Two independent forensic experts from Rome were sworn in today in court in Perugia, Italy to make it official that, starting in February, they will have 90 days to review controversial evidence that prosecutors have claimed link Amanda Knox and her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito to the murder of Meredith Kercher Nov. 1, 2007, her British roommate there.

The experts Carla Vecchiotti and Stefano Conti from Rome's Sapienza University will review DNA findings on the knife the prosecutors have claimed to be the murder weapon, and on Ms. Kercher's bra clasp prosecutors claimed contained Sollecito's finger prints.

The forensic team has between Feb. 9 and May 9 at a university lab, and will report back to the court May 21.

Knox's lawyers want to question the prosecution's key witness, Antonio Curatolo, possibly in March. He lives on a bench in Perugia and was recently busted for dealing illegal drugs.

Amanda's father, Curt, told the West Seattle Herald before the hearing that he had hoped the forensic pair would take 60 rather than 90 days, but that the most important thing was that they do a thorough job in order to reach a positive outcome for his daughter.

"I think what it comes down to is that everything in the case is circumstantial except for only two pieces of physical evidence, the knife and bra clasp," retired FBI agent Steve Moore told the West Seattle Herald after today's hearing. Moore has been an outspoken critic appearing on national TV about what he believes is the prosecution's mishandling of the case leading to both Knox's and Sollecito's guilty verdicts. He believes the third person found guilty, Rudy Guede, was the lone murderer.

"If the forensic experts prove they are not to be valid, then there is no case," Moore continued. "If those two things turn out to be bogus, which they are, there's no need to go on. If there is an unbiased look at this evidence, Amanda will be home this summer."

UPDATE:

"Amanda's demeanor in court today was typical," her step-father, Chris Mellas, told the West Seattle Herald just following the hearing. "She tries to keep a neutral expression so she is not written about as much. Tabloids say, 'Horrible that she is smiling!' Or 'Look! She is frowning. It's guilty remorse!' It's a futile attempt, but she feels she needs to at least try.

"Today's hearing was an expected outcome," he added. "What happened today? The experts were sworn in. That's it. I was happy that the experts showed an interest in really digging into the evidence in the search for clarification of the facts. It is what we have said all along was needed.

"I was surprised and disappointed by the Kerchers' lawyer," Mellas said.The role of the Kerchers' lawyer appears puzzling to some Americans who are following this case. Meredith's parents have a civil suit against Amanda Knox and Rafaelle Sollecito and their lawyer has been vocally combative with lawyers representing Knox and Sollecito in the courtroom while backing the prosecution's original guilty verdict of the two.

"He opposed the requested actions by the court appointed experts, actions that could lead to a better understanding of who killed Meredith," said Mellas of the Kercher's lawyer. "His actions beg the question, 'Is he there in the interest of truth, or just to uphold a previous court decision that left so many unanswered questions?' One would think that his number one interest should be, 'Who killed Meredith?'"