Law & Disorder

by Douglas, John

  The jury of judges and laymen deliberated for twelve hours, finally announcing its verdict on December 4, 2009. Both defendants were guilty. Amanda Knox, the ringleader, was sentenced to twenty-six years in prison; Raffaele Sollecito to twenty-five. In addition, she had to pay a multi-million euro judgment to the Kercher family and another fifty thousand to Patrick for defamation. Amanda sobbed. Raffaele said nothing. Giuliano Mignini’s only regret, he said, was that the defendants weren’t given life sentences.

  Amanda and Raffaele’s families were stunned and appalled. The still–shell-shocked but always-dignified Kercher family merely said they would have to accept the evidence and the verdict. Meredith’s brother Lyle said, “We are pleased with the decision, but this is not a time for celebration. It’s not a moment of triumph. We got here because our sister was brutally murdered.”

  According to the 427-page report written by the judges, they and the six jurors did not believe Mignini’s assertion that Meredith’s murder was planned or the result of animosity between her and Amanda, but they did believe that Amanda and Rudy played a significant role in her death.

  The “most plausible hypothesis,” they asserted, held that Rudy went to the house, and was let in by Amanda and Raffaele despite the likelihood that they were in Amanda’s bedroom having sex at the time. Once admitted (Amanda knew him only vaguely and Raffaele not at all) Rudy came on to Meredith, who refused him. For some reason, Amanda and Raffaele, who were there, came into the bedroom and helped Rudy have his way with Meredith rather than defend her. From there, things got out of control, resulting in Raffaele attacking her with his pocket knife, causing her to scream, which, in turn, caused Amanda to stab her repeatedly with Raffaele’s kitchen knife:

  The motive is therefore of erotic sexual violent nature, which, originating from Rudy’s choice of evil, found its active collaboration from Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. This is a translation, by way of CNN, but you get the general idea.

  Like all of the government’s other hypotheses, this one makes no sense. There was no premeditation, according to the judges; yet they did accept that the kitchen knife on exhibit was the principal murder weapon. In other words, Amanda brought a large kitchen knife from Raffaele’s kitchen, but with no nefarious purpose in mind. Was she intent on cooking that night and liked her boyfriend’s knife better than her flatmates’? Was she slicing chicken or dicing vegetables when she heard Rudy trying to rape her girlfriend and, already holding the knife, just decided to join in the fun? And, after all that, did she wash it off, bring it back to Raffaele’s place and put it back in the knife drawer, where the police found it?

  I have never seen a judge’s ruling so bizarre or nonsensical. It defies reason that it could have been conceived and written by an adult with any logical capacity whatsoever, much less an experienced jurist. To think that these two young people would be sentenced to spend a quarter of a century each in prison based on such a flight of fantasy is nothing less than sickening.

  Violent crimes aren’t that elaborate or far-fetched. Never. A few basic things happen that lead to tragedy. Convoluted, counterintuitive scenarios are what happen in fiction. Given a certain set of evidence, which is a more coherent narrative—one of the explanations the prosecution or judges bought into, or that a local disco guy without a job, with a history of burglary and drugs, broke into a house he already knew, stole money, found one of the women residents home, began to sexually assault her, panicked and killed her, then escaped?

  That scenario is clear-cut and logical: Rudy needed money. He went to the house on Via della Pergola, didn’t see any signs of habitation, so he broke a window with a rock and climbed up and in Filomena’s room. He was a lithe, athletic basketball player so this was hardly the feat of herculean skill the police and prosecutors seemed to think. It was the beginning of the month so it was likely rent money would be lying around. But first, as he had done on other occasions—past behavior predicts future behavior—he helped himself to food in the kitchen. His DNA bears this out. He then had to use the bathroom, and was probably surprised when he heard someone enter the house. This explains the toilet not being flushed; either he rushed out suddenly to see who it was or didn’t want to alert the other person that she was not alone.

  He then had to neutralize the other person, who turned out to be Meredith. It could have been any of the four women—the scenario and outcome would have been the same.

  It is clear from the crime scene that Meredith did not submit meekly. There is blood all over the place, which indicates she bravely fought like hell. Once she was rendered helpless, he could have had his sexual way with her, or even masturbated on or over her body as she was dying. The scene also tells me that he didn’t even leave right away then. He probably continued to look around for anything he might want to take, and threw the blanket haphazardly over her body so he wouldn’t have to look at her and confront what he had done.

  He was sophisticated enough to lock Meredith’s bedroom door, delaying discovery of the body.

  He went home through a circuitous route so as not to be spotted, and along the way ditched the two mobile phones he had stolen. When he got to his room he cleaned up and changed clothes. Anyone involved with this scene would have been covered with blood. Perhaps he even broke into the downstairs and took clothing belonging to one of the men. Then from home, he went out to the clubs to dance the night away.

  This action has two overlapping interpretations. First, he was so morally unconcerned with the murder that it didn’t stop him from having a good time. Second, he needed to establish an alibi. He would have figured that the exact time of death would be difficult to establish, so if he were seen by the club habitués, it would seem that he had been there all evening. But even this goes back to the first interpretation—you have to be a pretty cold and conscienceless individual to pull this off.

  Why jump through logical hoops with Amanda and Raffaele when this scenario is so coherent? As a profiler, I applied the same questions to this case as I had to the Ramseys’. We have to ask ourselves: What would turn an ordinary, happy day into a murder? What occurred on Christmas Day, after exchanging gifts, having dinner with friends and anticipating a Disney cruise, to make either of JonBenét’s parents kill her? Nothing!

  Likewise, what went on the day after Halloween to cause happy, bubbly, often goofy and recently-in-love Amanda to grab a kitchen knife and stab it repeatedly through her girlfriend’s throat? Again: Nothing!

  CHAPTER 32

  APPEAL

  Less than a month after the verdict, Rudy Guede’s sentence was cut from thirty to twenty-four years on appeal, then to sixteen and then fourteen. It was explained that he was the only one of the three defendants to offer an apology to the Kercher family. It wasn’t, however, for killing their daughter, which he never admitted. It was for failing to rescue her.

  Or was the reduction of sentence a proactive technique—an incentive to keep him from saying anything damaging to the prosecution’s case against Amanda and Raffaele? This is a law enforcement establishment that handed out numerous commendation awards for excellence in the Kercher murder investigation; another proactive technique.

  Of all the amazing things about this case, the most amazing of all is that, like the West Memphis Three, it got to trial at all. The authorities had the real killer as soon as they apprehended Rudy Guede and they should have known it. It was not a difficult case to analyze or figure out. On top of everything else, his DNA was all over the crime scene.

  How, in the name of all that is rational, could Amanda and Raffaele have participated in this satanic orgy of sex and murder Mignini so imaginatively described and yet not leave any of their own DNA on the scene?

  Mignini said they cleaned it up, and used the recently purchased container of bleach at Raffaele’s apartment as proof.

  So tell me, Mr. Public Minister Mignini, how do two unsophisticated kids who’ve never gotten into serious trouble in their lives suddenly figure out how to
erase every bit of their own invisible DNA from the crime scene, yet manage to leave gobs of Rudy’s? If you would answer this question, Mr. Public Minister, I would be mightily impressed, because I’ve worked with some of the best crime scene investigators in the world and none of them know how to do it.

  Had you gotten to Rudy first, maybe it would have been different. As scary and threatening as Amanda was to you and all you believed in, you still might have left her and her boyfriend out of it if you could have. You had your real killer. His story made no sense at all and was disprovable at practically every turn. But by the time Rudy turned up, it was too late; you’d already proclaimed that an American girl, an Italian boy and a black African had committed the murder. To back down at that point would have been embarrassing and would have destroyed your precious theory of the case.

  What you did so successfully during the trial was get the jury to do the same thing you made Amanda do during her long night of interrogation: imagine what might have happened at Via della Pergola 7 that horrible night.

  You were willing to ruin two lives and mislead a grieving family for the sake of your own honor and ego. But let’s be honest. It wasn’t just you. There is plenty of responsibility and blame to go around.

  On January 22, 2010, Mignini was convicted of abuse of office in relation to his Monster of Florence investigation. He was sentenced to sixteen months in prison, all of it suspended.

  By this point, negative reactions to the verdict were popping up all over the world. The case was giving Italian justice a black eye. In a major public relations pushback in July, forty-three officers involved in the investigation of the Kercher murder were given meritorious service awards.

  As the appeal drew near, Steve Moore decided to find out what he could about Amanda on a personal level to see if there was any validity to the wild and wanton portrait Mignini had painted.

  On September 12, he went to the Knox family residence and conducted an interview with Amanda’s sister Deanna, then twenty-one, and Amanda’s best friend, Brett Lither, then twenty-three. He was not expecting them to be objective or unbiased, but he wanted to get insight into her background. Steve is a good and experienced investigator, so he knows how to ask the right questions and how to interpret the responses. He shared the results with me with the family’s knowledge, but he purposely did not ask for their permission or consent.

  From the time she was small, according to Deanna and Brett, Amanda was known to “stick up for forgotten people.” Brett gave examples of how Amanda would be nice and supportive to her even when she felt she was being unpleasant or feeling depressed. So many friends seemed completely devoted to her.

  Was she a pure, snow-white virgin? Hardly. Was she a high-spirited girl looking for romantic adventure in Italy? Certainly. But as to the suggestion that Amanda was a manipulative, sexually charged vixen, both women just laughed. They said she was “dopey” and “inexperienced,” and so naive about boys that she didn’t even get it when one of them was hitting on her. When they saw the list of her seven sexual partners, they said of the five they knew, all were “geeky young white virginal boys” and questioned whether she’d gone “all the way” with each of them. The way they knew her, they confirmed that if she was told to list her previous partners, she was so cautious and obedient that she would include anyone with whom she’d had any sort of intimate contact. Her sex life, they said, was “plain vanilla.”

  At a barbecue at the Knoxes’ house, Steve conducted another discussion with eight of Amanda’s other friends, both boys and girls. The portrait that emerged was similar.

  The important point here is not the specifics of what Deanna or any of Amanda’s friends revealed, but the general image. None of these kids was sophisticated enough to fool or mislead Steve, who had interviewed al Qaeda terrorists. He confirmed my impression that the Amanda Knox created by Giuliano Mignini was a myth.

  Two weeks after these conversations, on September 28, 2010, Pepperdine University fired Steve after he refused repeated directives to drop the case and stop speaking out in support of Amanda. Previously they had offered him $25,000 if he would resign and sign an agreement never to discuss why he was leaving the institution. He refused this offer as well. So when they fired him, the story at the time was that administrators felt his advocacy was making things awkward for the university’s program in Florence. I hate to see men or women lose their jobs for what they believe in, but I certainly respect the integrity behind it.

  Would Amanda’s plight have attracted so much attention and support had she not been a beautiful American girl? Probably not. On the other hand, were she not a beautiful American girl, it’s doubtful she would have been charged at all. As it was, she had to be neutralized and punished for her perceived power to charm men into murder. In an earlier age, one suspects, the high priests of Perugia would have known what to do with her.

  The Knox-Sollecito appeal began in November 2010 under Judges Claudio Pratillo Hellmann and Massimo Zanetti. They appointed two forensic experts from Sapienza University in Rome, Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti, to review the collection and analysis of the DNA evidence.

  Like just about everything else in Italian justice, the trial dragged on for months through sporadic court sessions. Meanwhile, Amanda and Raffaele remained in prison.

  For the January 2011 issue of Maxim, the magazine did a profile on me, relating my FBI experience and describing how I now consulted with police departments and legal teams. The article mentioned that I was working to clear both the West Memphis Three and Amanda Knox.

  “In both cases—West Memphis and Knox,” I was quoted, “the police allowed theory rather than evidence to direct their investigations, and that is always a fatal error.”

  This attracted the attention of Il Messaggero, the national newspaper that is the most widely read daily publication in Rome and Central Italy. Editor Paolo Graldi assigned Krista Errickson, an American writer with extensive international journalistic experience, to interview me. She was assisted by Italian journalist Gianmaria Giulini. Krista contacted me and I agreed to talk to her.

  Of the more than five thousand cases I’ve worked on, she asked, how many of these had been international? About 250, I replied—mostly in Canada, England, Australia, Germany and South America.

  After probing my background, experience and investigative techniques, she asked for my conclusion on the Knox-Sollecito case, the one the paper’s readers would be most interested in. I answered her:

  “From the profiles I created, none of the behavioral or forensic evidence leads to Amanda and Raffaele. There is no history or experience related to violence in their backgrounds. Guede has the history; he was an experienced criminal, he had the motive, and all evidence points to him. The crime scene does not indicate the presence of three individuals in the room where Meredith was murdered. Behavior reflects personality. And that behavior fits only Rudy Guede.”

  The article concluded with me saying: “I know Meredith’s family wants this nightmare to end. But they have the person that killed their daughter: It is Guede. Only Guede.”

  Apparently, this was not what the paper wanted. Krista “was ordered to fall in line” by Graldi and come up with a version more to their taste, which would result in undercutting everything I said. There were admonitions added to the effect that I didn’t have the real evidence and there is “no legal recognition of [my] profession [in] Italy.”

  If she didn’t agree to do this, the article would run with an editorial response tacked onto the end by Messaggero’s legal expert Massimo Martinelli, who, according to Graldi, had been on the Knox case “since the beginning.” The Martinelli response was six paragraphs, characterized by commentary such as this (in translation):

  We have an interview of such that would be seen as interference, seemingly humble, in respect to the work of the investigators, and the prosecution’s theory: in reality, the entire prosecution is swept away with one stroke, and without many issues, in personal opinio
ns of Douglas.

  Graldi’s note to her included the warning (translated): So unless you will edit the article to an acceptable form, Martinelli and I cannot bring ourselves to accept the interview in this form, because it would only cause problems.

  Krista was appalled and refused to have it published this way. She called me and said, “John, I want to pull the article. I don’t want to do this to you, but I’ll leave it up to you.” I asked her to send me a translation of the proposed new version; when I read it, I agreed completely.

  “Pull it!” I said; and I told her to warn the publisher that if they published it in that form, I would sue them.

  She then sent a long e-mail to my attorney, Steve Mark, explaining why it would not run, along with “Before” and “After” versions. She recounted:

  This was an assignment, requested by the editor and publisher of Il Messaggero. . . . It seems what John had to say is not what they expected to hear. Again, I deeply regret this outcome. I spent three days in a complete daze. I felt as if I had been hit by a bus. Paolo Graldi, the editor, is someone I have worked with, and moreover, has been a very close personal friend for over 17 years. This shook my faith to its very foundations. After a 2 hour phone argument with Graldi, the last thing he said to me was, “This article, as you wrote it—is too dangerous for Italy.”

  I admired Krista’s integrity. Not only did she refuse to recast the article, she resigned from Il Messaggero after twenty years as a contributing political writer.

  Fortunately, some other people also considered the truth above all else. Appearing in court on July 25, 2011, scientists Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti demolished the prosecution’s assertions and singled out its lead forensic examiner, Patrizia Stefanoni, for gross negligence in the handling, processing and interpretation of the evidence.