Former FBI agent has theory proving Amanda Knox’s innocence

By Calvin Palmer

Amanda Knox is innocent, so says former FBI agent Steve Moore based on his years of experience with the bureau.

Moore argues that when someone’s throat is cut, as was the case with British student Meredith Kercher, blood spurts into the air. Kercher would have lost more than four pints of blood. The killer, or killers, would have been covered in her blood and their footprints would have left bloody trails of guilt.

“You cannot just scrub it off,” said Moore. “Blood is God’s way of identifying the man with the knife.”

Moore feels a great injustice has been committed and is trying to whip up counterparts in Italy to do the work to prove his theory is correct and Knox is innocent.

Knox and her former Italian boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito were convicted last December for the murder of Meredith in the house in Perugia, Italy, she shared with Knox.

Meredith’s room was found to be full of full of the finger and footprints of Rudy Guede, a drifter, burglar and small-time drug dealer originally from the Ivory Coast. But there was not a single bloody footprint belonging to Knox or Sollecito.

Moore asserts it is “absolutely impossible” they could have been in the room when Meredith died.

“There are no footprints of theirs in the blood,” he said. “To believe the prosecution case, they would have had to have been floating on a magic carpet.”

Moore claims the lack of clarity in their mutual alibi is not the real issue. The onus is on the prosecution to justify its claims.

In a crime scene, Moore says, “the absence of evidence is evidence of absence” of the key suspects, and the prosecutors did not come close to putting Amanda and Raffaele in the room where Meredith died.

Moore is also scathing about the prosecutors’ “read” on the crime scene, which is contradicted by all the forensic evidence, as if a “group of libidinous adolescent boys had tried to imagine the most lascivious thing that they believed could have happened”.

Knox does not satisfy any of the criteria that might suggest she would harm, never mind kill, Meredith, according to Moore. “In the FBI, we took the view that the simplest explanation of a crime is almost always the best explanation,” he said.

He believes not only does Amanda not fit the psychological profile of a killer in any respect, but she also doesn’t fit the profile of a person capable of violence.

Guede, whose guilt is not in doubt, has already had his sentence cut in half, and it could be cut again, setting him free within a year or two. Knox’s supporters believe a deal has been struck.

Moore is quick to point out that he is not writing a book, not being paid as a consultant by the Knox camp in Seattle. Indeed, his mission to expose the faults in the trial has cost him his job with Pepperdine University. He was fired last month for refusing to drop his campaign.

Pepperdine University has an affiliated campus in Italy and Moore’s campaigning on behalf of Knox was causing political problems there.

So there you have it. The Italian prosecutors got it all wrong. The jury was hoodwinked into delivering the wrong verdict as part of a witch hunt, according to Moore.

It all sounds very plausible, just like the theories that the attacks of 9/11 were orchestrated by the CIA. But they are just that theories and devoid of hard evidence and facts.

Is Moore privy to every police report in the Kercher case? No.

Was Moore present at the crime scene shortly after the murder was committed? No

How likely is it that Moore has personal contacts with the police force in Perugia? Unlikely.

Why is Moore the only former member of the FBI to reach these startling conclusions? My guess is personal vanity and ego.

How good an agent was Moore during his time with the FBI? No one knows of his record. It could be that he was an absolute dullard but made good coffee for the rest of the team. He is on record as saying that he quit the FBI because he was tired of foreign travel. Or could it be that he quit because he was still a field agent after 25 years with bureau and had been passed over for promotion on several occasions? We just don’t know but are expected to believe that he is right where everyone else is wrong.

Why haven’t we heard from other law enforcement officers expressing the same opinions as Moore, if they are so self evident regarding Knox’s innocence? Over to you, Inspector Knacker of Scotland Yard.

We only have Moore’s version of why he was fired by Pepperdine University. What is the university’s side of the story? Could it be that Moore was falling down on the job he was employed to do?

His quote, “Blood is God’s way of identifying the man with the knife,” brings into question his credibility both regarding his theory and his abilities as an FBI agent. Perhaps God revealed Knox’s innocence to Moore in a dream. So that explains why the FBI has such a success rate in solving all of its cases.

What we have here is a man in the throes of a mid-life crisis, no longer in a job of any importance and unable to come to terms with his reduced status? What better way to get back into the spotlight, and massage his ego, than to take up this cause célèbre.

Knox is due to appeal against her conviction for murder next month, which probably explains Moore’s timely intervention.

Stefano Maffei, a University of Parma professor of criminal procedure, says the appeal court is likely to agree with the murder conviction but find that mitigating factors outweigh the aggravated ones, which leads to a one-third reduction in sentence.

According to Maffei, 18 Italian magistrates have reviewed the evidence in the Knox case and come to the same conclusion of culpability, which somehow ingrains the decision into the judiciary.

But in the light of Knox’s good behavior, and other sociological reasons, her sentence is likely to be reduced, he said.

The prosecution is also appealing that Knox’s sentence be increased from 26 years to life.

[Based on reports by the London Evening Standard, The Daily Telegraph and Seattle Post-Intelligencer.]

Add to Technorati Favorites



Filed under Crime, Europe, Justice, News

14 responses to “Former FBI agent has theory proving Amanda Knox’s innocence

  1. Maruchan

    Your “About” section says you are interested in truth justice and fair play, but you wouldn’t take this position if any of that were true. You’ve been reading too much British press. I’m half Brit myself and never touch the stuff.

    This case is a cross between the Dreyfus case and the Duke rape case, and what they are doing to that girl is appalling. She is not guilty of murdering anyone, but she does seem to be guilty of having had a My Space page.

    And your snark about Moore’s age, unemployment and “status” — projecting much..? He’s been very brave and paid for it. But he will be proven right.

    • calvininjax

      I am sure you are absolutely right, except that Knox has been found guilty in a court of law. It may not be to your choosing, but it is a court of law.

      • Maruchan

        Being found guilty in a court of law does not make a person guilty in fact, so your use of the word “except” is curious here. She can be found guilty in a court of law and I can still be absolutely right.

        I don’t think that “The Italian prosecutors got it all wrong,” as you say, mocking Moore’s conclusions. I think they made it all up. That is so much worse.

        Enjoy your truth, justice and fair play.

      • calvininjax

        If you are so convinced of Knox’s innocence, and can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is a great pity that you were not her defense attorney. I don’t know how you can live with yourself, standing idly by and allowing an “innocent” woman be convicted of murder.

        Perhaps you should present your facts, based on your thorough investigation of this case, as the prosecution presented theirs.

        I will quite happily enjoy my truth, justice and fair play until I am presented with facts, solid evidence to the contrary.

        All we have heard from your good self, and Moore, is conjecture, no more, no less.

        Being found guilty in a court of law does mean that the person is guilty in the eyes of the law. Whether there has been a miscarriage of justice is open to debate and the burden of proof is on Knox and her attorneys. They could not do it the first time round, so I would not hold my breath that they can prove it the second time at the court of appeal, unless you come forward and provide the evidence and facts you have at your disposal that will clear Knox of the crime.

  2. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were unanimously found guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher because the evidence against them was overwhelming.

    They repeatedly told the police a pack of lies in the days after Meredith’s murder.

    On 5 November 2007, Knox and Sollecito were confronted with proof that they had lied and were given another opportunity to tell the truth. However, they both chose to tell the police even more lies.

    Sollecito’s new alibi was shattered by computer forensic evidence and his mobile phone records.

    Knox accused an innocent man, Diya Lumumba, of murdering Meredith despite knowing full well that he was completely innocent. She didn’t recant her false and malicious allegation against Lumumba the whole time he was in prison. She admitted that it was her fault that Lumumba was in prison in an intercepted conversation with her mother.

    Knox’s account of what happened on 2 November 2007 is contradicted by her mobile phone records.

    Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito both gave multiple conflicting alibis. 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.

    Rudy Guede’s bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith’s room and out of the house. He didn’t lock Meredith’s door, remove his trainers, go into Filomena’s room or the bathroom that Meredith and Knox shared.

    He didn’t scale the vertical wall outside Filomena’s room or gain access through the window. The break-in was clearly staged. This indicates that somebody who lived at the cottage was trying to deflect attention away from themselves and give the impression that a stranger had broken in and killed Meredith.

    Guede had no reason to stage the break-in and there was no physical evidence that he went into Filomena’s room.

    The scientific police found a mixture of Amanda Knox’s DNA and Meredith’s blood on the floor.

    There was no physical evidence that Rudy Guede went into the blood-spattered bathroom. However, the scientific police found irrefutable proof that Knox and Sollecito tracked Meredith’s blood into this bathroom.

    Amanda Knox’s DNA was found mingled with Meredith’s blood in three different places in the bathroom: on the ledge of the basin, on the bidet, and on a box of Q Tips cotton swabs. Knox’s DNA and Meredith’s blood had united into one single streak on the basin and bidet which means they were deposited simultaneously.

    Sollecito left a visible bloody footprint on the blue bathmat.

    According to two imprint experts, the woman’s bloody shoeprint on the pillow under Meredith’s body matched Knox’s foot size. The bloody shoeprint was incompatible with Meredith’s shoe size.

    Knox’s and Sollecito’s bare bloody footprints were revealed by luminol in the hallway. Knox’s DNA and Meredith’s DNA was found mixed together in one of the bloody footprints.

    An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. Sollecito must have applied considerable pressure to the clasp in order to have left so much DNA. The hooks on the clasp were damaged which confirms that Sollecito had gripped them tightly.

    Amanda Knox’s DNA was found on the handle of 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.

    Sollecito knew that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade which is why he twice lied about accidentally pricking her hand whilst cooking.

    The defence experts were unable to prove that there had been any contamination. Alberto Intini, head of the Italian police forensic science unit, pointed out that unless contamination has been proved, it does not exist.

    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.

    The English translation of Judge Massei’s sentencing report can be downloaded from here:

  3. Veritas

    The lack of evidence implicating Amanda Knox and her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito in Rudy Guede’s murder of Meredith Kercher indicates, under any reasonable standard, that both Amanda and Raffaele are entirely innocent. It is truly horrific but not surprising, however, that the murderer Rudy Guede would get away with murdering Meredith and then subsequently and falsely implicate either Amanda or Raffaele, since neither Amanda nor Raffaele ever knew the murderer Rudy Guede, even though both Amanda and Raffaele as well as Meredith were all unfortunate in having unwittingly to reside in the same town as the murderer Rudy Guede, who should have been deported back to his native Cote d’Ivoire years ago and before he single handedly murdered Meredith and then falsely implicated by fraud both Amanda and Raffaele.

    • calvininjax

      What a pity you were otherwise engaged when Knox stood trial. With you representing her, she obviously would have been acquitted, based on the overwhelming evidence you have at your disposal. Perhaps you would care to present your evidence. Without any supporting facts, you are simply dealing with conjecture.

  4. Lavender Little

    Contrary to what is written here, there were bloody footprints of Knox and her boyfriend at the scene of the crime. Read about in about her trial. Plus, she lied and put the blame on someone else to draw attention away from herself. I have a good friend who is a judge and he told me that when you get caught lying to draw attention away from yourself, it is a logical conclusion for all people that you were guilty of the crime yourself, or why would you lie about it in the first place? Amanda bore false witness against an innocent person and if she could do this, she is capable of murder.

    Also, the defense that she can’t remember for sure and things are fuzzy. The Italians gave them a fair trial and Italy may have a different legal system than ours, but that doesn’t mean their system is wrong and ours is right. In fact, I’m of the opinion that their system has been around a great deal longer than ours and has merits. I like the idea of a panel of judges deciding on murder cases for instance, instead of a sole judge. I also like the fact that in their legal system if you get caught lying and attempt to blame someone else who is innocent of the crime as Amanda did, you get one more year added on to your sentence. The USA should adopt this stance.

    This high and mighty attitude of the United States people working for the defense team to discredit the Italians and the forensics is not a tactic that works in Italy, only the USA with technicality after technicality. Her blood was in a footprint and possibly under the body, and she had the knife with the blood. What more proof does a person need to make a logical verdict of guilty?

    This article is inaccurate denying that there was any blood evidence against Knox and the others. There was and denying her guilt is not substantiated by our press here in the USA. We should respect other justice systems as we do our own and their right to govern their country THEIR WAY. Amanda is fortunate she was not tried in the State of Texas where they have the death penalty. At least the Italians have abolished the death penalty in their legal system.

  5. Jen

    Two things:
    In an earlier reply “calvininjax” you said that, “If you are so convinced of Knox’s innocence, and can prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, it is a great pity that you were not her defense attorney”, last time I checked people are convicted if they are found GUILTY beyond a shadow of a doubt…not the other way around. Even if you believe she killed Meredith, I do not believe the evidence proves it BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT.

    Also, in your article you questioned whether the FBI agent who was commenting had full access to the evidence…my question to you is…have you? If the answer is no, I would be weary of using that as proof someone doesn’t know what they are talking about…or else you are implicating yourself in the same stupidity.

    • calvininjax

      I am reporting on the evidence presented in court, so I think that places me on safe ground and above your charge of stupidity.


      • Jen

        I’m sure that guy based his opinion on what was presented in court…same as you did…that’s my point. Apparently you had a hard time understanding that…doesn’t surprise me…logic is a concept over your head.

      • calvininjax

        Wrong. FBI man is contesting what was presented in court and claims that he knows better than the evidence presented.

        I hope the insults directed at me make you feel good about yourself. Strikes me they are only used because you know you are skating on thin ice as far as your argument is concerned.

  6. Jen

    Actually, the insults do make me feel good. I’m not sure why you have a blog if you can’t take other peoples opinions. My original post was more about showing another side…not insulting you, or challenging you for that matter. Now that I’ve seen that you are unable to see anything from any other angle other than your own, I won’t bother.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s