Introduction: The “Evidence”

Polizia Scientifica Evidence Map

In the 2013 annulment of the aquittal of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for the murder of Meredith Kercher, the judges of the “Corte Suprema di Cassazione” cited an ancient legal principle: “quae singula non probant, simul unita probant” [Latin: things which are not proof on their own are proof when taken together] to instruct the new appeal judges at the Florence trial.

It is true. One piece of evidence alone might not be enough to convict, but if it is “backed up” by other pieces of evidence that also on their own wouldn’t be enough to convict, but “fall in line” with the first one and are supporting the other, a conviction “beyond a reasonable doubt” can be reached.

The physical evidence in the Amanda Knox case consists of:

The circumstantial evidence consists of:

The problem is, these strongly contested pieces of physical and circumstantial evidence do not “back-up” each other, as the ancient principle cited by the judges of the “Corte Suprema di Cassazione” demands.

“The mountain of evidence” the prosecution claims it has, is when looked at closely only a molehill of misinterpreted at best, fabricated at worst highly questionable DNA evidence, statements from unreliable witnesses, college-girl gossip about house cleaning, some prints and blobs on the floor that tested negative for blood and a real break-in by a burglar who committed an almost identical break-in two weeks earlier.

The Charges

The defendants were referred to judgement with regard to the following crimes:

A) multiply-aggravated murder of Meredith Kercher, in material conspiracy [concorso materiale] with Rudy Guede;

B) carrying a knife (Exhibit 36 of the narrative to follow), allegedly constituting the murder weapon, taken from Sollecito’s residence without a justifiable reason.

C) sexual violence, in conspiracy with Rudy Hermann Guede in the role of [primary] perpetrator, against Meredith Kercher, aggravated under the present circumstances [ipotesi aggravata] in the sense of C.P. Article 609-ter no. 2 due to the use of the knife under Charge B, employed to accomplish [mettere a segno] the violent and threatening behavior [le condotte di violenza e minaccia].

D) theft of property belonging to Meredith Kercher (two cellular telephones, a sum of money, two credit cards from British banking institutions) ;

E) the crime under C.P. Article 367 with the aggravating circumstance of [criminal] purpose [nesso teleologico, lit. “teleological nexus”], assuming that the defendants had staged an attempted burglary in the bedroom of Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox’s roommate (Filomena Romanelli) with the aim of attributing the responsibility for the murder and hypothesized sexual violence suffered by Meredith Kercher to the unknown persons [who would have] penetrated the apartment;

F) for Amanda Knox only, the crime of calumny against Diya Lumumba, known as “Patrick”, an offense charged as a continuation [nella forma continuata] in that the alleged false accusations, regarding Lumumba’s responsability for the murder of Meredith Kercher, were contained in several statements made by Knox to investigators on November 6, 2007 and in a note [memoriale] presented to the Police on 11-6-2007; a crime aggravated in the sense of C.P. Article 61 no. 2 given that it was hypothesized that, with this false accusation, Amanda Knox sought to obtain impunity for herself, for Raffaele Sollecito, and for Rudy Hermann Guede.