found first and taken to the Postal Police around 11 AM. (Bartolozzi 2009)
  12. Ms. Kercher’s “English” phone was found about an hour later and taken the Postal Police over an hour later. (Bartolozzi 2009)
  13. Guede had no reason to take Ms. Kercher’s phones and then discard them. (Nencini Motivations report)
  14. At 12:07 on November 2nd, Knox called Ms. Kercher’s English phone for 16 seconds but did not leave a message. (Knox cell phone records)
  15. At 12:08 Knox called Romanelli to describe “strange things” at the cottage. (Knox cell phone records)
  16. At 12:11 Knox called both of Ms. Kercher’s cell phones for less than 4 seconds, and therefore with not enough time to leave a message. (Knox cell phone records)
  17. Romanelli called Knox three more times before Knox responded the 3rd time at 12:34.
  18. At 12:47 Knox called her mom in Seattle for 1.5 minutes on November 2nd, though she testified in court to not remembering this call. (Knox cell phone records, Knox 2009)
  19. Knox had phone contacts and text messages with drug dealers before and after the murder. (Knox cell phone and text message records)
  20. At 20:42 on November 1st, Sollecito spoke with his father. (Sisani 2009)
  21. At 23:14 Sollecito’s father sent a text message to Sollecito. Sollecito did not receive it until early 06:02 the following morning of November 2nd. (Latella, Sisani 2009)
  22. At 09:24 on November 2nd Sollecito spoke to his father for nearly 4 minutes. (Sisani 2009)
  23. At 12:35 Sollecito recharged his phone which was now at the cottage. (Sisani 2009)
  24. At 12:40 Sollecito spoke with his father for 67 seconds. (Sisani 2009)
  25. At 12:50 Sollecito spoke with his sister for 39 seconds. (Sisani 2009)
  26. At 12:51 and 12:54 Sollecito made 112 calls to the Carabinieri, indicating they saw a burglary had occurred, they saw blood but that nothing was taken. (Ceppitelli, Latella 2009)


  1. Filomena Romanelli’s computer exhibited hard disk problems on the evening of November 2nd, when Romanelli was at the police station. This was before any of the police had analyzed Sollecito’s and Knox’s computers. (Gregori 2009)
  2. Sollecito’s Macbookpro showed no human activity after 21:10 on November 1 until 5:32 in the morning on November 2nd, when someone used it play music for a half hour. (Gregori 2009)
  3. Sollecito’s 2nd computer, Knox’s computer, Ms. Kercher’s computer all had hard disk problems, making data difficult to retrieve. (Trotta 2009)
  4. Lumumba’s computer was analyzed at the same time as the other computers and had no issues. (Trotta 2009)


(crime scene photos)
  1. The cottage had a driveway gate. The driveway gate could be opened by key, or via an electronic ‘buzzer’ release via an intercom system inside the cottage. If someone did not have a key, they could ring a buzzer at the gate and speak to anyone in the cottage via the intercom, and the person inside the cottage could ‘ring’ open the gate. This system is very common in Italy.
  2. The cottage had an upper apartment inhabited by 4 young women and basement apartment, inhabited by 4 young men.
  3. The upper apartment front door had a security grille that was apparently not being used. (Romanelli 2009)
  4. The front door latch was faulty and required deadbolt operation by key, both internally and externally, to keep the door closed. (Romanelli 2009)
  5. The front door showed no signs of damage or attempts to break in. (Nencini Motivations report, crime scene photos).
  6. The dining/kitchen area showed no signs of struggle. An empty purse was on the kitchen table and the dish rack had different espresso coffeemakers.
  7. The clothes washer was found with humid clothing inside, including two towels.
  8. Mezzetti’s room and the large bathroom had no blood traces.
  9. Guede’s feces were found in the large bathroom.
  10. Blood traces were on the kitchen/dining room floor, the corridor floor and in various places in the small bathroom.
  11. Ms. Kercher’s bedroom door was found closed and locked.
  12. Ms. Romanelli’s room appeared ransacked, and one of her windows broken, with a 4 kg, 20 cm long rock found partially in a clothing bag on the floor.
  13. Knox’s room appeared normal.

Discovery of the murder- Knox’s version

(Knox’s email of November 4, 2007)
  1. Knox claimed in an 11/4/07 email to friends and family that she awoke at 10:30 on November 2nd, and went to the cottage. She apparently did not notice the broken window of Romanelli’s room from the outside while approaching and entering the cottage.
  2. She found the front door open, with no one inside. She closed the door, but without locking it (knowing the wind could blow the door open any moment.)
  3. She claimed Romanelli’s bedroom door was closed, though Sollecito would later claim the door was open. It is not clear why she did not check any of the closed doors in the apartment at this time, having found the front door open and no one inside.
  4. She undressed and went to the small bathroom, but did not notice the blood traces on the mat, sink, light switch or elsewhere.
  5. She took a shower, alone, with the door unlocked, knowing the front door could blow open at any moment.
  6. Only after she took the shower did she notice the blood traces in the bathroom, which she attributed to Ms. Kercher having ‘menstrual issues’, though Ms. Kercher’s bedroom door was closed and Ms. Kercher did not respond to Knox’s calling out.
  7. Knox then dressed and went to dry her hair in the large bathroom. Once she finished blow drying her hair, she noticed feces in the toilet. Apparently, she did not notice any smell the entire time she was blow drying her hair.
  8. She then took a mop back to Sollecito’s apartment to help clean up a water spill on the kitchen floor (that happened the night before, apparently), and only after they cleaned the kitchen floor and had breakfast, did she tell Sollecito about the ‘strange’ things she saw at the cottage.
  9. Sollecito suggested she call Romanelli, which Knox did. Knox then claimed she called both Ms. Kercher’s phones, on Romanelli’s insistence, claiming “the first time I called her English phone it rang, and then sounded as if there was a disturbance but no one answered, then I called the Italian phone and it just kept ringing, no answer. I called her English phone again and this time an English voice told me her phone was out of service.” Cell phone records disprove this entire sequence.
  10. Cell phone records show that at 12:07 Knox made a 16 second call to Ms. Kercher’s English phone first, then at 12:08 Knox called Romanelli and spoke for over a minute, without mentioning she had just already tried calling Ms. Kercher’s English phone. Then after speaking to Romanelli, at 12:11 Knox made a 3 second “it just kept ringing” call to Ms. Kercher’s Italian phone and at 12:11 again Knox made a 4 second call to Ms. Kercher’s English phone, wherein somehow the phone rings and a voice says her phone was out of service” all in 4 seconds.
  11. Romanelli called Ms. Kercher’s phones as well and testified that the Italian phone had the automated message, while Ms. Kercher’s English phone rang without going to voicemail. (Romanelli 2009)
  12. In addition, Knox claimed to Romanelli she was at the cottage when she made these calls, when in fact she was at Sollecito’s place. (The cottage and Sollecito’s apartment are covered by different cell phone towers.)
  13. Knox claimed in her email that she and Sollecito went back to the cottage, and only then did Knox open Romanelli’s bedroom door and discover the mess inside. She saw the broken window, and the computer, sitting on her desk “like it always was”, but apparently Knox did not notice the glass fragments on top of the computer.
  14. Knox then checked the rest of the house and found nothing was missing, apparently.
  15. She then tried Ms. Kercher’s door. Knox first thought Ms. Kercher was still asleep but then she “knocked louder and louder until I was really banging on her door and shouting her name, no response, panicing, I ran out onto our terrace to see if maybe I could see over the ledge into her room from the window, but I couldn’t see in, bad angle. I then went into the bathroom where I where I had dried my hair and looked really quickly into the toilet. In my panic I thought I hadn’t seen anything there, which to me meant whoever was in my house had been there when I had been there. As it turns out the police told me later that the toilet was full and that the shit had just fallen to the bottom of the toilet so I didn’t see it. I ran outside and down to our neighbor’s door. The lights were out but I banged on the door anyway. I wanted to ask them if they had heard anything the night before, but no one was home. I ran back into the house. In the living room, Raffaele told me he wanted to see if he could break down Meredith’s door. He tried, and cracked the door, but we couldn’t open it. It was then that we decided to call the cops… He (Raffaele) called his sister for advice and then called the Carabinieri. I then called Filomena (Romanelli) who said she would be on her way home immediately.” This is Knox’s account only two days after the events had occurred, yet this entire account is belied by cell phone records and crime scene photos.
  16. Cell phone records show that Romanelli attempted to call Knox at 12:12 (less than a minute after Knox made the two calls on Ms. Kercher’s phone). Knox’s phone was still at Sollecito’s place. Notably, Romanelli called for 36 seconds, but Knox failed to respond. (Knox cell phone records)
  17. Romanelli called Knox again at 12:20, for 65 seconds (compare with the 3 and 4 second Knox calling Ms. Kercher’s phones), with no reply from Knox. Knox’s cell phone was still at Sollecito’s place. (Knox cell phone records)
  18. Romanelli testified that she finally spoke to Knox at around 12:30 (cell phone records reveal 12:34), and cell phone records show that Knox’s cell phone was now at the cottage. So Knox and Sollecito must have done all that she described above (banging on the door, attempting to kick it down, checking from the balcony, going downstairs, being in a total panic), in only a few short minutes, before Romanelli called, since it take roughly 5 minutes to walk from Sollecito’s apartment to the cottage.
  19. But, contrary to what Knox claimed, the police calls by Sollecito were made 12:51 and 12:54, nearly 20 minutes after Knox and Romanelli had spoken. And Romanelli called Knox, not the other way around. (Knox cell phone records)
  20. So apparently, Knox was in such a panic that she and Sollecito, after doing all the above and speaking to Romanelli, waited a full 20 minutes (if not more) before calling the Carabinieri.
  21. Meanwhile, Knox spoke to her mom at 12:47 for roughly 90 seconds, a conversation she failed to mention in her email (two days after the discovery of the murder) and which during court testimony she claimed to have forgotten.
  22. And Sollecito was so concerned he spoke to his father and sister before calling the Carabinieri.
  23. Crime scene photos also show the feces in the toilet were clearly and easily visible in the toilet, and not ‘at the bottom of the toilet’ as Knox described.

Discovery of the murder- confirmed version

  1. Postal police and witness testimony, comprising 7 people (Bartolozzi, Battistelli, Marsi, Romanelli, Grande, Altieri, Zaroli) confirmed the following sequence: A lady residing in the garden villa (Elisabetta Lana) came to the Postal Police office and met with the head officer Bartolozzi around 11:00 on November 2nd to make a deposition about a fake ‘bomb scare’ they had received the night before. While doing so, Lana brought Ms. Kercher’s Italian phone which her son had found in their garden. She handed the phone over at 11:30. (Bartolozzi 2009, Alessandro Biscarini 2009)
  2. At just before 12:00 on November 2nd, Bartolozzi dispatched two Postal Police officers (Battistelli and Marsi) to the cottage to find Filomena Romanelli, to verify that the cell phone found belonged to her. (Bartolozzi 2009)
  3. At 12:08 Knox called Romanelli and spoke of about strange things at the cottage. Romanelli began to worry and immediately called Ms. Kercher’s phones.
  4. At 12:10 Lana called Bartolozzi, indicating her daughter had found a second phone, Ms. Kercher’s English phone, in their villa garden. (Bartolozzi 2009, Fiammetta Biscarini 2009)
  5. At 12:12 Not receiving responses from Ms. Kercher, Romanelli called Knox, and tried calling Knox again at 12:20. (Romanelli 2009, cell phone records)
  6. At 12:34 Romanelli spoke to Knox and Knox reported the apparent break-in into Romanelli’s room. Immediately after this, Romanelli contacted her boyfriend Zaroli to go to the cottage and see what was happening. (Romanelli, Grande 2009)
  7. At 12:34 Zaroli contacted Altieri to come and pick him up and go to the cottage. (Zaroli, Altieri 2009)
  8. At 12:35 Battistelli and Marsi arrived at the cottage and found Knox and Sollecito sitting on the garden wall by the cottage entrance. They testified that Knox and Sollecito showed them the mess in Romanelli’s room and Knox showed the officers the blood traces in the small bathroom. (Battistelli, Marsi 2009)
  9. At 12:46 Bartolozzi started a 2nd deposition with Lana and her daughter, who handed over Ms. Kercher’s 2nd phone. (Bartolozzi 2009)
  10. At 12:47 Knox called her mom in Seattle for 88 seconds. (Knox cell phone records, Knox 2009)
  11. At around this time, Zaroli and Altieri arrived at the cottage. They looked at Romanelli’s room with the Postal Police. Zaroli checked the nightstand drawer to see that the jewelry was still here. Altieri checked the window from the outside, wondering how entry into the 2nd story window could be possible. Zaroli and Battistelli noticed the glass on the clothing. (Battistelli, Zaroli 2009)
  12. At 12:51 and 12:54 Sollecito made the 112 calls to the Carabinieri police, claiming “nothing had been stolen”, thought this could not have been known. (Ceppitelli 2009)
  13. Zaroli and Altieri testified that Knox claimed Ms. Kercher normally locked her room, and so there was no real concern about the locked door. (Zaroli, Altieri 2009)
  14. Romanelli and her friend Grande arrived at the cottage. Romanelli checked her room and noticed the glass on her computer and clothing. She remarked that the thief was stupid for not having taken anything and getting glass on top of everything. Battistelli doubted that the break-in was real. (Romanelli, Grande, Battistelli 2009)
  15. Battistelli spoke to Romanelli about the phones they had found, which caused Romanelli to worry again about Meredith, indicating Ms. Kercher never left her phones. (Romanelli, Battistelli 2009)
  16. Then Romanelli learned that Ms. Kercher’s door was locked and Romanelli insisted Battistelli and Marsi break the door down, indicating that Ms. Kercher never closed or locked her bedroom door. (Romanelli, Battistelli 2009)
  17. At 13:00 Battistelli called Bartolozzi to explain the situation and Bartolozzi indicated they could proceed to break down Ms. Kercher’s bedroom door. (Bartolozzi 2009)
  18. Battistelli told Romanelli they could not take responsibility for breaking down the door, but they were okay if Romanelli did so. (Battistelli, Romanelli 2009)
  19. Romanelli asked Zaroli and Altieri to break down the door. (Romanelli, Zaroli, Altieri 2009)
  20. Altieri broke down the door and Romanelli saw Meredith’s foot from under the duvet. Altieri, Zaroli and Romanelli saw the room. Knox, by her own admission, was in the kitchen and could not have seen the murder. No one knows where Sollecito was, though his fingerprints were found on Mezzetti’s door. (Altieri, Zaroli, Romanelli, Grande, Knox’s 11/4/07 email)
  21. Battistelli ordered everyone out and called Bartolozzi to advise him of the murder. (Battistelli, Bartolozzi 2009)

Guede’s statements and lies

(Guede depositions and Micheli Motivations report)
  1. Guede, over multiple statements and depositions, consistently indicated that Ms. Kercher was fully clothed when he abandoned her.
  2. Guede, over multiple statements and depositions, changed the location, environment, context and manner of his alleged first kiss with Ms. Kercher the night before the murder.
  3. Guede claimed he had appointments with friends in the early evening of November 1st. These claims were all negated by friends.
  4. Guede claimed he had an appointment at 21:00 with Ms. Kercher on the night of the murder.
  5. Ms. Kercher’s friends all testified Ms. Kercher never met Guede on the night prior to the murder, as they attended bars together.
  6. Ms. Kercher’s friends testified Ms. Kercher never mentioned any appointment with Guede. Instead Ms. Kercher stated she had wanted to retire early due to their having spent a long night partying for Halloween.
  7. Guede expressed sexual interest in Knox twice: once at a party at the cottage and a second time to the police upon his arrival at the Perugia Questura. (Follain)
  8. From his first statements, Guede hinted that Sollecito had killed Ms. Kercher.
  9. From his first deposition, Guede hinted at Knox’s presence at the cottage.
  10. Guede indicated that upon being let in by Ms. Kercher, he found her upset because her rent money was missing, and Ms. Kercher went searching throughout the cottage for her rent money.
  11. He then claimed he got her to relax and they kissed, proceeded to heavy petting, partially stripped, then stopped due to a lack of a condom.
  12. Guede indicated he had to go to the bathroom because of a bad kebab he ate.
  13. Guede indicated that while he was in the bathroom, the doorbell rang and Knox entered the cottage and she and Ms. Kercher started arguing over rent money.
  14. Guede consistently stated in all his depositions that he heard Ms. Kercher scream and this caused him to jump out of the bathroom without flushing the toilet.
  15. Guede claimed that a man killed Ms. Kercher with a knife, and that this man said Guede would be found guilty of the crime.
  16. Guede claimed that he tried to staunch the blood from Ms. Kercher’s fatal wound with a towel, then panicked and left her to die.
  17. In 2011, Guede wrote a letter in which he confirmed that Sollecito and Knox had murdered Ms. Kercher. This letter was read during the Hellmann-Zanetti Appeal trial.

Sollecito’s statements and lies

  1. Two days after the discovery of the murder, Sollecito claimed to a journalist that he and Knox had been the first to discover Ms. Kercher’s body and that there was blood everywhere, even though he could not have seen the room interior. (Follain[1])
  2. Sollecito also claimed he and Knox attended a party that night, apparently confusing that night with the prior night of Halloween. (Follain[1])
  3. Sollecito claimed to Zaroli and Romanelli that Ms. Kercher’s body had been covered in Vaseline. (Follain[2], Zaroli 2009)
  4. During his November 5th questioning by the police, Sollecito claimed he had made up a “bunch of lies” during previous questionings and claimed uncertainty whether Knox was with him the whole night of November 1st.[3]
  5. In a letter to his father dated 11/7/07, Sollecito also laid down a story about the night before the murder and the events leading up to the discovery of the murder. His account was similar to Knox’s, but different in some details to Knox’s, and in any case was belied by cell phone records, computer records and witness statements.
  6. Sollecito claimed he surfed the internet and may have watched a film and then received the goodnight text message from his father. But his computer showed no activity after 21:10 and he did not receive the text message until 6:00 the following morning.
  7. Sollecito did not mention that his computer was used to play music for half hour at 5:30 the following morning.
  8. Sollecito failed to mention the 4 minute long phone call with his father at 9:24 that morning, claiming he was sleeping at that time.
  9. Sollecito failed to mention Knox’s phone call to Romanelli, done at his apartment, prior to their going to the cottage.
  10. Sollecito claimed they brought the mop that Knox had brought over earlier that morning, back to the cottage, and that apparently, Knox put the mop bucket in another room (rather than at the entrance.) Apparently there was much interest in this mop.
  11. Sollecito claimed he found Romanelli’s bedroom door wide open, while Knox claimed it was still closed until she opened it.
  12. Sollecito claimed he restrained Knox from climbing from the terrace to access Ms. Kercher’s bedroom window.
  13. Sollecito claimed that only then did Knox call Romanelli and try Ms. Kercher’s phones, whereas these calls had taken place nearly 30 minutes earlier.
  14. Sollecito claimed Knox was panicked about the lack of feces in the toilet she had seen earlier, and apparently he did not see them either, though they are clearly visible in the crime scene photos.
  15. Sollecito claimed he attempted to break Ms. Kercher’s door down, then he called his sister, but he failed to mention calling his father for a minute prior to calling his sister.
  16. Sollecito claimed on November 11, 2007 that Knox went with an Argentinean guy to laundry mat on the morning of November 2nd to clean up things.
  17. Sollecito then claimed Knox continued to lie.
  18. At the first preliminary hearing, Sollecito stated he never again wanted to see Knox.
  19. Sollecito expressed concern that Guede might say 'strange things' about him just days after Guede's arrest.
  20. Sollecito gave spontaneous court testimony that he pricked Ms. Kercher's while cooking at his apartment, even though Ms. Kercher had never been to his apartment. He ultimately retracted this statement on Twitter.
  21. Sollecito later claimed he was at his computer the night of November 1st, sending emails. Proof of this claimed activity has never been found or presented.

Knox’s statements and lies

  1. Knox expressed concern about the kitchen knife at Sollecito's apartment.[4]
  2. Knox broke down when shown the knife drawer at the cottage. (Napoleoni 2009)
  3. Knox placed herself at piazza Grimana (to meet Lumumba) at around the time Curatolo saw her. (Knox's statement to police, November 6, 2007, Curatolo 2009)
  4. Knox placed herself at the scene of the crime after an apparent breakdown during police questioning. (Knox's statement to police, November 6, 2007)
  5. Knox confessed to hearing Ms. Kercher scream. (Knox's statement to police, November 6, 2007)
  6. Knox initially blamed her boss Patrick Lumumba for sexually assaulting and murdering Ms. Kercher. She stated and verified this in two different written statements she prepared for the police in the early morning of November 6th. (Knox's statement to police, November 6, 2007)
  7. Knox followed up with two more ‘memorials to the police on November 6th and 7th, expressing doubts, but stating these were her ‘best truths’ and never retracting her claims. (Knox's statement to police, November 6, 2007)
  8. Knox never officially retracted these statements, and she was later convicted of calumny, both at trial, during appeal and at final Cassazione ruling.[5]

Problems with single attacker hypothesis in general

  1. Ms. Kercher screamed only once, indicating her mouth was being covered for most of the attack.
  2. Monacchia heard a man and woman shouting before Ms. Kercher’s scream.
  3. Capezzali heard footsteps running in different directions from the cottage after the scream.
  4. Ms. Kercher had taken martial arts courses and was physically strong.
  5. Yet, Ms. Kercher sustained very few and very minor defensive wounds. Typically, victims of a single assailant knife attack have far more defensive wounds.
  6. Knife wounds and bruises around the neck and face indicate the attack was prolonged and not a quick ‘blitz attack’.
  7. Ms. Kercher was sexually assaulted during the attack, not afterwards, as indicated by internal bruising, and testified to by two doctors.
  8. Some of Ms. Kercher’s clothing was removed during the attack. A single attacker could not restrain Ms. Kercher while removing her clothing, and covering her mouth.
  9. Someone came back after she was dead to rearrange the crime scene: remove Ms. Kercher’s bra; move her body onto the pillow; cover her with the duvet; go through her purse; throw receipts from her purse onto the duvet; place the purse on her bed; close the door; lock the door and take the key and not leave any bloody shoeprints of this.
  10. Someone wiped the bathroom and corridor floor so that the bathmat had only half a footprint, and other blood stains and bloodied footprints were revealed with Luminol.

Problems with Guede as single attacker hypothesis

  1. Guede had been to the cottage several times, and he knew the young men who lived in the lower apartment. He could have easily determined if they were going to be away that weekend. Having lived in Perugia for 15 years, Guede also knew that two of the young women in the upper apartment were NOT Italian (a US and UK citizen) and so might possibly have stayed behind for the holiday weekend. Yet he chose to break-in to the young women’s apartment rather than the young men’s apartment, apparently without regard to the likelihood that either one or both of them could return at any time to catch him in the act.
  2. Guede apparently choose to break-in around or before 21:00 (rather than wait until after midnight) on a holiday evening, when the car park just across the street would have significant traffic, with plenty of passersby parking their car and going to downtown restaurants (see Formica 2009).
  3. Guede chose not to try and break-in through the front entrance door, which he could have easily jimmied.
  4. Guede chose not to try and break-in through a French door at the back of the cottage, well hidden from anyone on the road or on the car park terrace. This French door was easily accessible via a quick one-story climb up a grate and grille, and it was the break-in point for at least one burglary at the cottage roughly a year after the murder.
  5. Guede ignored all the easy access points to the lower apartment, which he could ascertain was empty, and instead chose a second story window that was in full view of anyone on the road or at the car park, and was also well lit by car park lights at night.
  6. Guede chose a window with shutters that were closed, without any way of knowing whether he could break-in through that window once he opened the shutters.
  7. Having lived in Italy for 15 years, Guede certainly knew those types of windows and he knew that if the inner scuri were latched, there would be no way for him to break in through that window, unless he had a coring drill or an axe. Yet, he chose to break-in through that window nonetheless.
  8. Guede chose to scale a wall with sneakers, rather than climbing shoes, without leaving any trace of mud or grass on the wall (and no ladder was found).
  9. Guede was able to dexterously hang or balance himself on a few centimeters of stone ledge in order to open the shutters. He did so without being seen by anyone passing by on the street or the car park, at some time between 20:45- 21:00.
  10. Guede was then able to climb back down to the ground and climb up to the parking rampart without being noticed by anyone.
  11. Guede, rather than choose a small stone that he could easily throw with some precision, instead chose a 4 kilo, 20 cm long stone mass to toss at a window whose clear glass width was roughly the same size (28 cm wide).
  12. Guede managed to lob the stone with such precision that he broke the glass in one shot.
  13. Guede managed to lob the stone so gingerly that he barely nicked the inner scuro, only broke the bottom portion of the glass and the stone itself only broke a small piece off when it landed on the hard marble granule tile flooring in Romanelli’s room.
  14. Guede managed to fortuitously land the rock partially into a shopping bag already on the floor.
  15. Guede then climbed down the rampart and climbed back up the wall a second time, again without leaving any trace of mud or grass on the wall.
  16. Guede’s throw was so light that absolutely no broken glass landed on the dirt and grass below the window. All the glass pieces that fell on the exterior sill all stayed there.
  17. When Guede climbed up and hoisted himself onto the window sill, no glass fell onto the grass below.
  18. Guede did not cut his hands on any of the glass on the sill.
  19. Guede managed to climb in without tracking any dirt or grass on Romanelli’s floor.
  20. Apparently, Guede left Romanelli’s shutters exactly as he found them, and did not need to turn on the light in Romanelli’s room, since the open shutters or the visible broken window would have been noticed by Ms. Kercher. Romanelli’s window faces the cottage driveway gate head-on, and the distance between the gate and the window is at least 20-30 paces.
  21. Once inside, Guede, rather than immediately seize the computer and camera that were in plain sight, Guede started emptying the closets of clothing and throwing clothes on the floor.
  22. Somehow, in his ransacking haste, Guede managed to get glass on top of the clothing and on top of the computer.
  23. Guede did not bother to check for jewelry in the nightstand drawer, or even consider the designer purse or glasses that were in Romanelli’s room.
  24. Apparently, Guede became so agitated by this hasty burglary attempt that he then had to stop and use the bathroom to relieve himself. Since no blood traces were found in the large bathroom, Guede could only have used the bathroom before the assault, and so apparently while committing the burglary.
  25. Apparently, Guede was careful enough to close Romanelli’s door before he went to the bathroom.
  26. Apparently, when Ms. Kercher returned home, she did not notice the open shutters, broken window, or hear any noise from the bathroom, while Guede played loud music on his Ipod and used the toilet.
  27. Ms. Kercher did not notice the mess in Ms. Romanelli’s room, apparently because Guede had been very careful to close that door.
  28. Apparently, Ms. Kercher did not hang out in the kitchen, where she might have eventually noticed someone was in the large bathroom, but instead she went straight to her room.
  29. Apparently, Guede must have heard this commotion even though he claimed he was playing loud music on his Ipod.
  30. Apparently, once out of the bathroom, Guede decided to go to Ms. Kercher’s room to assault her rather than escape unnoticed, either through the front door, the rear terrace French door or through Romanelli’s window.
  31. Apparently Guede preferred to escalate the crime from burglary to rape and murder at a moment’s notice.
  32. Apparently Guede decided to rape and kill Ms. Kercher in her bedroom, in a kind of ‘blitz attack’, since no other area of the cottage was disturbed.
  33. Apparently he did so having one or more knives on him, since Ms. Kercher was stabbed with two different knives in her neck.
  34. However, Guede first attempted to restrain Ms. Kercher since she had multiple bruises on her elbows, right arm, left thigh, neck and jaw.
  35. Somehow, Guede managed to remove some of Ms. Kercher’s clothing while restraining her arms and covering her mouth, since only one scream was heard.
  36. During this prolonged ‘blitz’ attack, Guede sexually assaulted Ms. Kercher, perhaps under knifepoint, while still covering her mouth, and apparently, she did not so much as scratch him, since no DNA traces were found under her nails.
  37. Then Guede stabbed Ms. Kercher on the right side of the neck.
  38. Ms. Kercher put up virtually no defense despite Guede keeping a knife to her neck and covering her mouth, since she had very few minor cuts on her hand. This is in complete contrast to typical single assailant knife attacks were victims frequently have extensive cuts on their hands and arms.
  39. At some point Ms. Kercher managed to free her mouth and screamed loudly and horrifically.
  40. Guede then fatally stabbed Ms. Kercher on the left side of her neck with a knife different from the first one.
  41. At this point, Guede had stepped in Ms. Kercher’s blood. So rather than run away immediately, he proceeded to remove his right shoe and went to the small bathroom to wash his right foot, apparently unconcerned that the police or Knox, could arrive at the cottage at any time.
  42. He managed to land half a bloody footprint of his right foot on the bathmat, without leaving any other of his right footprints anywhere near by.
  43. He also left blood traces in the bidet, sink and on a box of cotton swabs, which apparently he needed.
  44. Apparently, Knox and Sollecito had earlier walked around barefoot in bleach or some other Luminol reactive substance, but only in the corridor and only in Knox’s room. And only in a few select places. Yet neither of them could testify as to when this occurred and what was the substance.
  45. Guede was so adept at washing his right foot that his jeans did not track blood drops anywhere else.
  46. Guede was so concerned about his bloody right foot that he left his bloody handprint on the pillow.
  47. At this point, Guede must have decided to re-enter Romanelli’s room, though again he wound up taking nothing, neither the computer or camera or anything else.
  48. While in Romanelli’s room, Guede left the two blood stains on the floor, one exactly at a point where Knox’s DNA was also on the floor.
  49. Then, Guede must have realized it was important to clean those blood stains, since both were revealed with Luminol.
  50. After Guede carefully cleaned Romanelli’s floor, he must have thought it was a good idea to close Romanelli’s bedroom door again, since Knox claimed to have found the door closed the next day (though Sollecito said it was wide open).
  51. Guede apparently used towels to clean up some of Ms. Kercher’s blood in Ms. Kercher’s bedroom, but decided to leave his bloodied shoeprints visible on the floor.
  52. Then Guede, apparently still unafraid that someone might have heard the terrifying scream and had called the police, Guede continued to spend time in Ms. Kercher’s room. He decided to remove her bra, and then completely strip her down to her T shirt.
  53. Guede then decided to move Ms. Kercher’s body onto the bed sheet, towels and pillow, perhaps in the naïve hope of hiding his bloody shoeprints and handprint.
  54. He then decided not to wipe up his bloody shoeprints, even though towels and bed sheets were readily available for such a purpose.
  55. But, Guede did decide to use Knox’s night stand lamp to look for something under Ms. Kercher’s bed.
  56. Then Guede decided he would cover Ms. Kercher’s body with the duvet.
  57. Then he decided he would steal what he could from her purse, but in the meantime, he would throw a few receipts on the duvet.
  58. Guede was smart enough to use a sock to handle the purse straps, but managed to leave his DNA on the purse zipper anyway.
  59. Guede decided it would be best to take Ms. Kercher’s wallet, cell phones and keys, and to close her bedroom door and lock it.
  60. When Guede took the cell phones, perhaps he accidentally dialed the internet connection on Meredith’s English phone at 22:13 (which was done via the cell tower covering the cottage.) This means that Guede’s “blitz” attack and subsequent fumbling took over an hour. During all this time, he apparently had no concerns that the police or Knox could have arrived at the cottage.
  61. Guede managed to close Ms. Kercher’s bedroom door and lock it with the latch bolt key, without leaving any bloody shoeprints indicating that he turned around to do this in the corridor.
  62. But Guede did leave bloody shoeprints indicating he walked down the corridor and out the door.
  63. But Guede decided, or perhaps he forgot, to take Romanelli’s camera and computer.
  64. And Guede decided, or forgot, to leave his feces unflushed in the other bathroom.
  65. Guede, though he had Ms. Kercher’s keys, decided he would leave the front door open, even though up to now he had been careful to close all the other doors and windows he had traversed.
  66. He also decided to leave the cottage driveway gate ajar. (Lombardi 2009)
  67. And somehow he managed to run down the cottage driveway just before someone else ran up the metal steps of the car park. (Capezzali 2009)
  68. On his way home, Guede decided to take the long way around, and while walking he apparently decided to discard Ms. Kercher’s cell phones after all.

Additional problems with Guede as single attacker hypothesis

  1. The attack had to happen around 21:00 to 22:13, in order for Guede to be caught by Ms. Kercher already in the apartment. Yet no witnesses reported Ms. Kercher’s “horrifying” scream at this time.
  2. If Ms. Kercher screamed before 22:00, then Monacchia must have heard a different argument and woman’s scream, or must have been off in her timing by almost an hour.
  3. If Ms. Kercher screamed before 22:00, then Capezzali must have heard a different woman’s scream, or must have been off in her routine nightly trips to the bathroom, due to diuretics she was taking, by almost two hours.
  4. Dramis must have heard someone else running by her window.
  5. Curatolo apparently did not see Knox and Sollecito three or four times that evening in Piazza Grimana, but must have seen another couple or couples.
  6. Quintavalle apparently did not see Knox the following morning when he first opened his store, but saw another young girl with a pale face, blue eyes and clothing that matched what was found on Knox’s bed in crime scene photos.
  7. Kokomani apparently did not see the trio together that night on the road just outside the cottage. Or if he did, he saw Guede was with another young woman wielding a knife, and with another young man with glasses.
  8. The blood on the faucet was not at all Knox’s blood, but had to be Ms. Kercher’s blood, though in a form too diluted to register at all during DNA testing.
  9. It is another unfortunate circumstance that that blood stain happened to land exactly on a spot that contained Knox’s DNA, but from a source that was not blood.
  10. All the other traces of blood with mixes of Knox’s and Kercher’s DNA all happened exactly where Knox’s DNA happened to have been previously deposited, in some other fashion.
  11. The full profile of Ms. Kercher’s DNA on the knife happened by some unknown route of contamination or evidence planting.
  12. The full profile of Sollecito’s DNA and Y haplotype on the bra also happened by some unknown route of contamination or evidence planting.
  13. But, all the other 480+ DNA tests were acceptable.
  14. The black hair on the kitchen sponge at Sollecito’s place that matched in length the other black hairs found on Ms. Kercher’s duvet and mattress cover, got there by accident.
  15. The Luminol-revealed footprints happened previously when Knox and Sollecito walked in a puddle of Luminol reactive substance in the corridor, though neither of them remembered when or how this happened.
  16. Apparently Knox and Sollecito must have used the same substance at Sollecito’s apartment, though again, neither could recall with certainty how and what was used.
  17. The music played on Sollecito’s computer at 5:30 in the morning on November 2nd happened by accident.
  18. Sollecito’s cell phone accidentally turned itself on at 6:00 AM on November 2nd to receive the text message from his father.
  19. The police managed to destroy the hard drives of Sollecito’s, Knox’s and Ms. Kercher’s computer, as well as Romanelli’s computer, even without checking her hard drive.
  20. Knox’s and Sollecito’s behavior during the discovery of the murder and afterwards at the police station, in which they continuously kissed, snuggled, laughed, had fun with words like ‘minaccia’, made funny faces, did yoga and cartwheels, these were all perfectly normal for a young couple shocked by the death of a ‘friend’, to the point where others who were present thought they might be crazy.
  21. Knox’s stating that Ms. Kercher had died a slow death, that Ms. Kercher was found in a closet, that Ms. Kercher had been sexually assaulted before the police had confirmed this, that Ms. Kercher had screamed before anyone had mentioned this, and that she had met Mr. Lumumba at piazza Grimana at about the time Curatolo saw her at the piazza- these were all “lucky guesses” that unfortunately also incriminated her.
  22. Knox was so traumatized by her 2 hour police questioning during the night of November 5th and 6th, during which she spent most of her time willingly drawing maps and providing descriptions of all manner of potential “suspects”, that when confronted with her text message exchange with Mr. Lumumba, she immediately lost it and blamed him for the murder, though he was completely innocent.
  23. Knox remained so traumatized by this questioning that she went on to repeat these allegations twice more in writing, completely voluntarily, and helped the police to correct and edit their written translations of her words, and willingly signed these writings.
  24. Knox then went on to provide two more writings over the course of two more days, expressing the same series of events and qualifying them, with some uncertainty, as her ‘best truths’.
  25. Sollecito for his part was so innocent that he confessed to having told police a “pack of lies” during prior questioning.
  26. Sollecito and Knox were so sure of their innocence that they were unable to provide matching and adequately detailed accounts of their intimate night together prior to the murder. These accounts seem to indicate that either they ate early or later, had some type of meal with fish, where Knox saw a lot of fish blood on Sollecito’s hands, where they attempted to clean a broken drain pipe under the kitchen sink but decided to leave that until morning, but then decided to surf the web and send emails, but without leaving any trace of doing so, after which they smoked some pot and slept and perhaps made love, and perhaps they had a long shower where Sollecito cleaned Knox’s ears, but they have had difficulty remembering any of it, in any sort of detail.
  27. And Sollecito ultimately was not sure if Knox stayed with him the whole night, though he is convinced of her innocence.
  28. The Hellmann court was somehow correct, whereas the Matteini, Ricciarelli, Cassazione courts, the Micheli, Borsini-Belardi and Cassazione courts, and the Massei, Cassazione and Nencini courts were all mistaken in saying that Guede acted with others in the murder of Ms. Kercher.

Character traits

  1. Ms. Kercher took responsibilities, studies and relationships seriously
  2. Ms. Kercher was studying under an approved accredited university program.
  3. Ms. Kercher took a self defense course, had a strong character and would have defended herself. (Arlene Kercher 2009)
  4. Ms. Kercher had scruples about watering marijuana plants of the boys in the downstairs apartments.
  5. Ms. Kercher had close English girlfriends as well as Italian friends.
  6. Ms. Kercher made normal young adult choices.
  7. Knox abandoned work offers in Germany.
  8. Knox was not studying under an approved, accredited university program.
  9. Knox had few female friends.
  10. Knox had a number of male friends.
  11. Knox was in contact with drug dealers and was spending large amounts of cash.
  12. Knox had been ticketed for making noise and throw rocks at a party.
  13. Knox had played a break-in prank on a ‘friend’.
  14. Knox had written stories about a rape and violence.
  15. Knox lied to the police and lied in court.
  16. Sollecito had a knife fetish and always carried a knife with him.
  17. He was a habitual marijuana user.
  18. Sollecito had a collection of manga depicting sexual and graphic violence on women.
  19. Sollecito had been admonished by his school for having bestiality pornography.
  20. Sollecito had attempted injuring a girl in elementary school with scissors.
  21. Sollecito lied to the police and lied in court.
  22. Guede rented an apartment in Perugia and had lived there for over 15 years prior to the murder.
  23. Guede had not been arrested, though he had broken into an apartment while drunk at least once.
  24. Guede lied to the police.


  1. 1.0 1.1 John Follain: Death in Perugia: The Definitive Account of the Meredith Kercher case from her murder to the acquittal of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox, Hachette UK, 2011, ISBN 1848942079, 9781848942073, Part 1, chapt. 16
  2. Follain Part 1, chapt. 18
  3. See, for example, Aislinn Simpson: Suspect statements in Kercher murder case; The Daily Telegraph, London, November 7, 2007; Telegraph online
  4. See "I was there" page which concerns a recorded conversation between Amanda Knox and her parents on November 17, 2007. The knife had been recovered during the search of Sollecito's apartment the day before but was not yet tested. Knox says, "I'm very, very worried for this thing about the knife… because there is a knife from Raffaele... "
  5. In Judge Nencini's sentencing report he notes that "Amanda Marie Knox repeated the allegations before the magistrate, allegations which she never retracted in all the following days. This, even when finally freed from the clutches of the police and the prosecuting magistrate, she had the opportunity to talk with her lawyers and her family. To make such a very damaging denunciation meant causing the detention for numerous days of a person she knew to be innocent, completely indifferent to the human suffering she caused him."