I was there

From The Murder of Meredith Kercher
Jump to: navigation, search

Conversation between Amanda Knox and her parents November 17, 2007. [1] [2] The knife had been recovered during the search of Sollecito's apartment the day before but was not yet tested.

Amanda: Yes, there is a doctor. I took a medicine for a headache this morning, and now I feel better, but the reason I was crying yesterday evening is because there was this pressure on my head that wouldn't go away because I felt horrible, this person looked at me as if I was a horrible person and I collapsed.

Edda: Like I said, the lawyers believe that they are doing it on purpose, because they have nothing at all, so they are trying to put pressure on like when they interrogated you to see if you would say something more and so you have to keep calm and do not say anything to anyone.

Amanda: Yeah, when I was in the room with him I said what? ... (Laughs) and then when I returned to my room I was crying. I'm very, very worried for this thing about the knife… because there is a knife from Raffaele...

Curt: Well, here, here, here are the facts... we talked yesterday with the lawyer and asked him about the knife. Every time that they have to review an item we have an expert there that will review it with them. This is an example of... this knife of which they are talking about, they have never notified anything about the knife.

Edda: So, it's bullshit!

Amanda: Is it bullshit?

Edda: It's bullshit.

Curt: It's complete bullshit. It’s a total fabrication.

Edda: That's what they’re doing now. They are simply lying.

Curt: It's all a fabrication...

Edda: Yes, to make someone break down.

Amanda: It's stupid. I can't say anything but the truth, because I know I was there. I mean, I can't lie on this, there is no reason to do it.

Curt: Yeah, yeah, so what you have to do is not to talk about anything with anyone. Don't write anything. You may receive letters. Have you received letters or anything else?

Amanda: I'm getting loads of letters from admirers.

Edda: Well, people in Seattle, even your friends will start to write. They been asking me for some time, they want to send you things... probably many things can't get through, e... but...

Edda Mellas has claimed that when Knox said "I was there" she was referring to having been at Sollecito's house, and in an email to KIRO-FM in Seattle misquoted her daughter's above statement as follows: "Amanda was talking about being at Raf's house and said, 'I cannot believe they think I had anything to do with this, because I was there.' Again, meaning Raf’s house."[3]

Judge Massei considered an alternative translation of "knife" to "night" proposed by the defense consultants, who also offered that she was referring to being at Sollecito's apartment, but found the interpetation of "knife" to be correct and notes there is no mention of Sollecito in the conversation. [4] He finds Knox's concern about the knife to support the reliability of the victim's DNA on the blade.

Still with reference to this knife, it is considered appropriate to recall that in the room tapping [intercettazione ambientale] of November 17, 2007 Amanda, talking with her parents, after a brief mention of what had been reported on TV about the knife, turned to talk about this object using the following expressions: ‚I am very, I am very worried about this thing about the knife ... because there is a knife of Raffaele’s" (pages 4 and 6 of the transcript, translated into Italian and ordered by the GUP [judge of the preliminary hearing] and acquired for the case file, folder 4). It is true that in the transcript version made available to the current trial/hearing, this sentence and the reference to knife do not appear, and there is a mention of the night and of a worry because they came at night (‚ ... I'm worried about this thing about the night. Why did they come at night? ...‛ RIT 397, of 17.11.2007, page 133). Assuming that among the different versions, the one offered by the experts appointed in this current trial and the one offered by the experts appointed by the judge of the preliminary trial [GUP] the first one does not necessarily prevail over the other, since both are useable and subjected to an evaluation of the suitability and logical consistency of the different versions, this Court holds that the version offered by the expert appointed by the judge of the preliminary hearing [GUP] should be considered correct. The two following reasons led to this conclusion: the version given in the current trial seems to have no logical sense, its meaning is indecipherable, unconnected to any other passage [315] and moment of conversation present in the room tapping itself; the version given by the experts appointed in this trial is also missing the reference to Raffaele’s name, which, on the contrary, appears 293 in the English language transcript (see page 6 of the transcript filed with the judge of the preliminary hearing [GUP] on October 4, 2008, where we read the name: Raffaele), which is reported and inserted [i.e., in the sense of embedded] in a sentence that has meaning, logical sense and consequentiality in the version given by the expert appointed by the preliminary hearing judge [GUP].
On the basis of the foregoing, it should therefore be affirmed that the analysis of trace 36B, which detected the presence DNA attributable to Meredith, appears to be completely reliable.


  1. Retrieved from Seattle PI
  2. Telegraph Dec 1 2007, Tape 'puts Knox at Meredith murder scene'
  3. UPI Story
  4. From the Massei report, pgs 292-3