Guilter Wiki Myths, Lies & Distortions
The purpose of these two pages is to highlight some of the guilter wiki myths, lies, fabrications, half truths, and deceptive practices on ‘Edward McCall’ and Naseer Ahmad’s pro-guilt ‘wiki’. There are literally hundreds of mistakes, and while we don’t intend to correct them all, the following should illustrate just how misleading and deceptive their site is.
- Transcript of Sollecito defense computer consultant, Antonio D’Aambrosio, who testified about Raffaele’s computer usage the night of the murder; (this has since been added in December 2014)
- Transcript of Knox defense consultant, Dr Sarah Gino, from September 26 2009 when she returned to court and testified about the lab work released by the prosecution on July 30 and revealed the luminol prints and blobs tested negative for blood; (this has since been added in December 2014)
- Rudy Guede’s Skype Chat with friend Giacomo Beneditti where he said “I was in the bathroom when it happened. I tried to stop it but I couldn’t do anything. Amanda had nothing to do with it [….] because I fought with a male and she wasn’t there.”;
- Rudy Guede’s March 2008 Deposition;
- Rudy Guede’s May 2008 Deposition;
- Rudy Guede’s alleged confession to Mario Allesi;
- Rudy Guede’s German prison diary; (this has since been added in December 2014)
- The English translation of the Conti-Vecchiotti Report;
- Amanda’s text messages to and from Meredith;
- Professor Francesco Vinci’s Bra Clasp Report;
- Professor Francesco Vinci’s Knife Report;
- Ballistic expert Sergeant Pasquali’s reconstruction video showing how the rock broke the window;
- Amanda Knox’s Prison Diary;
- CCTV of Meredith arriving home at 9.01pm.
Material and factual errors at www.themurderofmeredithkercher.com are posted in red.
1) Detective Armando Finzi selected the knife because it seemed ‘unnaturally clean.’
Armando Finzi testified the knife appeared very clean (not ‘unnaturally clean’) and the first thing he did after arriving was open the kitchen drawer and selected the knife because “investigative intuition” told him it was compatible with the wounds which he had not seen.
Armando Finzi Testimony p176 – 177
Question: What did you do?
Answer: Exactly, the first thing that I did, in that I had my back to the door, there was a kitchen drawer and I opened it, I opened the first kitchen drawer.
Question: You had the gloves on obviously, let’s just repeat that
Answer: We had on new clean gloves. So the first thing I saw was a large knife. I should state that it was very clean.
[text eliminated about verifying knife being referred to is the same as in photo, and about size of knife]
Question: Were there other knives?
Answer: There were other knives yes however I took this knife because in the briefing that had been given to us, using investigative intuition, I took it and I showed it immediately to Dr. Chiacchiera, I said: “Doctor I would take this” and Dr Chiacchiera …
Answer: You mean it was a knife that could have been relevant?
Question: It could have been relevant in that the blade could have been by my reckoning compatible with the injuries that I had never seen however I knew they were serious.
How the ‘knife’ was chosen
As recorded by Sollecito in his book, ‘Honor Bound’. He was taken to his apartment, shoeless and in handcuffs by several policemen:
“When Finzi came across a drawer full of kitchen knives, he called Chiacchiera over immediately. He pulled out the first knife that came to hand, a large chopping knife with an eight inch blade.
“Will this knife do?” Finzi asked Chiacchiera.
“Yes, yes, it’s great,” came the answer
Stefano Conti and Carla Vechiotti, recorded the presence of streaks of discolouration on the blade and dark material at the junction of handle and blade.
Significance: the police needed a reason for selecting and testing so few knives. The reason offered is not supported by evidence of the state of the knife.
Patrizia Stefanoni was unable to locate the scratch when giving evidence. Neither could the court appointed expert at the pre-trial.
Massei p 312-313:
With respect to the existence of these scratches the defence and their consultants had voiced doubts and perplexity; moreover, Professor Cingolani, the expert witness appointed by the GIP [judge of the preliminary hearing] for the incidente probatorio [pre-trial taking of evidence], who was shown the knife, Exhibit 36, during this hearing, it having been made available at the express request of the defence, declared that he had not seen such scratches.
Significance: Stefanoni needed an explanation for how DNA could be on a knife the prosecution was implying had been thoroughly cleaned.
3) The sample … yielded Meredith Kercher’s biological profile.
The sample tested negative for blood and negative for the human species. It was not subjected to cytomorphological examination and did not register for quantification when passed through the Qubit fluorometer. There is no evidence that the sample contained any biological material at all, whether the victim’s or anyone else’s. Further, this conclusion may only properly be drawn as the result of a valid scientific process, which the independent experts were unable to verify:Conclusions (2) | The Conti-Vecchiotti Report
Taking into account that none of the recommendations of the international scientific community relative to the treatment of Low Copy Number (LCN) samples were followed, we do not accept the conclusions regarding the certain attribution of the profile found on trace B (blade of knife) to the victim Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher, since the genetic profile, as obtained, appears unreliable insofar as it is not supported by scientifically validated analysis
Note: this is a distinct conclusion from that concerning the possibility of contamination. The experts’ opinion is that, notwithstanding any coincidence between the victim’s genetic profile and the peak heights recored in the sample 36B electropherogram, nevertheless the inference that the profile was attributable to the victim cannot be validly maintained.
Significance: The knife is the heart of the prosecution’s case. It directly implicates Amanda Knox and, aside from the bra clasp, is the only forensic evidence linking either of them to the murder.
4) Swab A and Swab B both caused a machine readout of “too low,” meaning the amount being tested was low copy number, i.e. less than ten picograms in size. (Massei p. 250) These were amplified and Swab A yielded Knox’s profile on the handle and Swab B yielded Meredith’s profile in a groove on the edge of the blade.
Sample A did not register as ‘too low’. The concentration value for Sample A was 0.08 ng/μl [see Quantification of DNA | The Conti-Vecchiotti Report] while that for Samples B and C was ‘too low’.
Significance: Sample A was taken from the handle of the knife. It yielded Knox’s profile which proves nothing as she had used it for cooking. By contrast, samples B and C came from the two sides of the blade and, as stated, yielded no positive result for blood or human species testing or DNA quantification.
Nor was sample B taken from ‘a groove on the edge’ (assumed to mean the cutting edge) of the blade but from the side.
Low Copy Number is < 200 pg/uL not < 10 pg/uL (less than 10 picrograms) See Validity of Low Copy Number Typing and Applications to Forensic Science
5) Lab contamination was ruled out by all courts on account of the above mentioned week long interval since processing the last Kercher item.
Note: the ‘week long interval’ is a reference to the claim that by the date the knife was tested on November 13 2007, no items involving samples from the victim had been tested in the same lab, implying that the lab was as a result free from contamination. In fact, as regards the knife, the results obtained by Stefanoni were found to be so unreliable as not to necessitate an enquiry into how contamination might have occurred. As the Hellman-Zanetti report put it:
Therefore, once there is no proof that the precautions which guarantee the result is not due to contamination were respected, it is by no means necessary to also prove the specific source of the contamination.
Further, on 30th July 2011 at one of the hearing sessions of the first appeal, the defense submitted (without being contradicted) that, despite request, they had never been informed of the date of amplification of the 36B sample. See Google translation of the Transcript of the Judy 30th, 2011 hearing at p. 64
Significance: it is eminently possible, but irrelevant for other reasons, that the ‘double DNA knife’ was contaminated in Stefanoni’s lab. As the independent experts, with whose conclusions the court agreed, put it:
Exhibit 36 was placed for testing into a context where a considerable number of samples belonging to the victim had already been examined; therefore, it cannot be excluded that contamination by the aforementioned methods may have occurred – all the more so because the negative controls, which should have been amplified contextually and which could have given an indication as to the absence of contamination, were not produced
6) The reviewers initially complained in their report that the negative control tests (blank amplifications run to detect contaminants in the machine) had not been done in 2007, until it was established that documentation of these tests had been filed with the Massei court two years earlier.
Nothing of the kind has been established. It was asserted by the prosecution before the Hellmanm court on 30th July 2011 that negative controls had been filed before the preliminary judge on 8th October 2008 but when the Hellmann court recessed to find them they could not be located. A prosecution attempt to re-file the purported controls was denied. If negative controls were filed in October 2008 it is remarkable (given their importance) that the defence teams and their consultants were not informed and that the underlying electronic data recording the results was never furnished to the defence teams despite request.
Negative controls are an integral part of both electrophoresis and amplification. No evidence of either was presented to the court-appointed independent experts. See Assessment of the Forensic Genetic Tests Conducted by the Scientific Police on Item 36 (Knife) | The Conti-Vecchiotti Report from which the following quotes are taken:
It cannot be excluded that contamination … may have occurred – all the more so because the negative controls, which should have been amplified contextually and which could have given an indication as to the absence of contamination, were not produced.
In the attached eletropherograms, neither negative nor positive controls are reported.
7) Swab B tested negative using a TMB test, which reacts to hemoglobin in blood. There are two possible reasons for this: First, like Knox’s swab the Meredith material isn’t derived from blood and instead is a piece of tissue which TMB wouldn’t detect. The second is that, returning to the LCN nature of the material, the amount of blood is simply below the sensitivity threshold of the test. The defensive argument on this point is that since Swab B was negative for blood, the sample is definitely not blood and therefore it logically follows that Meredith was not injured with it, regardless of her DNA being detected on the knife blade. This argument is convenient but disingenuous as it requires the selectivity of accepting Knox profiles (also LCN and negative TMB) while seeking to exclude a Meredith result on the basis of these same characteristics.
Sample B was presumed by Stefanoni to be blood while sample A was presumed to consist of Knox’s exfoliated skin cells. But sample B tested negative not only for blood but also for the human species. Tetramethylbenzidine (‘TMB’) is an extremely sensitive blood test, capable of detecting as few as five cells  and Patrizia Stefanoni testified saying a negative result gives certainty it’s not blood.  Knox’s profile was not low template (or low copy number – ‘LCN’) as already explained above. That her profile was yielded from the knife handle is not disputed by either side. There is accordingly no ‘selectivity’ in rejecting the Kercher profile while accepting the Knox one, even if in the context of a criminal trial selectivity was not appropriate.
8) That ‘inability to repeat the test is not a valid issue.’
This refers to the fact that, so it was claimed, the amount of human material present in sample 36B was so small as to preclude division with a view to confirmation by re-testing. It is suggested here that non-repeatability ceased to be an issue because the defence teams were given prior notice of the testing in accordance with Italian law. Rather than divide the sample to ensure repeatability Dr Stefanoni made two electrophoretic runs of the same sample (obtaining inexplicably different results) a procedure described as follows in the Conti-Vehciotti report [Assessment of the Forensic Genetic Tests Conducted by the Scientific Police on Item 36 (Knife) | The Conti-Vecchiotti Report]:
Another key aspect concerns the procedure to follow for a reliable interpretation of the results, and for the designation of an allele in an LCN sample. The procedure recognized as valid by the International Scientific Community comes from replicate analysis: that is, it requires the division of the sample into two or more aliquots, with only those peaks recurring in at least two replicates being considered alleles.
The advantage of this approach is that if contamination occurs in a random and infrequent way, observing an allele several times increases the likelihood that it actually derives from the sample being examined, assuming that contamination did not happen during the sampling phase.
Most scientists who work with LCN stress the need to perform 2-3 replications, and state that an allele must be observed at least twice to be denominated as such.
9) That low copy number is reliable (sic).
The contrary is not suggested. The point is that the scientific community recognises that special measures are required when testing low template or LCN samples and that Dr Stefanoni’s work fell short of these standards insofar as her inadequate records permitted a review. Conti-Vechiotti again [Assessment of the Forensic Genetic Tests Conducted by the Scientific Police on Item 36 (Knife) | The Conti-Vecchiotti Report]:
in relation to sample B (knife blade: identification code 47330), based on the considerations previously stated about the electrophoretic graph which shows peaks below the 50 RFU threshold and allele imbalance indicative of a Low Copy Number sample (LCN), taking into account that in this specific case none of the recommendations from the International Scientific Community relating to the treatment of Low Copy Number samples were followed, we do not accept the conclusions about the certain attribution of the profile detected in Sample B to the victim Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher since the genetic profile, as obtained, is unreliable in that it is not supported by scientifically valid analytical procedures.
10) The risks presented by dealing with LCN DNA were addressed by amplifying the sample.
The implication of this quote from ‘blogger’ Maundy Gregory (qualifications unknown) is that, because sample 36B was amplified, the problems normally associated with LCN work were eliminated:
One difficulty with analyzing an LCN sample is that, because its presence in a solution is so faint, amplification is required during the PCR process (indeed, it seems clear that Stefanoni did carry out amplification on the sample).
Amplification is an integral phase in all DNA testing, not just LCN. While Stefanoni did indeed amplify the sample she did not do so through sufficient cycles (28 rather than 31) nor did her work meet internationally accepted standards for LCN testing. Conti-Vechiotti record Stefanoni’s testimony at the preliminary hearing thus:
It is emphasized that the amplification was performed only once (pages 21-22, transcript of the GUP questioning. To the question: “…the testing of a trace of this sort should be repeated several times to be considered reliable?” The Technical Consultant replies: “In theory yes”. To the question: “How many times did you do it?” she responds: “In this case only once.
11) On contamination: ‘Of the three options [contamination during collection, in the lab or by secondary transfer] the only one that is a concern in our case is contamination at the laboratory and that risk was ruled out by the independent review of the DNA evidence.’
What the independent experts said: Assessment of the Forensic Genetic Tests Conducted by the Scientific Police on Item 36 (Knife)
In the case in question, it is recalled that Exhibit 36 was placed for testing into a context where a considerable number of samples belonging to the victim had already been examined; therefore, it cannot be excluded that contamination by the aforementioned methods may have occurred – all the more so because the negative controls, which should have been amplified contextually and which could have given an indication as to the absence of contamination, were not produced.
Therefore, taking into account that in this specific case:
– it does not appear that inspection procedures were carried out according to international protocols in order to minimize environmental contamination;
– international protocols of collection and sampling of the item were not applied in order to minimize contamination from handling;
– it is not known whether rigorous decontamination procedures were applied in the laboratory to minimize laboratory contamination;
Neither, as previously explained, can it be excluded that the result obtained from this sample may derive from contamination phenomena occurring at any stage of the collection and/or handling and/or analytical procedures performed.
The Bra Clasp
‘The sample on the bra clasp is not even LCN DNA. In fact it is at the upper limits of what you’d expect for touch transfer.’ ‘The final reason is that the bra clasp had an abundant quantity of Sollecito’s DNA and as such even if the first two reasons did not apply the quantity alone would be sufficient to rule out contamination as a possibility.’
It is Low Copy Number (approximately 100-140 picograms). The total sample was about 1 nanogram according to Stefanoni but the portion attributed to Raffaele Sollecito was 1/7th.
See Patrizia Stefanoni’s testimony. http://amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-bra-dna-contamination/
Deceptive Witness Summaries
‘Forensic Dactyloscopist (the scientific investigation of fingerprints and toe or foot prints to identify the owner) with 30 years’ experience. Has identified between 5,000 and 10,000 individuals using footprints.’
That should be 5000-10000 individuals from fingerprints not footprints.
Pietro Boemia Transcript – Civil Party – Maresca
Question: Thank you, Mr President. I am Counsellor Maresca for the civil parties. A couple of questions, a clarification on your work, how many years have you done this job?
Answer: Since February 1979, it’s about 30 years.
Question: And can you tell us in these 30 years, more or less, how many prints comparisons have you done?
Answer: Ah, that’s a problem.
Question: Approximately, more than 10,000, less than 100,000, I don’t know, you tell us the number.
Answer: Of identifications?
Answer: Let’s say that approximately we’re talking between 5 and 10 thousand,
‘The alibi has Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito staying in and spending the night on the computer and reading. The problem with this is that we know that there was no computer internet activity after 9:10:32 pm when the video file Amelie.avi stopped playing.’ (Problems with the Alibi page, Lack of Computer activity section)
The cartoon Naruto was opened on Sollecito’s computer at 9.26pm.
p90 “which was caused by the viewing for a few moments of this file that is called Naruto”
P66 “so certainly this event should be located in an earlier time frame, which is certainly compatible with the moment of leaving the house, hence one can reason at 21:26, to conclude, in this way, would be the moment when this viewing of the film stopped, then there was the crash of Naruto, but to conclude, let’s take into account that…”
Nencini Report PDF 4/p76 – Note Nencini has the time wrong by 6 minutes. (He also has the wrong address for Sollecito’s apartment. #110 Corso Garibaldi not #130. (The wrong address appears 16 times in his report)
The last certain evidence of the presence of both of the defendants in the apartment of Via Garibaldi #130 consists in the human interaction on Raffaele Sollecito’s computer around 9:20 p.m.
“Amanda Knox Knew Details of the Crime She Shouldn’t Have Known: At the police station Knox mostly stayed with Sollecito, but she did have some interaction with Meredith’s friends. Her behavior was so peculiar that many of those present suggested to the police that they should consider her a suspect. One item in particular got the police’s attention. Meredith was murdered beside her closet, but sometime later her body was moved to the middle of the room. At the police station, and before this had been discovered, Knox said that Meredith had been killed by the closet. Meredith’s friends repeated this revelation to police. Knox at trial did not deny saying it. She explained to the Massei court how she came to know this: She said Raffaele had told her, but that still left open the question of how he knew. Raffaele refused to testify, so was never questioned about this in court.”
Sophie Purton testified Amanda told her Meredith’s body was found in the closet with a foot sticking out and Robyn testified she heard Amanda say that. At no point did Amanda tell anyone Meredith had been killed by the closet and no witness testified she said that. Amanda was asked about this at the trial and said after the body was discovered, everyone was standing around outside talking in Italian about what happened and Raffaele mentioned it. The claim some of the girls suggested to the police they should consider Amanda a suspect is false and made up.
Prosecutor – Listen, but when she met Amanda then asked her what had happened? What had happened that night and then that morning, and how Meredith died?
Sophie – I asked Amanda what she knew because the police told me nothing and Amanda replied, “What do you want to know? Because I know everything.” I told her “yes, tell me, I want to know.” Amanda said that Meredith had been found in the armoire (wardrobe, closet) and you could only see her foot.
Prosecutor: Did Amanda tell what happened on the morning of November 2nd?
Robyn: She didn’t speak directly with me, but I was there in the room where I heard what she was saying. I remember that she said that Meredith was in a closet wrapped in a blanket.
Prosecutor: Then she said she had seen her? Amanda.
Robyn: I do not remember if she said she had seen Meredith. I remember that she said that Meredith was in the closet wrapped in a blanket.
President: In the closet? What?
Robyn: Yes. I remember just that because she used the word “closet,” which is an American term, while I would have said “wardrobe,” which is British. When I remembered this in fact I went home and noted it. (ETA It could be she was saying it seemed notable to me)
President: Yes, here, perhaps as a question, what does the testimony say, that she was wrapped in a blanket or covered with a blanket?
Robyn: She said that the blanket was over Meredith.
President: This is in the story of Amanda, obviously?
Robyn: It’s what she said, not to me, but what she said.
President: Here but that description, the blanket over the body of Meredith, is inconsistent with what the witness first referred to as “closed in the closet.” If you can clarify.
Robyn: I did not say “closed” in the closet, I said “in the closet.”
President: Have you said that she was in the closet covered by a blanket?
Robyn: I do not know how this is possible, but this is what she said.
GM: We can go backwards later. Did you see Meredith’s room?
GM: Did you get a glimpse?
GM: Where were you?
AK: I was near the entrance, in the living room.
GM: Sollecito was with you?
GM: So he didn’t see either.
AK: He didn’t either.
GM: From what Frost, Meredith’s friend, said, and the others, we heard that you, or Sollecito, claimed to have seen the body in the closet, covered with a sheet, and nothing could be seen but a foot. Now if you hadn’t seen the room, and Raffaele hadn’t seen it either, how could you make this observation? How could you — I’m asking another question — and how could this closet contain Meredith’s body? You know the closet, right? I have a black and white photo of it here. Here. This closet.
AK: All right. Firstly, I think Frost made a little mistake, because I never said that I saw Meredith’s body in the closet. I said that I had heard people around me saying that there was a body in the closet, that was covered, with a foot sticking out. I too was confused by this, but that’s what I heard. But when people kept on asking me what happened, what they had found, I answered what I had heard.
GM: Or what Raffaele told you.
AK: Raffaele, or the people he was asking for me. …. GM: So, who were these people who said this to Raffaele?
AK: We were all asking each other, because there was Filomena’s friend, who had maybe obviously heard it from the police, but it’s not like a followed exactly where the information was coming from. Everyone was talking. Everyone was giving explanations and versions and information, and I kept turning to Raffaele because at least he understood the language. I didn’t even understand…
GM: Raffaele didn’t tell you who told him?
AK: No, but he was explaining to me above all what I asked him: what happened, what was in the room, those things.
GM: I’m asking you, but if you don’t know, just tell me: did he say to you “Filomena told me” or “such-and-such told me”, Altieri, the tall girl, the others that were there that saw into the room. There was no girl in the closet. Did he tell you who told him that? That there was a girl inside the closet?
AK: No, he didn’t tell me who said that. It was the people around.
“the Supreme Court continues to regard this knowledge as evidence of her presence during the attack.”
What the Supreme Court really said: The Chieffi Report – Knox’s Statements
However, it was noted that all the British girls who testified at the hearing on 13/02/2009 stated that on the evening of 2nd November, Knox had told them that she had found her friend’s body, that it was in front of the wardrobe, that it was covered by a quilt, that a foot was sticking out, that they had cut her throat and that there was blood everywhere, whereas during her testimony on 13/06/2009 she stated she had not seen anything.
It’s clear from the testimony above that the ISC is wrong about the British girls testimony and Amanda Knox never said SHE found the body or it was “in front of the wardrobe” but rather IN in the wardrobe. It’s also clear the ISC doesn’t have Knox saying Meredith Kercher was “killed in front of the wardrobe”. See Luca Altieri’s testimony for how Amanda knew Meredith’s throat had been cut on the behavior myths page.
“The Bleach: When Raffaele Sollecito’s apartment was searched, the police reported that it smelled strongly of bleach. During the search two bottles of bleach were found under the kitchen sink. The police interviewed Natalia, who had taken over the job of cleaning Raffaele’s apartment from his previous maid. Natalia started cleaning the apartment in September and said she had never seen the bleach. Additionally when she took over the job from the previous maid, she was told to never use bleach. The police also interviewed Kiriboga, Natalia’s predecessor, who, originally told the police that she knew nothing about the bleach. After meeting with Raffaele’s lawyer Kiriboga changed her story, saying that the bleach had been at Raffaele’s apartment when she used to work there and she had purchased it. When the police asked why she had changed her story, she claimed that she had not remembered the bleach, and that it was only when Raffaele’s lawyer asked her about it that the memory came back to her.”
Guaman Fernandez De Calle Rosa Natalia Testimony (Cleaner) p61-62
Question: Let’s return to the day of 5th November, which is the last day that you saw Raffaele, because he was arrested the next day. You told us that there were 3 people in the house?
Answer: Yes it was on the last day.
Question: Can you repeat who was there?
Answer: There was Amanda and a friend.
Question: As well as Raffaele?
Question: What did you do, did you clean?
Answer: Yes, yes, I cleaned like I normally did.
Question: Did you see or smell anything particular that comes to mind, that could come to mind now. Do you remember anything in particular, of anything unusual that happened that day?
Answer: No, no, because I saw everything to be normal, there was nothing.
Question: There was nothing odd?
Question: Were there any strange odours?
Answer: No, nothing.
Question: No kind of strange odour?
Question: A smell of beach?
Answer: No, nothing.
The pro-guilt group has been attempting to create suspicion about bleach in Raffaele’s apartment for years. This suspicion is intended to lead people to believe that Raffaele’s kitchen knife was cleaned with bleach in his apartment after the murder. One of the long time pro-guilt leaders (posting as Michael) has even pushed the lie that he has photos of bleach receipts retrieved from Raffaele’s apartment showing a bleach purchase made after the murder. As expected, Michael has made excuses every time he is asked to produce the photos. Oddly enough, the pro-guilt crowd continues to believe the lie.
Staging of Meredith’s Body
The moving of Meredith’s body hours after the murder is a Rudy Guede defense argument from the Micheli Trial. It’s a theory that Meredith Kercher’s body was staged and made to look like a sexual assault despite Rudy Guede’s DNA inside the victim and on her bra, aspirated blood on her breasts, a putative semen stain between her legs and large amounts of blood from Meredith’s neck on the ground where she was found and significant blood transfer on to the duvet. The theory was never used by the prosecution at the Knox-Sollecito trials and there was no expert testimony about it.
Who Returned To Move Meredith?
‘The state of the corpse revealed she had been moved from her original location, from in front of the wardrobe to the center of the room, quite some time after her death. Her bra was found the next day just a few inches away from her right foot, in an area devoid of blood, yet the right strap thoroughly soaked. Both straps and the clasp were broken.
Meredith Kercher was moved a few feet immediately after she was no longer able to fight. Rudy Guede moved her out of the pool of blood so he could sexually assault her and while Meredith was still breathing, she was undressed and her bra pulled up exposing her breasts. At this time blood was spraying into the air from the wound in her neck and falling back down onto the bra and her bare skin.
Forensic Engineer Ron Hendry showed how the blood evidence on the floor indicated that Meredith was moved at the time of the attack, not later: http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry100.html.
The body being staged was not the conclusion of Judge Massei or mentioned anywhere in his motivation report. Massei says that far from the “corpse being moved”, the position of the corpse is proof of Rudy’s motive for sexually assaulting her.
Massei writes in his motivations report (p391 bolding is for emphasis and not in the original):
That Rudy then yielded to his lust, and tried to find sexual satisfaction with Meredith, is revealed by how Meredith’s body was found….”
and goes on to describe how the police found Meredith. In short, there is no, “corpse being moved”.
‘Pictures described by the Micheli court amply illustrated the lividity in her right shoulder, as well as an impression of this bloodied strap in her skin and a corresponding negative impression on the floor, which remained fixed in the blood.”
The Micheli court was the pre-trial and there was no expert testimony about this. On page 61 of the Micheli Report is:
altrimenti non si vedrebbero le macchioline né sulla pelle né sul reggiseno, ma quest’ultimo lo aveva regolarmente indosso. Le foto nn. 268 e 770, ampiamente illustrate dalla difesa del GUEDE, rivelano poi con chiarezza i segni di quel capo di biancheria (una striscia verticale, piuttosto nitida) sia sul corpo della giovane che sul pavimento sottostante: a dimostrazione ulteriore che il reggiseno fu tolto dopo che il sangue aveva avuto modo di interessare per un tempo apprezzabile la spallina, appunto quella rivelatasi intrisa all’atto del ritrovamento.
The photos below were shown by Guede’s attorneys as proof the body was moved and undressed much later in order to clear him of the sexual assault charge.
The crime scene photograph below does not show an imprint of a bra strap. Investigators rolled Meredith onto her left side in order to take this photograph of the floor. The photo has been edited (grey area). Meredith’s skin made an impression on the floor in blood. The seams of the tile are slightly lower than the main surface of the floor. The thicker lines in the blood indicate where the skin stopped making contact with the floor. You will see that both tile seams (horizontal and vertical) created the same pattern. Click on the images below to enlarge.
The same tile pattern created an impression on the upper right side of Meredith’s back. Impressions of both horizontal and vertical seams can be seen on Meredith’s skin. It is important to note that no marks can be seen on the floor where the left side of Meredith’s upper back made contact with the floor. This further proves that the marks on the floor came from the tile seams and not the bra. If Meredith was wearing her bra, imprints of both straps would be present.
The second image above shows the area on the floor that made an impression on Meredith’s back. The area inside the black reverse L pattern box made a clear impression on Meredith’s skin. The fact that both seams are visible on her skin proves that the vertical line was not created by a bra strap. The arrow shows the general area where the center of Meredith’s back would have made contact with the floor. This gives perspective to where you would expect to see a similar marking on the opposite side of Meredith’s back if she had been wearing her bra at the time of her death.
It’s also important to note how the blood pooled at all of the edges where Meredith’s skin stopped making contact with the floor. This shows that the marks were not created by an imprint of a piece of clothing. They simply show where Meredith’s skin made contact with the floor. The heavier blood at the top of the image came from Meredith’s blood soaked shirt that was pushed up to expose her body before she died. The crime scene and autopsy photos do not show lividity on Meredith’s right shoulder. Micheli’s statements regarding lividity are false. Lividity was visible on Meredith’s back as expected because she died while on her back.
“Clear evidence can be seen on the front of the wardrobe and on the bra cups of point-like spots from a spray of aspirated blood, but the corresponding area of the victim’s chest was clean, proving that she was no longer drawing breath when she was stripped and moved.”
Photos of Meredith’s body show small round droplets of blood on her bare breasts. She had an aspirating wound in her neck causing her blood to spray into the air and fall back down onto her body. The blood droplets landed on her bra and on her bare breasts, proving that her bra was removed before she died.
I then saw this girl who was on the floor with her face lying towards the right of the viewer, with a terrible wound. Was semi-naked, had the t-shirt rolled up above the breast and lots of blood and spatters of blood even on the breast“. (Massei p103)
Minute specks of aspirated blood on the chest: There isn’t any in the area covered by the garments that were pulled up which, therefore, must already have been in that position when it [aspirated blood] occurred. Similar specks on the breasts (also on the nipple). They were not covered by the bra when the spray [of blood] was deposited on them.
 Professor Adriano Tagliabracci July 18, 2009 – Page 71
 October 4th, 2008 hearing Page 177
JUDGE – Ok! And here there is a degree of sensitivity?
ANSWER – It is very sensitive, now I do not know how to say it to him, however, in common practice …
JUDGE – There also cites false positives of the series …
ANSWER – Yes, in the sense that it does not distinguish whether it is human or animal blood, for example.
JUDGE: However where the result is negative I’m given to understand that it’s almost certain that it is not [blood]?
ANSWER: Yes, it’s not blood, it is not, yes.