Nencini Summary

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

The Nencini Sentencing Report was released on April 29 2014 in support of the January 30th finding that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito with Rudy Guede were guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher.

The entire Nencini Sentencing Report has been translated from Italian to English and can be read here The Nencini Sentencing Report (English). The purpose of this page is to summarize the findings of Nencini into as short a document as possible. We have included links to the relevant page of the full translated document.[1]

The first thirty pages of the Nencini Sentencing Report are summary of the history of the trial and explains how the trial proceeded to the current stage. The findings begin in Section 3 Reasons for the decision and that is where we'll start.

Contents

Amanda Knox Acted To Delay Discovery Of The Crime

The Nencini Court concluded that Amanda Knox lied to the postal police and to Marco Zaroli and Luca Altieri about the propensity of Meredith Kercher locking her door.[2] Altieri asked Knox if it was normal for Meredith's door to be locked and Amanda responded that it was and that Meredith would always lock the door even if she was just going to take a shower.[3] Knox and Kercher shared the apartment with two other girls who both claimed that Meredith never locked her door except for the one time she traveled back to the UK.[4] The inference to be drawn from Amanda Knox lying to the postal police about the locked door is that Knox knew what was behind the door and in that moment wanted to delay the discovery.

Time of Death

The Nencini Court begins their discussion of Meredith Kercher's time of death by noting that for the entire possible range of time of deaths neither Amanda Knox nor Raffaele Sollecito have an alibi so determining a time of death is of lessor significance than it would be if that was not the case.[5] The court proceeds to use both scientific and witness testimony to calculate the time of death with the conclusion that Meredith Kercher was attacked some time between 9:00pm and 12:10am.[6]

Multiple Attackers

The Nencini court concluded that Rudy Guede had accomplices and that Meredith Kercher was attacked by multiple attackers.[7] In the reasoning the court relied on the victim's lack of defensive wounds as evidence that the victim had been restrained.[8] The court also found that the two neck wounds could not have been caused by the same individual unless unless one hypothesizes that during the attack the victim turned 180° degrees, thus permitting the blade to penetrate two sides of the neck antithetically.[9]

The Nencini Court also accepted that the footprint made in the victim's blood on the bathmat did not belong to Rudy Guede and as such it was evidence of the presence of another person who was most likely male.[10] Discussion of whether the footprint can be attributed to Raffaele Sollecito is dealt with later at this point the Court is only concerned with if other attackers were present and this footprint is evidence that a male other than Rudy Guede was at the murder and had blood on his feet.

In addition three bloody shoe prints belong to a female shoe size 37 were discovered to the victim's room.[11] Once again the Court delays the discussion of whether these shoeprints belong to Amanda Knox until later but rely on the fact that three shoeprints made in blood in the victim's room establish that a female with size 37 shoes was present during the attack.

Staged Burglary

The Nencini Court concluded that the burglary was staged.

Every piece of evidence converges to show that the breaking of the window glass and the ransacking of Filomena Romanelli’s room was nothing other than a clumsy attempt to give support to the theory that an unknown rapist – the perpetrator of the murder of poor Meredith Kercher – had gained entry into the flat; it is a false representation put into action for the specific purpose of diverting suspicion from people who were tied to the cottage at Via della Pergola through legitimate and frequent use.[12]

The evidence the court considered in arriving at this conclusion:[13]

  • Four witnesses including two officers of the State Police testified that the glass from the broken window was on top of the displaced items indicating that the room had been ransacked prior to the window being broken.
  • Valuables in plain sight were not touched.
  • The point of entry was illogical involving the burglar to climb a 3.78 meter wall that in plain sight of a busy road. Multiple better points of entry existed which would have been known to Rudy Guede who was familiar with the property.
  • The rock selected to break the window was illogical both because of the size and weight.
  • The shutters to the window for the purported point of entry were closed and so to break the window would require the burglar climb the wall and return to the ground to throw the rock and then climb the wall again. All of this had to happen without the individual leaving any trace that anyone was present in the muddy garden or that anyone had climbed the wall.

The Nencini Court further took into consideration the opinion of Officer Michele Battistelli who prior to the discover of Meredith's body confronted Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito about the burglary informing them that he had doubts about the legitimacy of the burglary.[14] Officer Battistelli even prior to becoming aware that a more serious crime had occurred was already raising questions about the staged burglary.

Crime Scene Altered

The Nencini Court concluded that someone spent a lot of time in the cottage altering the scene of the crime.[15]

  • The small bathroom was cleaned (see photos labeled no. 7029, 7030, 7031, 7032, 7034, 7035, 7036, 7037, 7038, 7041 and 7042 from Scientific Police inspection of the scene November 2 2007).[16]
  • There was activity of cleaning blood in the corridor of the residence. (see photos no 7043 and 7051).[17]
  • The single bloody footprint on the bathroom bath mat with no bloody footprints leading to or away from this single print can only be explained by cleaning.[18]
  • The quantity of blood soaked into a towel next to another towel with almost no blood makes one consider if the blood soaked towel was used to clean.[19]
  • Amanda Knox's small table lamp was found in the victim's room. The victim's room had no light fixtures and for other than needing a point of direct light to see better while cleaning for what purpose would someone move Knox's lamp into a murder scene? [20]
  • Meredith's body was moved and staged after death.[21]

Having concluded that individuals spent considerable amount of time cleaning and altering the crime scene the Nencini Court then turned their attention to the following questions:

1) Who would be interested in altering the crime scene?

2) Who would know that they had the time required to complete the clean up?

The Court concluded that Rudy Guede had no interest in cleaning and he especially had no interest in cleaning selectively while leaving evidence of his presence untouched.

The Court concluded that only someone who had a close connection to the cottage or the victim would have any interest in cleaning.

In response to the second question of who would know that they had the time to clean without fear of discovery the court concluded that only Amanda Knox was aware that the other two roommates were away for the night.[22]

Amanda Knox False Accusation Of An Innocent Man

Amanda Knox has been convicted of calunnia for falsely accusing her boss Patrick Lumumba of the murder of Meredith Kercher. This conviction is final and Knox has no additional avenues of appeal.

The Nencini Court begins by reviewing what Knox told the police early in the morning of November 6 2007.

I want to make a voluntary statement about what happened because this incident has really disturbed me and I am very afraid of Patrick, the African guy who owns the bar called "Le Chic" on Via Alessi, where I occasionally work. I met up with him on the evening of 1 November this year, after replying to a text message from him with the words “ci vediamo” [“see you soon”]. We met soon after, at around about 9:00 pm, at the Piazza Grimana basketball court and we went to my home at 7 Via della Pergola. I do not remember clearly whether my friend Meredith was already in the house or if she arrived later. But what I can say is that Patrick and Meredith went into Meredith's room, while I think I stayed in the kitchen. I cannot remember how long they were together in the room. I can only say that at a certain point I heard Meredith screaming and I was scared and blocked my ears. I do not remember anything more. My mind is very confused. I do not remember if Meredith was screaming or if I heard any banging because I was distressed, but I can imagine what might have happened. I met Patrick this morning, in front of the University for Foreigners, and he asked me some questions. Specifically, he wanted to know what I had been asked by the police. I think he also asked if I wanted to meet journalists, perhaps in order to figure out if I knew something about Meredith's death. I am not sure if Raffaele was also there that night, but I remember waking up at my boyfriend's house, in his bed, and that in the morning I went back home and found the door to the apartment open. When I woke up on the morning of 2 November, I was in bed with my boyfriend.[23]

Because the conviction on falsely accusing Patrick is final the Nencini Court accepts that Amanda Knox knew what she was doing when she falsely accused Patrick.[24] The Court specifically took not that Amanda Knox repeated the false accusation after being left alone for four hours to consider what she had said and she repeated the false accusation.[25]

The Nencini Court concludes that the only reasonable motive for Amanda Knox falsely accusing an innocent man is to deflect suspicion of the murder away from herself and Raffaele Sollecito by blaming someone who was not involved.[26]

False Alibi

The Nencini Count concluded that the account of the events for November 2 2007 told by Amanda Knox and Raffaele Solleicto was not credible.[27] The Court then the logical inference that this upheld the Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito's criminal responsibility in the murder of Meredith Kercher.[28]

The sections below discuss some of the issue the Court had with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito's alibi.

Elements Of The Alibi Proven To Be False

The alibi of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito changed several times but the Nencini Court in this section analysis only the credibility of their final alibi (final as of the time of the Nencini court session. With a final upcoming Raffaele Sollecito appears to be planning to change his alibi once again).

The problems with the alibi were the following:

  • Amanda Knox claimed to be at Raffaele Sollecito's apartment when she received Patrick's text message at 8:18pm. Phone records prove that is not possible. Amanda Knox was either on Via Rocchi, Piazza Cavallotii or Piazza 4 Novembre when she received the text message.[29]
  • Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito maintain that they were at Sollecito's apartment for the entire night of the murder. A witness Antonio Curatolo saw Knox and Sollecito on the night of the murder in Piazza Grimana which is minutes from where the murder occurred. The Court accepts the witness as reliable and as such Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are lying about their whereabouts on the night of the murder[30]
  • A witness Marco Quintavalle, owner and manager of a shop a few meters from where Raffaele Sollecito lived and where Sollecito would routinely shop testified that he saw Amanda Knox at 7:45am waiting outside his store for the store to open. Amanda Knox maintains that she was asleep at Sollecito's apartment. The Court accepts the witness as reliable and as such Amanda Knox is lying about their whereabouts on the morning after the murder[31]
  • Raffaele Sollecito's mobile phone was turned on at 6:02:09am November 2, 2007 the morning after the murder. Raffaele Sollecito maintains that he was asleep until roughly 10am but his phone activity establishes that someone inside Sollecito's apartment activated his mobile phone at 6am. The Court concludes that Sollecito and Knox are lying about being asleep.The Court accepts the witness as reliable and as such Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are lying about their whereabouts on the night of the murder[32]
  • Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox maintain that they were on the computer the night of Meredith's murder. Examination of the computer shows no activity.The Court accepts the witness as reliable and as such Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are lying about their whereabouts on the night of the murder[33]

Issues With Amanda Knox's Story

The Nencini Court had trouble accepting elements of Amanda Knox's account upon arriving at Via Della Perogola:

  • Amanda Knox arrived at the cottage to find the front door wide open and then proceed to take a shower without even checking the apartment to see if anyone was inside. The Court found this difficult to accept.[34]
  • Amanda Knox claimed that she did not immediately discover the burglary because the door to Filomena Romanelli's room was closed. The Court found it difficult to imagine a scenario where a burglar would have closed that door. The door being closed is required for Knox's narrative but it otherwise makes no sense.[35]
  • Amanda Knox when entering the bathroom claims that noticed some blood stains in the wash basin; noticed blood stains on the tap, but above all she noticed a large blood stain on the pale blue bathmat present in the bathroom (it was the footprint made in blood of the sole of a foot) and she still proceed to take a shower even after arriving home to find the front door wide open and now blood in the bathroom.[36]
  • Amanda Knox claims that she used the bathmat that she admits had a blood stain shaped like a foot after her shower because there were no towels in the bathroom.[37]
  • Amanda Knox when calling Meredith Kercher's mobile phones lasted only 3 second and 4 seconds which the Court found short. Amanda Knox also never tried to call Meredith again despite all the concern she claimed to have for Meredith when she could not be located. The Court concludes that Amanda Knox did call Meredith because she know that Meredith was dead and would not answer.[38]
  • Amanda Knox lied about her location when speaking to her roommate Filomena Romanelli about the scene at the cottage. Knox claimed to be at the cottage and she said she would go fetched Sollecito but phone records place her at Sollecito's apartment[39].

Calling Emergency Number (112) After Police Arrived

The Nencini Court concluded that Raffaele Sollecito called the Carabinieri about 15 minutes after Inspector Battistelli and Marsi arrived.[40] The Court concluded that Amanda Knox ans Raffaele Sollecito surprised by the unexpected arrival of the postal police lied about calling the Carabinieri and then later placed the two 112 calls.[41]

Genetic Evidence

The State Police collected 460 pieces of evidence but only a limited number were of value (roughly 33 samples turned out to be useful).

Vaginal and Rectal Swabs Exhibit 12 Three swabs performed November 2, 2007 by Dr. Lalli and Dr. Stefanoni on body of Meredith Kercher. Traces A1, B, and C gave the genetic profile of the victim Meredith Kercher. Trace A2 gave no useful result. The amplification of the Y‑chromosome STRs with regard to the DNA extraction from trace B gave as a result the same haplotype belonging to Rudy Guede. Thus a trace, probably from epithelial exfoliation/desquamation, which is explicitly attributable to Rudy Guede, was recovered from the inside of Meredith Kercher's vagina.[42]
White Bra Exhibit 50 The bra was found to have the end with the small hooks cut off as if with a sharp blade. A hair-like sample was recovered from the bra but analysis provided no useful results. Six samples were taken and all the traces had the DNA of the victim but trace B also had as a result the Y haplotype of Rudy Guede as well as a match of some genetic loci at a much lower allele height than Kercher's alleles.[43]
Meredith Kercher's Purse Exhibit 59 Two samples were taken. Sample B returned a match to the Meredith Kercher. Sample A returned a match to Meredith Kercher and Rudy Guede. Analysis of the Y chromosome enabled the Y haplotype to be determined and this result confirmed the presence of DNA belonging to Rudy Guede.[44]
Light Blue Sweatshirt Exhibit 171 Sweatshirt Meredith Kercher was wearing when attacked. It was collected December 18, 2007. Sweatshirt was soaked in blood. Four samples were taken all of which returned the victim's genetic profile. Sample B taken from the left wristband of the sweatshirt had Rudy Guede's Y‑chromosome haplotype.[45]
Bathmat Exhibit 22 A bathmat found positioned in front of the sink with blood stains one in the shape of a footprint. There samples were taken all of them a match to Meredith Kercher.[46]
Blood On Light Switch Exhibit 23 Match to victim Meredith Kercher. [47]
Blood On Faucet Exhibit 24 Match to Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher.[48]
Blood On Drain Of The Bidet Exhibit 66 Match to Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher. Sample contained blood from Amanda Knox in a lesser proportion to the blood present from Meredith Kercher.[49]
Blood On Q-Tip Container & Blood In Sink (Exhibits 136 & 137) Q-Tip container was located on a shelf to the left of the sink. Both samples returned results indicating the presence of blood from two females. Genetic testing revealed the presence of Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher's DNA.[50]
Blood On Toilet Seat Cover Exhibit 139 A match to Meredith Kercher.[51]
Blood On Door Frame Exhibit 140 Found 50cm up from the floor on the small bathroom door. Match to Meredith Kercher. [52]
Toilet Paper Exhibit 25 Taken from the large bathroom. Rudy Guede's DNA.[53]
Three Prints In Corridor Exhibits 119, 120, and 122 Roughly circular prints make in blood found on the floor of the corridor. All three were match to Meredith Kercher.[54]
Cigarette Butts Exhibit 142 to 147 Six cigarette butts found in glass ashtray on the kitchen table. #142, #143, and #144 returned a male genetic profile for a unknown individual and #146 and #147 returned a unknown female genetic profile. #145 returned a mixed Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito result.[55]
Circular Prints In Corredor Exhibits 186 to 191 All six were a match to Meredith Kercher.[56]
Luminol Trances Exhibits 176 and 177 Blood revealed by the application of Luminol. Trace A related to Exhibit 176 contained the genetic material of Meredith Kercher. Trace A related to Exhibit 177 contained the genetic material of Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher presumed to be blood.[57]
Luminol Traces In Amanda Knox's Room Exhibits 178, 179, and 180 Three human foot shaped samples of blood revealed by application of Luminol in the room of Amanda Knox. Two were near the window of the room and the third one near the door of the room. All three contained the genetic profile of Amanda Knox and noticeable scattered noise.[58]
Luminol Shoeprint In Blood Exhibit 183 Located between the door of the victim and Amanda Knox pointing in the direction of the victim's room. It was a match to Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox.[59]

The Knife (Exhibit 36)

Seven trances were taken from the knife recovered from Raffaele Sollecito's apartment. Trace A collected from the knife handle had the genetic profile of Amanda Knox.[60] Trace B collected from a scratch in the blade of the knife had the genetic profile of Meredith Kercher.[61] Traces C,D,E,F, and G did not provide any useful results.[62]

The defense did not contest the finding of Amanda Knox's DNA from Trace 36A.[63]

Trace 36B

Trace 36B contained the profile of Meredith Kercher discovered on the blade of a knife recovered from Raffaele Sollecito's appartment. There is no contention over the attribution of the genetic profile to Meredith Kercher. The result was Meredith's complete profile and unuiqly her profile. All the experts agree that the profile discovered belongs to Meredith Kercher but the defense experts as well as Conti-Vecchiotti raised the following objections.

Indentify Material

Dr. Stefanoni told the court that she did not preform any analysis to identify the nature of the trace because the quantity of biological material was too small.[64] Dr. Stefanoni justified the decision on the basis that it was more important to identify the genetic profile than the nature of the biological material.[65] The defense objected but the Court agreed that determening the identity of the genetic profile was more important than identifying the nature of the biological material. That is to say it was more important to know if who the genetic material on the blade of the knife belong to than it was to determine what kind of biological material was present. The presence of any biological material regardless of nature would indicicate contact between the blade of the knife and the individual.

Repeition of Applification

An issue raised by Conti-Vecchiotti is that the analysis of the sample was not repeated.[66] The electrophoresis was repeated but not the amplification. Conti-Vecchiotti maintain that without a repeat of the amplification the data should not be considered reliable.[67]

The Court in considering that the analysis took into account the that the sample contained the genetic profile of Meredith Kercher and no other peaks. Dr. Stefanoni explained that it was impossible for 15 pairs of numbers could appear by chance that match the genetic profile of the victim.[68] In his report Prof. Giuseppe Novelli determined that probability that the result could be anything other than Meredith Kercher's DNA at 1 chance in 300 million billion.[69]

Further, both electrophoretic runs on the same amplified sample reveal exclusively peaks of fluorescence that are attributable to Meredith Kercher and no one else.[70] It was also noted that both in the both in the amplification and in the negative control of the amplification there was an extremely low level of background noise and so the sample was of very good quality and this attested to the absence of contamination.[71]

The Court concluded that the lack of a second amplification results in Trace 36B not being as rigorous an element of proof as if a second amplification had been possible but that it does not follow that the evidence should not be accepted as evidence with the caveat of a lack of a second amplification attached. [72]

Contamination

On the issue of contamination the Court rejected the Conti-Vecchiotti argument that anything is possible. The Court stipulated that if an expert claims evidence should not be accepted because of contamination they most also stipulate a manner by which any probable contamination occurred.[73] Simply raising the possability that contamination could explain the result without offering any substantive reasons that the Court can evaluate as to the validity the objection is insufficent. Since no reason for why the Court should consider contamination a concern was presented the Court found that 36B should be accepted as reliable evidence.

Negative Controls

The Court was very critical of Conti-Vecchiotti for stating during the Hellmann court session that the negative controls had not been provide to the Court when they infact had been. [74]

Traces 36H and 36I

The Court was critical of Conti-Vecchiotti for telling the Hellmann court that samples I and H contained insufficent quanity for anaysis when this was glaringly flase.[75] The Court went on to say that the conclusion that Conti-Vecchiotti statements to the Hellmann court were false are not the opinion of the Court but established as flase by the succesful anaysis of the samples.[76]

The samples were analysed by Major Andrea Berti and Sample 36I was found to have the profile of Amanda Knox.[77]

Bra Clasp (Exhibit 165B)

Two samples were taken from the bra clasp (exhibit 165). Sample A returned a result of Meredith Kercher's profile and is of no investigative interest.[78] Sample B returned a result of at least two individuals of which at least one was male.[79] The genetic profiles were a match to Meredith Kercher and Raffaele Sollecito.[80] The analysis of the Y chromosome yielded the Raffaele Sollecito's Y-haplotype confirming the presence of Raffaele Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp.[81]

Conti and Vecchiotti raised the following five objections to the bra clasp being accepted as evidence:

  1. there are no convincing scientific reasons to conclude the presence of presumed exfoliation cells on the exhibit;
  2. there was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic graph of the autosomal STRs;
  3. there was an erroneous interpretation of the electrophoretic graph relative to the Y chromosome;
  4. international procedures and protocols for searching for, collecting and taking samples from evidence were not followed;
  5. it cannot be excluded that the results obtained could be the result of phenomena of environmental and/or other contamination that occurred in any of the phases of collection and/or manipulation of the said exhibit.[82]

With respect #4 and #5 were discussed by the Court in the analysis of the knife (exhibit 36) and for the same reasons that they were not valid for the knife they are not valid with respect to the bra clasp either.[83] That leaves the Court with only the first three points to consider.

Turning to objection #1 the point made is essentially correct in that we do now know what the nature of the biological material present other than it belonged to Raffaele Sollecito.[84] Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni clarified this in her testimony.[85] The attribution to epithelial cells is based on the location the DNA was discovered but for the purposes of this examination the nature of the biological material is not important since the presence of Raffaele Sollecito's DNA establishes that he was present and had contact with the cra clasp.[86]

Other Contributors

Objection #2 raised by Carla Vecchiotti is that there were additional peaks present in the electrophoretic graph, in that certain peaks whose heights were greater than 50 RFT had been considered as stutter even though their heights were more than 15% of the principal allele, and thus they should have been considered as real actual alleles. [87] From this, Prof. Vecchiotti deduced the conclusion that in the DNA extracted from Exhibit 165B there were several minor contributors, which was not stated by Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni.[88]

The Court found that even accepting Carla Vecchiotti's assertion that other minor contributors are present on the bra clasp that piece of information does not have any significance in the context of this trial.[89] Raffaele Sollecito's DNA profile is present and the presence of minor contributors does not invalidate that finding.[90]

The real question that is relevant for justice is not represented by the presence of several contributors in the mixed DNA trace found on the hook of the clasp of the bra that Meredith Kercher wore on the evening she was killed, but by the presence of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA. [91]

...

There is no reason for the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito to be present on that hook, as nothing in the case file indicates that there was any intimate or even merely familiar relationship between the victim and Raffaele Sollecito, apart from the fact of his having been present on the evening of the murder and having pulled at the clasp with his fingers in order to cut the elastic closure at the moment when the victim was being attacked. Essentially, in not very technical but maybe more expressive terms, it is possible that many hands touched that bra clasp, but the one that is important at trial is that of Raffaele Sollecito, since the evidence places the defendant at the scene of the crime on the evening when the murder was committed, and indicates his taking an active role in the attack on Meredith Kercher.[92]

Y Haplotype

The Y haplotype has the advantage of removing female DNA from the mixed sample. The first point noted by the Court is that every expert even the defense expert Prof. Tagliabracci agreed that the DNA belonged to a male other than Rudy Guede and that the DNA was compatiable with Raffaele Sollecito.[93] Prof. Tagliabracci calculated the frequency of this profile as 3.36 per 1000 individuals but he only used a some of the loci present.[94] Using all 17 loci present it is completely unreasonable to enterain the notion that the DNA belonged to someone other than Raffaele Sollecito.[95] Accepting that the DNA discovered on the bra clasp belong to someone other than Raffaele Sollecito would be tantamount to assuming that a person different from Raffaele Sollecito but belonging to the same male line as him and therefore possessing the identical Y chromosome entered the cottage at 7 Via della Pergola.[96] Furthermore, this hypothetical person would also have to have had all of the uncontested genetic loci that identical to those constituting the specific individualizing inheritance of Raffaele Sollecito.[97]

Findings Related To 165B

From these considerations, it can be deduced that the fact that the Y haplotype of Raffaele Sollecito coincides with the Y haplotype found on the trace extracted from Exhibit 165B leads to the conclusion that the biological trace found on the hook of the clasp of the bra that Meredith Kercher was wearing on the evening she was murdered was left by Raffaele Sollecito. This conclusion is rendered even more obvious, and thus more convincing, by the fact that Raffaele Sollecito’s genetic profile coincides with the one found in the trace at the numerous loci that were not contested by any of the consultants.
It is thus possible to assert that the genetic investigations performed by the Scientific Police on the hook of the clasp of the bra worn by Meredith Kercher on the evening she was killed yielded a piece of evidence of indisputable significance. Both by the quantity of DNA analyzed and by the fact of having performed the analysis at 17 loci with unambiguous results, not to mention the fact that the results of the analysis were confirmed by the attribution of the Y haplotype to the defendant, it is possible to say that it has been judicially ascertained that Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was present on the exhibit; an exhibit that was therefore handled by the defendant on the night of the murder.[98]

Shoe Prints and Footprints

The footprint evidence includes both the prints made in blood photographed on November 2, 2007 and the prints revealed by luminol on December 18, 2007.

These were the findings of interest:[99]

  • Exhibits F and H (living room), 2 and 3 (corridor): these prints were deemed as having probably been made by the left shoe of Guede's Nike Outbreak 2, size 11.
  • Exhibits 5/A, 5/B, 5/C (found close to the body of Meredith Kercher; the three imprints annotated 5/C were found very close to the outside edge of Meredith Kercher’s jeans, which were not covered by the quilt that was covering the body): the same conclusion was reached that these were all also probably from the same left shoe.
  • Photo 104 from the report of the Latent Prints Evidence Section (found on the pillow placed under the dead body of Meredith Kercher): this was deemed as having probably been made by a right Nike Outbreak 2, size 11, shoe (the pattern left by the studs was fully compatible with that obtained from the new shoe bought from the official Nike retailer.)
  • Photo 105 from the Latent Prints Evidence Section (found on the pillow placed below the dead body of Meredith Kercher): this imprint could not be matched to any of the available shoes. This print, with no particular identifying marks, was considered useful only as a negative comparison, rather than being positively identifiable. The print was certainly made in blood, and because of the narrowness of the heel, and the smallness, was considered compatible with a woman's shoe of a size 36 to 38 (this will be discussed further in this report).
  • finding 1 a footprint revealed by luminol in Amanda Marie Knox’s bedroom;
  • finding 2 consists of two footprints in the corridor heading towards the front door;
  • finding 6 a shoe print heading towards the front door, was not found useful for comparisons;
  • finding 7 a footprint heading towards the entrance to Meredith Kercher’s room.
  • footprint found on the pale blue bathmat found in the small bathroom [exhibit 9F), letter A)]

Bathmat Footprint (exhibit 9F)

The bathmat footprint is a print of a bare foot made in the victim's blood with the heal missing. The two experts reported that the bathmat print was well defined in terms of dimension and shape, although the lack of epidermal ridges - elements that would indicate a specific individual – led to their conclusion that the print was useful for the purposes of negative comparison but could not be attributed with certainty. They thus reached a determination of probable identity.[100] The clear matches identified between the imprint on the bathmat and the foot of the defendant, led the Scientific Police to the conclusion that the footprint left on the bathmat in the small bathroom of 7 Via della Pergola is attributable to Raffaele Sollecito.[101]

Prof Vinci a defense consultant for Raffaele Sollecito contended that the print was in fact a match Rudy Guede.[102] The Court noted from the outset that because prints definitevly attributed to Rudy Guede living the premiss with shoes on it is very improbable that this print of a bare foot belongs to Guede.[103] Prof. Vinci, when he went on to take the measurements comparing the two exhibits (the bathmat, the sole-print of Sollecito), also made use of the “Robbins” grid but obtained results not comparable with those obtained by the Scientific Police because of a quite different positioning of the grid.[104]

The Court held that the observations of Prof. Vinci cannot be accepted for the following reasons:

In the first place, the presence of the second toe of the foot of Raffaele Sollecito impressed in the print on the blue bathmat is not very significant, since it could be the consequence of stepping onto a soft material which will move under the pressure of a foot, allowing this second toe to make a mark which it would not make on a rigid surface.
Secondly, the decision to separate a piece of a blood stain, which then ceases to form part of the big toe but rather becomes a separate element, was made by the consultant based solely on a matter of opinion and open to contradiction by a different perception. This Court, looking at the imprint, does not perceive anything that resembles anything other than a clear and complete single imprint of a big toe.
It should also be noted that, even if we do separate a part of the stain, making the big toe smaller, and believe in the imprint of the second toe, which Raffaele Sollecito's foot would not have made, we still are not left with a footprint that is compatible with the foot of Rudy Hermann Guede, which has a much more tapered form than that of the foot of Raffaele Sollecito.
To conclude, the footprint on the bathmat is incompatible in size with the foot of Amanda Marie Knox. If we accepted Prof. Vinci’s hypothesis that it is incompatible with Raffaele Sollecito, and we know it isn't Rudy Guede, the print would have to be attributable to a fourth person, still unknown and clearly an accomplice of Rudy Hermann Guede. This would be completely at odds with all of the other evidence collected.
Consequently, it is not possible to accept the alternative version that rejects the judgment of probable identity made by the Scientific Police early on, a judgment that is, if anything, strengthened by everything later brought to light in this case.[105]

Prints Left In Blood On Pillowcase (photo 105)

The pillowcase of the pillow positioned by the assailants under the already dead body of Meredith Kercher. According to the evaluations carried out by Dr. Rinaldi and Chief Inspector Boemia, this print was not made by any of the shoes available to them for comparison.[106] The Scientific Police confirmed that the print was made in blood, and hypothesized that it was formed by the heel and the central part of the sole of a left shoe.[107] The narrowness of the heel and the generally small size, suggested a woman's shoe, size between 36 and 38. Inspector Boemia, testifying at the trial, confirmed that this print could not have been made by a man's shoe, taking into account the width, which would measure approximately 60mm for a man's shoe.[108]

The conclusions of the Scientific Police were contested by Vinci who concluded that the print on the pillowcase had been left vt rge left shoe of a Nike Outbreak 2 worn by Rudy Guede.[109]

Footprints Revealed By Luminol

During the second crime scene inspection at 7 Via della Pergola, carried out by the Scientific Police of ERT on 18 December 2007, luminol was sprayed on various areas of the floor.[110] It was used in the corridor, in the kitchen/living room, in the bedrooms of Amanda Marie Knox and Filomena Romanelli, and in the large bathroom.[111] The luminol revealed naked footprints and one shoe-print.[112] The Scientific Police took photographs using a tripod, in order to prevent camera-shake, and without the use of fluorescent marker tapes.[113]

  • finding 1) found in the room of Amanda Marie Knox, consisted of a right footprint probably made in blood, in which are clearly visible the big-toe (22mm wide); the third toe (17mm long); the metatarsus (80mm wide); and a portion of the plantar arch. This trace was considered useful for negative comparisons.[114]
  • finding 2) found in the corridor, which was a right footprint probably made in blood and useful for negative comparison (big-toe 28mm wide; metatarsus 95mm wide and 55mm long; heel 58mm wide, with a total length of the luminol positive print of 245mm).[115]
  • finding 6) was of a shoe-print in the corridor, heading towards the front door. There was no measurement reference available for this print; thus it was considered not useful.[116]
  • finding 7) is a footprint, probably made in blood, and found in the corridor outside the door of Meredith Kercher’s room, heading towards the room. This print was considered useful only for negative comparisons. The luminol print showed the big-toe 22.4mm width; the metatarsus 78mm width; the heel 43mm width.[117]

The Court concluded that the luminol prints could be attributed probabilistically but not definitively to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito but the prints do establish definitively that the murder of Meredith Kercher was perpetuated by at least three individuals.[118]

Conclusions Based On Footprints

In conclusion, the shoe prints and bare foot tracks left in blood inside 7 Via della Pergola, while they can be only probably and not definitively attributed to the defendants, are attributions that are altogether consistent with the facts shown, right from the start, by all of the other evidence in this case. That is to say that the murder of Meredith Kercher was carried out by more than one person, one of whom was certainly a woman [see footprint 7) attributed by Rinaldi-Boemia to the defendant Amanda Marie Knox without substantial dispute], and that this woman stayed in the house for some time after the crime in the hope of removing any traces of her presence. This clean-up was only partially successful.[119]

Attempts To Fabricate Evidence To Deceive The Court

The defense introduced witnesses Luciano Lucia Aviello, Mario Giuseppe Alessi, Luciano Castelluccio, Antonio De Cesare and Ciprian Trincam and these witnesses were introduced to intentionally deceive the Court. All of the witnesses admitted that the evidence that they gave was not truthful. Even without that admission the evidence given was so absurd that the Court could not consider any of it reliable.

Luciano Aviello

Luciano Lucia Aviello gave statements that claimed his brother had murdered Meredith Kercher.[120]

Luciano Aviello then requested a meeting with the Prosecutor and at that interview Aviello explained that his testimony was false and given at the direction of the defense with the intent to mislead the Court.[121]

The Prosecutor requested that Aviello be recalled as a witness but Judge Hellmann denied the request.[122]

Aviello wrote a letter and sent it to the court stating that he had been offered a large sum of money so he could have a sex change operation by Raffaele Sollecito's family to give false testimony.[123]

The refusal of Judge Hellmann to allow Aviello to be recalled as a witness after he admitted to accepting a bribe from Raffaele Sollecito's family to give false testimony was criticized by the Supreme Court.

The Nencini Court order Aviello recalled not because there was any expectation that Aviello would say anything reliable or useful to the proceedings but because procedurally it was wrong of Judge Hellmann to refuse to allow a witness who communicated to the court that he had accepted a bribe from a defendant to not be recalled.

In his testimony before the Nencini Court Aviello now in the process of gender reassignment testified that his original testimony was truthful and that there was no bribe.

Rudy Guede's Statement

Conclusion

Sentencing

Notes

  1. The page numbering used is from the original Italian document which you'll find included in bold square brackets throughout the translated version of the Nencini Sentencing Report.
  2. Nencini Sentencing Report p41
  3. Nencini Sentencing Report p41
  4. Nencini Sentencing Report p41
  5. Nencini Sentencing Report p50
  6. Nencini Sentencing Report p58
  7. The Nencini Sentencing Report p59
  8. The Nencini Sentencing Report p60
  9. The Nencini Sentencing Report p61
  10. The Nencini Sentencing Report p63
  11. The Nencini Sentencing Report p63
  12. The Nencini Sentencing Report p81
  13. The Nencini Sentencing Report p64
  14. The Nencini Sentencing Report p64
  15. The Nencini Sentencing Report p81
  16. The Nencini Sentencing Report p83
  17. The Nencini Sentencing Report p83
  18. The Nencini Sentencing Report p83
  19. The Nencini Sentencing Report p83
  20. The Nencini Sentencing Report p84
  21. The Nencini Sentencing Report p84
  22. The Nencini Sentencing Report p86
  23. The Nencini Sentencing Report p 97
  24. The Nencini Sentencing Report p 98
  25. The Nencini Sentencing Report p 98
  26. The Nencini Sentencing Report p 101
  27. The Nencini Sentencing Report p176
  28. The Nencini Sentencing Report p176
  29. The Nencini Sentencing Report p 117
  30. The Nencini Sentencing Report p 141
  31. The Nencini Sentencing Report p 141
  32. The Nencini Sentencing Report p 142
  33. The Nencini Sentencing Report p 144
  34. The Nencini Sentencing Report p 151
  35. The Nencini Sentencing Report p 151
  36. The Nencini Sentencing Report p 152
  37. The Nencini Sentencing Report p 152
  38. The Nencini Sentencing Report p 154
  39. The Nencini Sentencing Report p 158
  40. The Nencini Sentencing Report p163
  41. The Nencini Sentencing Report p175
  42. The Nencini Report p179-180
  43. The Nencini Report p180
  44. The Nencini Report p180-181
  45. The Nencini Report p181
  46. The Nencini Report p181
  47. The Nencini Report p181
  48. The Nencini Report p181
  49. The Nencini Report p182
  50. The Nencini Report p182-183
  51. The Nencini Report p183
  52. The Nencini Report p183
  53. The Nencini Report p183
  54. The Nencini Report p184
  55. The Nencini Report p184
  56. The Nencini Report p184-185
  57. The Nencini Report p185
  58. The Nencini Report p185-186
  59. The Nencini Report p186
  60. The Nencini Sentencing Report p209
  61. The Nencini Sentencing Report p209
  62. The Nencini Sentencing Report p209
  63. The Nencini Sentencing Report p209
  64. The Nencini Sentencing Report p211
  65. The Nencini Sentencing Report p211
  66. The Nencini Sentencing Report p212
  67. The Nencini Sentencing Report p212
  68. The Nencini Sentencing Report p212
  69. The Nencini Sentencing Report p212 quoting page 11 of Prof. Giuseppe Novelli report submitted on 6 September 2011 to the Court of Assizes of Appeal of Perugia
  70. The Nencini Sentencing Report p212
  71. The Nencini Sentencing Report p212
  72. The Nencini Sentencing Report p217
  73. The Nencini Sentencing Report p221
  74. The Nencini Sentencing Report p212
  75. The Nencini Sentencing Report p225
  76. The Nencini Sentencing Report p225
  77. The Nencini Sentencing Report p234
  78. The Nencini Sentencing Report p238
  79. The Nencini Sentencing Report p238
  80. The Nencini Sentencing Report p238
  81. The Nencini Sentencing Report p238
  82. The Nencini Sentencing Report p242
  83. The Nencini Sentencing Report p242
  84. The Nencini Sentencing Report p242
  85. The Nencini Sentencing Report p242
  86. The Nencini Sentencing Report p242
  87. The Nencini Sentencing Report p243
  88. The Nencini Sentencing Report p243
  89. The Nencini Sentencing Report p243
  90. The Nencini Sentencing Report p243
  91. The Nencini Sentencing Report p243
  92. The Nencini Sentencing Report p245
  93. The Nencini Sentencing Report p250
  94. The Nencini Sentencing Report p250
  95. The Nencini Sentencing Report p250
  96. The Nencini Sentencing Report p250
  97. The Nencini Sentencing Report p250
  98. The Nencini Sentencing Report p250-251
  99. The Nencini Sentencing Report p255-256
  100. The Nencini Sentencing Report p257
  101. The Nencini Sentencing Report p258
  102. The Nencini Sentencing Report p258
  103. The Nencini Sentencing Report p258
  104. The Nencini Sentencing Report p259
  105. The Nencini Sentencing Report p260
  106. The Nencini Sentencing Report p261
  107. The Nencini Sentencing Report p261
  108. The Nencini Sentencing Report p261
  109. The Nencini Sentencing Report p261
  110. The Nencini Sentencing Report p261
  111. The Nencini Sentencing Report p262
  112. The Nencini Sentencing Report p262
  113. The Nencini Sentencing Report p262
  114. The Nencini Sentencing Report p262
  115. The Nencini Sentencing Report p262
  116. The Nencini Sentencing Report p263
  117. The Nencini Sentencing Report p263
  118. The Nencini Sentencing Report p264
  119. The Nencini Sentencing Report p264
  120. The Nencini Sentencing Report p265
  121. The Nencini Sentencing Report p265
  122. The Nencini Sentencing Report p265
  123. The Nencini Sentencing Report p271