The Killer's Shadow - The Latest Book is Now Available! Click to Purchase
Meredith Kercher & Amanda Knox

Meredith Kercher & Amanda Knox

So the Italian court in Florence that heard the Supreme Court-directed appeals case against American Amanda Knox and Italian Raffaele Sollecito in the 2007 murder of British Meredith Kercher has finally released the “motivation document” for its reversal of their acquittal and reinstatement of the original guilty verdict.

It turns out the prosecution’s original theory of the case was way off. It wasn’t a satanic ritual murder after all. And it turns out the prosecution’s subsequent theory of the case was just as way off. It wasn’t a sex orgy gone bad, either.

It turns out that the murder was all about Amanda letting Rudy Guede take a dump in the bathroom they shared but did not make him flush the toilet after himself.

And it took the court almost 400 pages to lay out this bizarre confabulation. It would be comical if it weren’t so tragic.

Here’s one of our favorite lines of the motivation document (in translation), explaining why Prosecution Theory #2 must be wrong: “It is not believable that a group sexual intercourse had started. This hypothesis is not consistent with the personality of the English girl.”

Fine, we agree with that completely. But it is consistent with the personality of the American girl that she would kill her friend and flat mate over resentment at being criticized for not making sure a guest flushed the toilet? Of course, according to the judges, you have to factor in that Amanda and Raffaele had taken drugs, Amanda “got on Kercher’s nerves” and they had a fight over money on the night Meredith was murdered.

But we’re getting ahead of ourselves, because the entire premise is so bizarre. And it’s hard to know where to start in refuting all of this nonsense.

There is no evidence Amanda and Meredith even saw each other the night of the murder.

There is no evidence Amanda and Raffaele were at the house the night of the murder.

There is no evidence Amanda and Meredith ever fought over money. Both of them had worked multiple jobs back home to pay for their year in Perugia and both were extremely responsible about money and proud of their hard work.

There is no evidence Amanda and Rudy Guede – the proven sole killer and alleged serial defecator-nonflusher – were ever in the upstairs part of the house together.

And, as we’ve said over and over and over again, there is no evidence – none – of either Amanda or Raffaele at the crime scene, while there is overwhelming evidence that Rudy – and Rudy alone – was.

The court finds compelling evidence that Meredith must have been held down and stabbed by two different people, suggesting multiple offenders. Suggested by what? Nothing.

We have laid out the evidence plainly in our collaborative Amazon ebook, The Forgotten Killer: Rudy Guede and the Murder of Meredith Kercher, as well as our own book Law & Disorder, so we won’t go through all of the evidence again.

But as we’ve also said before, What part of evidence-based jurisprudence do the Italian courts not understand?

Since the re-conviction of Amanda and Raffaele at the end of January, we have been waiting for the Motivation Document to see how the judges possibly could have come up with the verdict they handed down. Now, all we can say for certain is that it has nothing to do with either evidence or logic, two elements that have been sorely lacking from this entire sorry miscarriage of justice.

Last November, when this latest prosecution theory emerged, we wrote:

“Of all the cases John Douglas has investigated, and he and I have studied and analyzed, this has never come up as a motive in a murder. Why? Because it’s ridiculous.

“Though no more ridiculous than all of the prosecution theories of Amanda and Raffaele’s involvement that preceded it, I have to add.

“When the story keeps changing, it’s unlikely to get any better, or more truthful. And the prosecution has to know its case is in the toilet – where it belongs.”

And that is just where the judges went to dredge it up.

So the struggle continues.

6 Responses to What Is It This Time?

  1. seesthru says:

    When they hear thundering hooves and loud whinnies, the powers that be in this case, think not horses, not zebras, not even donkeys. They think Werewolves and vampires, and drug fueled non flushing hippies. It is tragically insane.

  2. watson says:

    It’s clear to me the Italian Court in Florence….knows little…but to lie…and ‘cover’ it’s workers. Italy like that part of Europe that is Romance and ‘Napoleonic’…is… ‘not’….our justice system….of the UK, US, Australia, Canada, British Commonwealth in my opinion.
    They ‘do not’ have a adversarial system (of 2 lawyers in fair and equal argument), they do not have a ‘jury’ of peers.
    As far as I know all the lawyers, judges, officials are hired and paid by the government there, and when they by majority/ politics decide or have to decide some innocent person guilty….they make it so illegally and with total disregard of evidence..
    P.S. In my NE state I’ve written both my 2 US Senators, and written Hillary Clinton too. They all assure me innocent ‘Amanda’ is safe, and will ‘never’ be ‘extradited’.

  3. Tom Mininger says:

    According to this document, Amanda and Raffaele are the first people in the history of mankind to able to selectively clean up their own invisible DNA and leave another person’s invisible DNA behind. And they accomplished this without disturbing any of the blood spatter.

  4. snowdenlit says:

    At this point I think of these as “motivated reasoning” documents. It’s disturbing to think that a community of jurists, with one notable exception, can be so addled by bias against a defendant that they’ll desperately try to shore up any conspiracy theory involving her, but that seems to be where we are.

    The way these documents read reminds me of former prosecutor and current Chief Justice of the Montana Supreme Court Mike McGrath, who continues to spin outlandish theories to justify his prosecution of an innocent man for murder, even after DNA evidence exonerated him. People will go to amazing lengths to avoid admitting they’re wrong, and they often don’t care about the damage they do in the process.

    • Well said, Jim. With my background in journalism, I always thought that in any argument, if you just produced the facts in a straightforward, unvarnished way, you could make your case and the other side would have to bow to evidence. How naive I was!

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


The Latest

  • Words of Wisdom
    From a poem by anti-Nazi theologian Pastor Martin Niemoller: First they came for […]


© 2019 Mindhunters, Inc.