From The Murder of Meredith Kercher
Revision as of 09:07, 24 April 2020 by Ferguson2 (Talk | contribs)

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

This is the succinct summary of the evidence. A detailed list can be found on the Evidence List page and a synopsis of the evidence at The Evidence

Evidence suggesting Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito's involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher

  • More than one person attacked Meredith Kercher.
    Multiple attackers.png
    Meredith was totally restrained while being attacked from the right and the left. The wounds on her neck were made by two blades: The large knife, and a smaller knife with a narrow blade which was never found.

From the time of Rudy Guede's final sentencing,[1] the Court has accepted that more than one person attacked Meredith Kercher, with an unusually strong report that pointed towards Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as the other attackers. Meredith was dressed, awake, and standing for the attack, yet did not defend herself. Unusually, she had no defensive wounds but for three tiny (0.24 inch or 6 mm) cuts on her hand[2], indicating an inability to express normal reflexes, flinch from the small cuts to her neck, or attempt to block the incoming blows with her hands or forearms. Indeed, in addition to wounds which fit two different knife profiles[3], she suffered numerous compression or restraint bruises to her elbows, wrists, and face. At the trial, consultants for Knox and Sollecito each proposed a single-attacker scenario but could not agree whether this lone wolf had attacked from the front (Torre, Amanda's consultant) or from behind (Introna, Raffaele's consultant).[4] At the appeal, under Judge Hellmann, Sollecito's defense team introduced two witnesses to testify first, that Guede had acted with two people other than Knox and Sollecito, and second, that two people excluding Guede had carried out the attack after mistakenly entering the home. The Supreme Court faulted Judge Hellmann for ignoring their sentence of Guede and supporting the single-wolf theory, which they found unsupported by the facts. They directed the new Appeals Court in Florence to see what evidence ties Rudy Guede together with Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the cottage at the same time. Judge Nencini re-examined the evidence and concluded that "we know with certainty, as this is shown by the evidence, that immediately after the homicide inside the Via della Pergola cottage three people were present, surely two men and a woman."[5]

  • Someone returned to move Meredith. As is detailed by Judge Micheli (who convicted Guede for his part and committed Knox and Sollecito to trial to answer for the evidence of theirs) Meredith's body was discovered in a position and location different from that in which she died, judging by the lividity reported by the medical examiner and an indentation in her shoulder of a bra strap (with a corresponding impression on the floor). She had died and rested on her shoulder to the right of the room, wearing her bra, and was moved to center of the room and her bra discarded at her feet, soaked through but nowhere near any blood. He notes that the blood droplets on the cups show she was wearing the bra while still breathing, but her chest, which the bra had been covering, remained clean, indicating no breaths were being drawn when or after the bra was removed.

  • The bra clasp, cut or torn off from the bra the victim was wearing
    and originally hidden under the victim, had Raffaele's DNA on the hooks. No plausible argument for contamination was successfully made. Stefano Conti, the independent reviewer who testified to this point, could only suppose that "anything is possible." The Supreme Court strongly rejected that finding, and Judge Hellmann's acceptance of it, stating that the contamination must be proven likely, and not merely presented as a hypothetical possibility.

  • The knife recovered at Sollecito's apartment
    "Sites of DNA profiles found on the alleged murder weapon"
    Sites of DNA profiles found on the alleged murder weapon
    contained the victim and Amanda Knox's DNA. In her court testimony Carla Vecchiotti, one of the pair of independent experts who reviewed the DNA evidence at the first appeal, as well as forensic scientists from the Scientific Police, ruled out contamination in the laboratory with respect to the knife, owing to the six-day interval since testing items related to the Kercher case. When confronted with the knife DNA result in 2007, Raffaele responded with a fabricated story about accidentally pricking Meredith's hand while they were cooking together. Meredith had never been to his flat, and they had never cooked together.[6] The Supreme Court ruled the Scientific Police's findings must stand, absent any new proof. Another trace containing human DNA was found on the blade of the knife [7] by the independent reviewers, Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti, who argued the trace was too minute too test, even though renowned forensic expert Professor Novelli argued that newer, more sensitive tests would be quite able to successfully test the sample. This test was performed in October 2013 and found to be Knox's DNA.

  • A bare footprint made in the victim's blood was discovered on the mat in the bathroom. Rudy's bloody shoe prints lead from Meredith's room directly down the hall and out the front door. The bathroom print, which could not have been made by Rudy Guede, is highly compatible with Raffaele Sollecito's right foot. His defense presented a footprint diagram in the Massei court, in an attempt to prove it couldn't be his client's. However, the judge ruled it was more compatible with Raffaele, and completely ruled out that it could have been Rudy's.

  • The burglary was staged, and there is no reason for this to have been done, other than to throw suspicion onto others. Broken glass had fallen on top of the scattered objects, meaning the window was broken after the ransacking, and Luminol revealed the presence of two traces of the victim's blood on the floor, showing conclusively that whomever had tracked it in had done so after the girl was dead. Raffaele knew nothing had been stolen in the course of this supposed burglary, assuring the 112 (911) operator of this fact well before the occupant of the room had come home and verified it for herself.[8][9]

  • Amanda Knox misled police by suggesting that Meredith’s locked door was not suspicious. In her email home Amanda relates a scene of rising panic as she and Raffaele shout for Meredith, and climb the balcony to try to see in her window, Raffaele attempts to force the door open, but only splinters the frame. She says it was then they decided to call the police. Despite all this concern, they did not mention the door, or their worries about Meredith, to the communications police, who arrived unexpectedly to return Meredith's discarded cellphones. Filomena and her friends arrived shortly thereafter, and it was Filomena who said that it was not Meredith's habit to lock her door. Amanda falsely offered that this was not true: Meredith had locked it before, even to take a shower. The Supreme Court rules this is in itself proof of an attempt to prevent the discovery of the body, with all the implications that has for her guilt.


  1. See The Giordano Sentencing Report
  2. "one on the palm of her right hand of a length of 0.24 inch or 0.6 cm showing a tiny amount of blood; another on the ulnar surface of the first phalange of the second finger of the left hand, also of length 0.6 cm; another on the fingertip of the first finger with a superficial wound" (Massei pp 370, 371)
  3. "He ruled out that the knife (Exhibit 36) could have caused the wound on the opposite side (still inflicted on the neck but on the right side) because of the size of the wound (1 cm and a half with a depth of 4 cm) and the fact that at 4 cm from the tip the width of the blade of the knife is about 3 cm and therefore much larger than the width of the wound (as indicated, 1.5cm)." (Massei p 121)
  4. "As for the dynamic of the crime, (Prof Torre) held a stabbing from the front to be more likely than a stabbing from behind as Professor Introna hypothesised" (Massei pp 145)
  5. Nencini Sentencing Report, p.312
  6. Pisa, Nick. Meredith murder suspect tells 'secret prison diary' her DNA was on his knife because he 'pricked her ' while cooking Daily Mail 09 Dec 2007
  7. "A certainly odd presence, if one has in mind the ordinary use of the utensil, and overall significant – even of itself, and to leave aside the attribution – and useful to compare with what was found by Forensics on the same blade" Galati p 27
  8. Call Recording
  9. See also |Raffaele Sollecito's 112 calls.