If the prosecution wants to make this point as part of their deliberations and decision making process, Knox should be able to see the research.

It’s just this kind of supposition and assumption that makes Mignini’s case amateurish and sophomoric as well as invalid. It’s what Italians call psychological science but what Amanda Knox more correctly continues to calls “Pure Fantasy”.

The defense request to have their scientific evidence examined and admitted will be allowed this time. While the prosecution had theirs allowed in 2008, the judge conveniently ruled that he had seen enough scientific evidence already which denied the inclusion of the defence experts.

Dr. P. Stefanoni and Dr. Renato Biondo will suffer professional disgrace and embarrassment for their work on this case.

The fact that Knox and Sollecito were charged with first degree murder, which requires intent and premeditation will favor the defense. No malice or premeditation was shown in the initial trial, as evidenced by the Motivation. They are innocent of first degree murder. This will open the door for other prosecution problems.

The lack of premeditation makes it seem silly to carry a butcher knife to someone’s house. It’s not the type of thing one carries about casually.

Testimony by the Innocence Project will be well received as reliable and impartial.

Amanda’s mother also refers to information first introduced in summation, which will be excluded on appeal. She did not elaborate on the information.

The Sollecito’s and their “politically connected” lawyers/legislators seem to have a good handle on applying “local pressure” to this case and the finishing touches (change of venue, selection of the Judges) will be handled by the State Department, well behind the scenes.

I can see Trump’s jet now…in Rome…with the Knox family boarding…and home to Seattle by Christmas.

Any further posts from you will be deleted.

Mignini: Known conspiracy theorist with a demonstrated lack of respect for the rule of law. Has previously incarcerated innocent people on bogus sex-crime-killer whacked out theories before. He has been convicted for gross prosecutorial misconduct.

Knox: No previous history of any violent sexual tendencies or criminal misconduct. Nothing in her or Sollecito’s past to indicate they would ever commit an act like this. And no one has been able to construct a coherent narrative of the events that occurred that night that could implicate involvement of anyone but Guede.

Guede: No shortage of reliable, standardized, and scientifically taken evidence. He was there, by his own admission. And yet not even he has come up with a believable story implicating Knox and Sollecito.

Knox’s confession was the result of improper interrogation — false confessions under intense and lengthy questioning are pretty common. Which is, you know, why they are not allowed, and also why her ‘confession’ was not admissible in court. (Speaking of which — why won’t they release her recorded confession? Surely such a thing could only help their PR case?) Lumumba should thank his lucky stars that he had an iron-clad alibi, or else he’d have been convicted too.

I’m not interested in going through a point by point accounting of the evidence, because lord knows, that’s done enough elsewhere. But this site provides a pretty good description of how bunk the evidence collecting was. Unscientific is pretty much the best summary of it.

Incidentally, I can’t believe you actually think pettily pointing out someone’s typos improves the credibility of your own arguments.

[Editor's note: I'm pretty lenient about what I will allow from commentators, but drive-by insults lacking any substantive content tend to clutter up the page without offering anything in return. In the interest of transparency, I'm going to follow the lead of other blogs and elect to use disemvoweling to handle comments of this nature.]

Dr. Stefanoni’s investigation and the forensic findings were independently reviewed by Dr. Renato Biondo in 2008. He confirmed that all the forensic findings were accurate and reliable. He also praised the work of Dr. Stefanoni and her team.

Which defence experts categorically stated that Meredith’s DNA was not on the blade?

The presence of Meredith’s DNA on the blade of the knife was confirmed by Raffaele Sollecito, who claimed on two separate occasions that he had accidentally pricked Meredith’s hand whilst cooking. Sollecito’s claims, like so many of his claims, are completely untrue. Meredith had never been to his apartment.

I should point out that Amanda Knox’s blood was co-mingled with Meredith’s blood in three different places in the bathroom:

“But mixed blood samples were found as well. Specifically, mixed blood of Knox and Kercher was found on the drain of the bidet, on a box of Q-tips sitting on the sink and the sink ledge.” (Andrea Vogt, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer).

Amanda Knox’s blood was also found on the sink faucet. This indicates that Amanda Knox and Meredith were both bleeding on the night of the murder. Knox effectively dated the blood stains in the bathroom to the night of the murder at the trial when she conceded there was no blood in the bathroom the day before.

Barbie Nadeau noted the significance of the woman’s bloody shoeprint on The Daily Beast website:

“Worse for Knox, when the judge asked Rinaldi the size of an unidentified bloody shoeprint found on the pillow below Kercher’s body, he responded, “Between 36 and 38.” The judge then asked Rinaldi what size shoe Knox wears. “The Skecher shoe we sequestered belonging to Amanda Knox corresponds with size 37.” (Barbie Nadeau, The Daily Beast).

The fact that the bra clasp was collected several weeks later is irrelevant. The cottage was sealed the entire time and contamination is impossible because DNA doesn’t fly around the room.

Dr. Stefanoni believed that Meredith’s bra would be important evidence because it had almost certainly been removed after Meredith had been killed and would therefore have the DNA of her murderers on it. Sure enough, the DNA of Amanda Knox, Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede was found on Meredith’s bra.

Sollecito left an abundant amount of DNA (over 200 cells) on the clasp, which means that he must have touched the clasp directly and applied considerable pressure.

Dr. Stefanoni was aware the bra clasp was missing almost immediately. The reason why it took several weeks to collect the clasp is that she had to agree a date with the defence teams to go back to the cottage.

Defence teams will always claim contamination when there is incriminating DNA evidence. What is the statistical probability of both the double DNA knife AND a small piece of Meredith’s underwear being contaminated?

I noticed that you didn’t attempt to address Amanda Knox’s and Raffaele Sollecito’s multiple conflicting alibis and repeated lies, Amanda Knox’s voluntary confession, or the fact that Knox falsely accused an innocent man of murder.

I should add that Amanda Knox didn’t recant her false and malicious allegation against Diya Lumumba the whole time he was in prison despite knowing full well that he was completely innocent.

The prosecution in America, Britain and Italy don’t have to prove motive.

Incidentally, you’ve misspelt Raffaele Sollecito’s name. It undermines your credibility.

(1) Ignoring the fact all the DNA evidence was so shoddily collected it would not be admissible in a U.S. court, the fact Amanda’s DNA was on a knife blade she admitted to making dinner with is not surprising. And plenty of experts have said “categorically” that Kercher’s DNA was not on the blade. Sketch all around.

(2-7) Finding Amanda’s DNA in her own house cannot be used as proof as anything. Everyone’s DNA is all over their own home — and if someone happens to be killed in their house, finding their DNA at the scene of the crime does not increase the likelihood they were involved with the crime. Finding Knox’s DNA “mixed with” blood is meaningless — if the blood landed on a piece of the house Amanda had touched a week before, it would be “mixed with” it, and by your logic, proving her guilt.

(8) The shoe print was not ever shown to even be a woman’s shoe print, let alone Amanda’s. The prosecution implied it was the right size to be a woman’s shoe print. Full stop. They didn’t show anything else.

(9) The Sollecito shoe print issue: Just read this for a pretty fair summary. http://abcnews.go.com/US/International/amanda-knox-testimony-disputes-bloody-footprints/story?id=8613900&page=1 . Basically, you can hire an expert to say whatever you want about it.

(10) The bra clasp wasn’t collected for 40 days after the murder. My personal belief is that the DNA evidence was staged, but obviously I can’t prove that. Doesn’t matter — given the way the evidence was handled, it is flat out too unreliable to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt.

Long story short — a case based entirely upon crazed slut-shaming and the conflicting testimony of forensics experts is no case at all. Given that the prosecution still doesn’t have a motive and was never able to construct a plausible narrative of the crime, Amanda and Raphael should not have been convicted.

Amanda Knox’s DNA was found on:

1. On the double DNA knife and a number of independent forensic experts – Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo and Professor Francesca Torricelli – categorically stated that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade.

2. Mixed with Meredith’s blood on the ledge of the basin.

3. Mixed with Meredith’s blood on the bidet.

4. Mixed with Meredith blood on a box of Q Tip cotton swabs.

5. Mixed with Meredith’s blood in the hallway.

6. Mixed with Meredith’s blood on the floor of Filomena’s room, where the break-in was staged.

7. On Meredith’s bra according to Dr. Stefanoni AND Raffaele Sollecito’s forensic expert, Professor Vinci.

Amanda Knox’s footprints were found set in Meredith’s blood in two places in the hallway of the new wing of the cottage. One print was exiting her own room, and one print was outside Meredith’s room, facing into the room. These bloody footprints were only revealed under luminol.

A woman’s bloody shoeprint, which matched Amanda Knox’s foot size, was found on a pillow under Meredith’s body. The bloody shoeprint was incompatible with Meredith’s shoe size.

Two independent imprint experts categorically excluded the possibility that the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat could belong to Rudy Guede. Lorenzo Rinaldi stated:

“You can see clearly that this bloody footprint on the rug does not belong to Mr. Guede, but you can see that it is compatible with Sollecito.”

The other imprint expert print expert testified that the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito’s foot.

An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. Meredith’s bra was removed some time after she had been killed and Rudy Guede had fled the scene.

The murder dynamic implicates Knox and Sollecito.

Barbie Nadeau wrote the following:

“Countless forensic experts, including those who performed the autopsies on Kercher’s body, have testified that more than one person killed her based on the size and location of her injuries and the fact that she didn’t fight back—no hair or skin was found under her fingernails.”

Judge Paolo Micheli claimed that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito knew precise details about Meredith’s murder that they could have only known if they were present when she was killed.

Amanda Knox voluntarily admitted that she involved in Meredith’s murder in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007. She stated on at least four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed. She also claimed that Sollecito was at the cottage.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito both gave multiple conflicting alibis and lied repeatedly. Their lies were exposed by telephone and computer records, and by CCTV footage. Neither Knox nor Sollecito have credible alibis for the night of the murder despite three attempt each. At the trial, Sollecito refused to corroborate Knox’s alibi that she was at his apartment.

Legal expert Stefano Maffei stated the following:

“There were 19 judges who looked at the evidence over the course of two years, faced with decisions on pre-trial detention, review of such detention, committal to trial, judgment on criminal responsibility. They all agreed, at all times, that the evidence was overwhelming.”