Raffaele Sollecito, Amanda Knox Ex-Boyfriend, Reveals Relationship Details

Raffaele Sollecito, Amanda Knox's ex-boyfriend, broke his years-long media silence in an interview with the Italian newspaper Oggi.

Among the salacious details revealed were insights into the couple's "four years in a circle of hell."

Sollecito and Knox were recently exonerated of the murder of Meredith Kercher, Knox's roommate in Italy. The pair had only been dating for a week when they allegedly discovered 21-year-old Kercher dead in her bedroom. Initially charged with murder and sexual assault, they spent 4 years in an Italian prison before the conviction was overturned earlier this month.

The Daily Mail reports that Sollecito also told Oggi that he and Knox are constantly in contact. He's even planning a visit to her hometown of Seattle as soon as he can.

"We need each other -- we speak to each other on the phone and write to each other every day," he told Oggi. "I will certainly go and see Amanda. She asked me over and I accepted with pleasure and there is no saying I will wait until Christmas. I could go earlier -- I could go at any moment. I really want to see her again, to speak with her and look into her eyes."

Knox arrived home on October 4, 2011, and has kept a relatively low profile despite rumors of book and movie deals.

Below, see a timeline of events in the murder of Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox trial:

Loading Slideshow

• Nov. 2, 2007

  British student Meredith Kercher, 21, is found murdered in the Perugia, Italy apartment she shares with 20-year-old Amanda Knox, an American student. Post-mortem examination reveals evidence of sexual activity before death.

• Nov 6, 2007

  Knox and 23-year-old boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito (right) are arrested. Knox's boss, 38-year-old bar owner Patrick Lumumba, is also arrested after revealing he'd canceled Knox's shift the night Kercher is murdered. He is released Nov. 19.

• Oct. 28, 2008

  A third suspect, 20-year-old drug dealer Rudy Hermann Guede, is sentenced to 30 years in jail after confessing to being in the house on the night of the murder. He maintains his innocence, instead blaming an Italian stranger for the crime.

• Sept. 26, 2008

  Knox and Sollecito meet in court for the first time since their arrests.

• Jan. 16, 2009

  Knox and Sollecito's trial begins.

• March 6, 2009

  After claiming she was pressured to name a suspect, Knox tells the court she was at Sollecito's house when Kercher's murder took place.

• Nov. 21, 2009

  Italian prosecutors request life sentences for both Knox and Sollecito.

• Dec. 4, 2009

  Jury retires to consider verdicts. Both defendants are found guilty. Knox was sentenced to 26 years in prison, while Sollecito received 25 years. On Dec. 19, Guede's sentence is decreased to 16 years.

• June 17, 2010

  Knox appears at a preliminary hearing in view of her upcoming appeal trial.

• Oct. 1, 2010

  Knox briefly reappears in an Italian court for a hearing on possible police slander charges.

• Nov. 24, 2010

  Knox was escorted by a policewoman into the same Perugia courtroom where the first trial was held.

• Nov. 8, 2010

  Knox is indicted on slander charges for claiming she was beaten by police when questioned in 2007 about her roommate's slaying.

• Nov. 24, 2010

  Knox returns to court for the start of her appeals trial, about a year after the American student was convicted of killing her British roommate in a case that drew global attention.

• Nov. 24, 2010

  The appeal trial for both Knox and Sollecito is scheduled to open in Perugia.

• Nov. 24, 2010

  The 23-year-old was convicted in December 2010 of sexually assaulting and murdering Meredith Kercher, and sentenced to 26 years in prison.

• Nov. 24, 2010

  Knox chats with her lawyer Carlo Della Vedova.

• Nov. 24, 2010

  Sollecito, right, is escorted by a penitentiary police guard as he arrives for a hearing in the appeals trial.

• Nov. 24, 2010

  Knox is escorted by a penitentiary guard.

Comments

[Marina Isabella]

07:31 PM on 12/15/2011

What a bunch of know-it-all(s) playing detective here on Huff-Post. Anyway, I wish them both happiness.

[shothot]

10:21 PM on 11/22/2011

Apparently there are a number of commenters who love playing detective.If she is the killer, I hope it eats her up inside and that can happen as one grows older. If she's innocent, I wish her a happy and prosperous life. The money from the movie and book deal should help.

[homeking40]

01:48 AM on 11/06/2011

Mystery solved by the detection experts.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2058142/Foxy-Knoxy-falls-guitar-man-returns-normal-life.html

Let's see how it turns out...
By the Way-how long can you study "Music" ? Maybe if some didn't take so long, others could afford an education.
Have any of the characters involved ever even got CLOSE to a job : (and not flirting in bars a la Casey Anthony.)

[homeking40]

04:56 AM on 11/04/2011

Hey-Wanna comment on this ?

Why was the rock semi wrapped in a paper sack? (Guesses)

Why if you were carrying a large knife, could you not use this to smash glass? I'm sure it would be possible. I don't expect it was safety glass.
I have read if there were any chance or likelihood a burglar could get into the window 12 feet above ground, that there would have been grilles on the widows as there were downstairs.

[Dale McLerran]

01:05 PM on 11/04/2011

Sure, I'll comment.

The rock was not "semi wrapped in a paper sack". The rock came to rest on the edge of a paper bag that was tipped on its side. See:http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/window.html

A knife (even a large one if there was a large knife ever associated with the murder of MK) would not have been a good tool to break a window that is 12 feet above ground. A rock that can be thrown would be a great choice to break the glass.

When RG broke into the Milan nursery school, he was arrested with a laptop taken from a Perugian lawyer's office. That law office was broken into by means of a rock thrown through a second-story window that was every bit as high as the window into Filomena's room. In fact, the grille on the ground-level window just below Filomena's room provided means for accessing the second-story window. You can see photographic proof of that at http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry2------b.html. But read the entire discussion of the break-in starting with http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/RonHendry------2.html

[donepretending]

02:32 PM on 11/04/2011

Dale.....doesn't it feels like we are arguing with children? I can't believe the amount of misinformation out there regarding this case that could so easily be verified. You can give them links, argue logic and they might disappear for a few days only to return with the same lies and misinformation. Like the original debate with the poster never happened. It's maddening.

I think I give up....it doesn't really matter what these odd people think.

In the beginning, I found the debate to be intriguing.....now I just think I'm part of some sick game. I know the truth, and in the whole scheme of things, it doesn't mean a thing. I will leave them with their fantasies of evil. They deserve each other.

[Dale McLerran]

01:19 PM on 11/04/2011

BTW, homeking40, I just answered questions that you posted just a few hours ago. Three days ago, I asked you some questions and am still waiting a response. See:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Dale_McLerran/raffaele-sollecito-amanda-knox_n_1033112_116042691.html. If AK and RS were involved in the murder, how did they clean up all traces of their presence in MK's room while leaving only evidence of RG? They did not wipe clean the room. Wiping would have left smears, and that would have been noted by the forensic examiners. Also, wiping would be rather indiscriminant, removing not only AK & RS hair, blood, semen, saliva, fingerprints, and shoe prints, but also the hair, blood, semen, saliva, fingerprints, and shoe prints of RG. So, did AK & RS pick up their hair, blood, semen, saliva, fingerprints, and shoe prints? Preposterous, you say? Well, I agree.

So, tell us how the clean-up was done, homeking40.

[homeking40]

03:30 AM on 11/05/2011

I will let you know when I have read the book Death in Perugia by the London Times journalist John Fallaine who has been to all the trials and reported on the case from
day one!!!!
So all your stalling and red herrings and made- up garbage will at last be revealed for what it is. There is NO WAY you are going to outsmart this guy.
You and the whole of Marriott.
I don't know yet if he comes to a conclusion, but you can bet the reportiing is true and accurate.
For the first time...

[homeking40]

04:51 AM on 11/04/2011

It's obvious I know litl eabout DNA comapred to some of you, but I don't know if you have nmentioned in the appeal, when they cahallenged Stefanoni,: am I correct in remebering that she had already made several procedures that proved there could not be contaminstion so as to forestall criticism, and that the defense were taken aback by this??
It's these incidents in the appeal trial where the evidence was deliberatley shoved aside !
Also-I liked this:
There was nowhere in the lab for the bra clasp contamination to come from, so it would simply ALL have been LOST?
The judge at the trial of Rudy Guede cknowledged that the DNA sample on the clasp was considered small, but described the claim of contamination at the laboratory as making ‘no sense’, since there was no material from which such contamination could have come, and so ‘the risk would have been the LOSS of traces found there, not the risk of somehow discovering new traces’.

[donepretending]

12:51 PM on 11/04/2011

The DNA on the clasp was contaminated at the cottage after being kicked around by the ineptitude of the police.

[ThomasY]

09:01 PM on 11/05/2011

How strange it is that the bra clasp wasn't "contaminated" with DNA from people who actually lived there.

Amanda Knox' blood in the bathroom which resulted in mixed DNA samples throughout the house, contamination? Don't think so.

Raffaele Sollecito's DNA, that wasn't found elsewhere except on a cigarette butt in the kitchen, was found in a copious amount on the bra clasp of the victim. Contamination? Don't think so.

Their lies and failing alibis are further proof they were involved.

[Dale McLerran]

01:41 PM on 11/04/2011

WRT DNA contamination of the knife, I believe that all agree there is little likelihood that such contamination occurred during collection or handling of the knife after collection. However, the prosecution has not proven that there is MK DNA on the knife. See my posts at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Dale_McLerran/raffaele-sollecito-amanda-knox_n_1033112_116334722.html and http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Dale_McLerran/raffaele-sollecito-amanda-knox_n_1033112_116335160.html which raise questions about DNA testing performed on the knife and also raise relevancy questions that challenge whether MK DNA without any blood is an issue.

Since AK lived with MK, it is quite possible for AK to be a medium for secondary transfer of MK epithelial cells onto the knife. We know that forensic teams must take precautions so that they do not produce secondary transfer. Do you suppose AK was particularly cautious during everyday activities to avoid secondary DNA transfer? We know that MK criticized AK for her lack of cleanliness. Secondary transfer through AK would be consistent with low-abundance DNA.

Also, all this focus on the knife is rather questionable since the knife retrieved from RS's place was larger than at least two of the wounds that MK received and was larger than the knife imprint on MK's bedding.

[donepretending]

02:01 PM on 11/03/2011

Vinno

You have wasted so much energy on that knife.....the knife that could only be tested once because the LCN test was so manipulated by Steffanoni she knew she could never get the same result a second time.

The knife that was confiscated from Sollecito's apartment based on "intuition" by the police officer who chose it...because it was "clean".

The knife that was most likely not even the murder weapon, based on the wounds found on Kercher's body and the evidence gathered at the crime scene (outline in blood of knife on sheets.)

So you would have us believe it matters, when it really doesn't.

The DNA, if it was actually on the knife, found during the LCN testing points to cross-contamination at the lab. Yet you would have us believe Kercher's DNA, tested at the lab previous to the testing of the knife, disappeared after 6 days? If that's the case, explain why the bra clasp, left on the floor of the cottage for 6 weeks, should have been admitted as evidence?

[homeking40]

05:01 AM on 11/04/2011

I do agree with the police seeming to conjure up the knife----however, wouldn't the fact that AK started shaking and trembling when the drawer was opened, have some relevence?

I believe this is well withessed. Any one have details?

[vinno]

09:02 AM on 11/05/2011

Stillpretending
If you are going to reply to me best do it to one of my posts otherwise I don't kow that you have.

The Knife could not be tested only once, the original DNA sample from the knife was destroyed in testing. The Knife can be retested to see if there is anymore DNA that might be tested.

The Knife was deemed capable of inflicting the larger wound on Meredith's neck.

There was no cross contamination in the lab. Steffanoni provided negative control results, and when asked on the stand if 6 days between testing was enough to rule out contamination in the lab Vecchiotti said that it was, I am not a DNA expert but Vecchiotti is.
The DNA on the bra clasp is a completely different thing. It is agreed by all the experts that the amount of DNA retrieved from the clasp was substantial, it got there from someone applying pressure to the clasp it did not get there from dust. Cinsidering that Sollecito's DNA was not found in any samples taken from the flat apart from the cigarette butt mixed with Knox's, there still hasn't been a credible explanation as to how the contamination happened.

[donepretending]

01:18 PM on 11/03/2011

sanfran....

Sorry....you're a guilter.

I could go into why all the things happened that were capitalized upon by the prosecutor and the press with you. Like the fingering of Lumumba.....but somehow I think you already know the arguments. Why waste my time?

Just try to remember one thing that has poisoned the waters here....Magnini. A loathsome man who has used the stature of his position to terrorize many of the citizens of his jurisdiction. A man who has been found guilty of abuse of office for his willingness to victimize anyone he views a threat to his derangment. A man who believes Satanic rituals applies to any murder that he becomes involved in and is willing to manipulate the evidence and witnesses to prove it.

Guilters align themselves with this man and his paranoid delusions. Everything you know of this crime that has sculpted your conclusions comes from him and his henchmen. That you can't see through the fog of his madness makes those who entertain his fodder weak of mind. He will be in jail soon. The house of cards he's built will fall...along with the guilter's credibility.

Such a sad commentary on our society. Our willingness to place salacious stories above reason, thanks to our lust for anything that distracts us from our boring little lives. We do love our sordid stories....don't we? Our opportunity to be the voyers we can't help ourselves from being.

[sanfran55]

08:51 AM on 11/04/2011

@donepretending: I'm not a guilter, but sadly you are a Knox groupie. It is a sad commentary when it appears that the Knoxists just care about big bucks PR deals, interviews, books, whatever. A sense of warped entitlement. They will never have the class and dignity of the Kercher family, ever.

I do abhor violence against women - reminder: what brutality that Meredith Kercher experienced 4 years ago.

There are lots of us out there who care about the rights of the victim and there's nothing that the Knox PR or FOA that can change that.

[jackbutler5555]

11:10 AM on 11/04/2011

How do you define "guilter"? In what way, do you separate yourself from that definition? Do you believe Knox/Sollecito are not guilty?

[donepretending]

12:49 PM on 11/04/2011

PR mantra again? You guys all chant the same rhetoric.

There was no PR machine that could have done as much damage to this case as the Italian and British tabloids. They made millions. Magnini played it beautifully.....and here you are repeating the lies.

You're hopeless.....moving along.

[kcmookie]

04:13 PM on 11/02/2011

Oh look! A speck of dust. This speck can tie Amanda & Rafaelle to the crime! Can someone please explain to me why they do not investigate this speck? How can you claim they are innocent when you cannot explain this speck? We need additional testing. If it weren't for that high priced PR firm that was hired, you wouldn't be able to sweep this speck of dust under the rug! Why did Amanda lie about this speck? Why doesn't Rafaelle support her alibi? Why did they stage the break in? This speck needs to be investigated!

Yep, just like that. Attempt to discuss this case with the guilters and you will find yourself endlessly chasing after that speck of dust to disprove what cannot be proven. It doesn't matter, you guys aren't going to give it up because it would mean you have to admit you are wrong, and that simply is something you are unable to do. A sad character flaw.

[vinno]

09:04 AM on 11/05/2011

Mookie, which piece of physical evidence placing the WM3 at the crime led you to believe them guilty. Are you ever going to answer????

[homeking40]

09:48 PM on 11/01/2011

Bit sick too, to see AK enjoying dressing up for the Hallowe'en anniversary.
A low profile might have been more in order.

[donepretending]

02:22 PM on 11/02/2011

"In the last few days, various media have wondered how, on the four year anniversary of Meredith Kercher's murder, Amanda Knox could have gone to a Halloween party, over the weekend in Seattle, dressed as a cat burglar.

Perhaps a better question would be how Giuliano Mignini continues to dress in the formal robes of an Italian prosecutor."

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20129016-504083/amanda-knox-prosecutor-giuliano-mignini-back-in-court-as-a-defendant/

I just loved that line!

[sanfran55]

02:19 PM on 11/01/2011

Even the judge presiding over the last appeal said that Knox and Sollecito were probably involved in the murder of Meredith Kercher - and the press keeps giving these two airtime - sick, sick, sick!

[donepretending]

03:22 PM on 11/01/2011

Quit saying the same thing over and over again.

[sanfran55]

12:20 PM on 11/02/2011

@donepretending - inform yourself:

Judge Pratillo Hellman who presided over the appeal case:

"Amanda Knox Judge: Amanda Might Know 'Truth' In Case"

"But the real truth could be different," Pratillo Hellmann added. "They (Knox and Sollecito) could also be responsible, but the proof isn't there." Pratillo Hellmann, the presiding judge, was one of eight jurors in the case...Referring to Knox and Sollecito, who were both convicted of sexual assault and murder in a lower court trial, the judge said that "maybe the two defendants also know" what really happened."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/05/amanda-knox-judge-amanda-_n_996614.html

The prosecution is appealing this court's decision.

[donepretending]

01:07 PM on 11/02/2011

I am informed. It is you lacking either in information or integrity who is misinformed.

Hellman NEVER said he thought they did it, unlike what you insinuated in your comment. He suggested, based on the lies the prosecution put out there that they could have done it, but the evidence does not support the accusations. You are intentionally spreading lies. I call that sick, sick, sick.

[sanfran55]

06:33 PM on 11/02/2011

It's not lies, it's reports from the press quoting the Judge Hellman, who quite obviously doesn't think that Knox and Sollecito are total innocents in the matter. You are in denial about what he said. How about the crowd outside the courtroom shouting "SHAME! SHAME! SHAME!" when they reacted to the verdict of those two getting off.

It will be interesting to read his report of the appeals. Not everyone has a lovefest for Knox and Sollecito.

[Napia5]

11:17 AM on 11/01/2011

Rest in peace, Meredith Kercher, on the 4th anniversary of your death.My thoughts and prayers are with your family today.

[Expo77]

07:59 PM on 10/31/2011

The writer of the article blatantly points out Rudy Guede as a 'drug dealer' but never mentions Amanda Knoxes drug use and wild party life style. She has been made to look all thru the trial by the american media as a very meek, humble and innocent child.
For all we know, the innocent man might be rotting in a Perugian jail as we speak while the guilty ones( judged on TV) are walking free.
If Rudy is guilty, I don't think he would have opted for a speedy trial, hence he was quickly jailed before the media circus started for Knox and her boyfriend.
As usual this may not be posted by HP.

[homeking40]

09:46 PM on 11/01/2011

Yes..Have just read where AK only had enought money for the next four months according to accounts about Lumumba-this is why she needed the job.
So how you use drugs constantly on this, I don't know. Especially as Sollecito sr. kept Raf short of money so he wouldn't be able to indulge - in drugs or porn..) There must have been some reason he called him 3 to 4 times a day!
I must say I wonder if the ransacking of the room was originally to look for Filomena's drugs because it seems she was a user too.
Motives could have been all about this-this is what happens when drugs are involved.

[Dale McLerran]

12:25 AM on 11/02/2011

Yes, AK was not a wealthy person (as some guilters like to think). She worked three jobs just so that she would have the opportunity of a lifetime to study abroad.

That sure is the profile of a killer. Unlike RG, who was such an upstanding citizen, right?

By the way, Filomena's room was not ransacked. It was somewhat of a mess to begin with, with clothes and other items already on the floor. And when her room was broken into, some items that had been stashed on top of her wardrobe became dislodged and fell to the floor. If you care to disagree with this assessment, then take it up with the appeals court that ruled that the burglary was not staged.

[Dale McLerran]

12:13 AM on 11/02/2011

Oh, get real. The media circus around AK started before police concluded that Lumumba was innocent. There has never been any question that RG was in Meredith Kercher's room at the time of the murder. His fingerprints, shoe prints, hair, blood, semen, and saliva are all found in, on, and around MK. There is not one trace of AK or RS in MK's room. And AK lived with MK.

Come on, explain that. You can't, can you. Because all that you are basing your belief system on is innuendo and outright lies that have been constructed to sell a story.

The person who is guilty of a cold-blooded murder was given a light sentence just to come forth and declare before the courts a story concocted by the prosecution that says that AK and RS were in the house WITH HIM at the time of the murders. The prosecution needed that because they had all kinds of evidence against RG and no evidence to tie AK or RS to the scene.

[homeking40]

12:39 AM on 11/02/2011

Dale M..
Are you talkin a me? Because if you are, you are also addressing most of the people on this planet who know about the case and agree that, maybe short of murder, they were both heavily involved.

Now you get real.

[kcmookie]

12:58 PM on 10/31/2011

Let it go vinno, it will be ok. You were wrong, accept it and move on. Draw your false parellels, ask your leading and everchanging questions, whine all you like. It isn't going to change the fact that you and all of the other guilters were WRONG.

[amd02148]

10:36 PM on 10/31/2011

kcmookie you don't KNOW that.

[sanfran55]

01:54 PM on 11/01/2011

OJ Simpson walked free, too. Do you think he's innocent?

[donepretending]

02:27 PM on 11/01/2011

What do you think?

[chelseadaisy]

12:52 AM on 11/02/2011

and your point is?

[jackbutler5555]

05:14 PM on 10/30/2011

"Was it fair then Jacky for the judge to refuse to have the knife retested as per the prosecutio­n request. Part of the independan­t experts' remit was to test the knife. They failed to do so. The prosecutio­n poited out that advances in DNA testing would allow for the knife to be retested, so again was it fair of the judge to refuse, surely he would try to seek the truth no?" The judge's decision not to approve the prosecution motion can best be explained by the judge. All he said at the time was the jury has all the information they would need. I can only speculate why he would say that. Would you like me to speculate? "Your attack on the Kerchers is a disgrace, next you'll be telling us that they are suing Knox for 12 million in order to profit from their duaghter's death, despicable­!!!" You sound like an old biddy. The Kerchers opposed the review of the evidence. That review revealed the evidence was inadmissible. Mignini stated -- after the first verdict -- that the the knife and the clasp were two of the three crucial pieces of evidence. It was "despicable" and "disgraceful" that the Kerchers would oppose verification of the initial results in the first trial and in the second trial. And it is "despicable" and "disgraceful" they would still side with the out-of-control prosecutor, after the determination was made that the evidence could not withstand scrutiny.

[homeking40]

04:23 AM on 10/31/2011

Where does it say the Kerchers refused.
WHERE????

[jackbutler5555]

08:43 AM on 10/31/2011

Refused? I don't understand your question.

[vinno]

05:27 AM on 10/31/2011

I asked was it fair Jacky. Yet again you fail to answer a simple question you old truth seeker you!
In the interests of getting at the truth was it fair of the judge not to allow the knife to be retested knowing that they were machines capable of testing the minutest amount of DNA, the independent experts had failed to do so even though they were told to so and after they had admitted that Meredith's DNA found on the blade did not come from contamination. Was it fair Jack simple question.
Oh and do news outlets pay for interviews? You've skirted that one long enough.
And should the families of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown hang their heads in shame for thinking that OJ is guilty even after he was acquitted, another very simple question for you.

[Napia5]

07:15 AM on 10/31/2011

Vinno, since you are in a question-asking mood see if you can find out why Raffaele tried to explain how Meredith's DNA got on his knife.I'm curious why he would make up an explanation about accidentally cutting her while cooking, when, in fact, she had never been to his apartment.

[jackbutler5555]

08:40 AM on 10/31/2011

You asked me why the jury refused to grant the prosecution motion. I don't understand how you would expect me to answer the question -- except through speculation. If you want, I will offer my conjecture. But you have to let me know that that is what you want. OJ, again? Didn't I already state I was not aware that the Goldmans supported any effort to prevent the full disclosure of the evidence. If you remind me of something they did that is parallel to what the Kerchers did, I will of course condemn the Goldmans as well.

[jackbutler5555]

05:12 PM on 10/30/2011

"Why didn't they turn up to the initial testing Jacky? Simple question. But then one of Sollecito'­s experts did didn't he, he was soon dropped from team Sollecito though, why do you think that was??" I don't know why they didn't show up at Stefanoni's uncertified lab to observe the testing. You'll have to find that out from somebody else. But that in no way can be compared with the effort to shield the test results of that uncertified lab from the scrutiny of competent, objective, judge-appointed experts. Are you attempting to justify the Kercher opposition to confirming the truth about the evidence that may implicate the killer of her daughter? I have no idea how you or the Kerchers could not want verification of the results. I have no idea why the Sollecito lawyer quit. Did he ever state the reason?

[homeking40]

04:24 AM on 10/31/2011

This sounds garbled and totally inaccurate.
Quote source.

[jackbutler5555]

08:23 AM on 10/31/2011

Ask me a specific question.

[vinno]

05:35 AM on 10/31/2011

You know why they didn't turn up you are just too dishonest to admit it.
Liking the way you are dropping in the uncertified bit though Jacky never hurts to muddy the waters and cast doubt does it? Explain to the people what certification you are talking about, and explain how a lack of certification would chenge the outcome of the testing, and tell the people if the lad has now indeed achieved it's certification.
And do news outlets pay for interviews Jack??

[jackbutler5555]

08:33 AM on 10/31/2011

I don't -- and I doubt if you do -- know why the lawyers did not attend the testing in the uncertified lab. I don't know why the lab fell short of certification, but given the sloppy evidence handling and opportunistic testing, I can not say I was surprised. Odd you would say certification would not change the outcome of the testing. The DNA experts appointed by the judge might disagree. After all, they found many, many flaws in the operation. Serious enough flaws to have the evidence tossed aside. Legitimate organizations -- reporting hard news -- do not pay for interviews. Do you ever get bored asking me this?

[Napia5]

09:15 AM on 10/31/2011

Vinno: At the risk of stepping into the middle of a discussion, can you tell me where I can read more about this 'certification'? I'm again curious. If the discussion is about ISO certification, I was involved in a certification process and may be able to shed some light on this.