Sunday, March 22, 2009

Trial: Report From The Courtroom On Testimony Of Numerous Witnesses

Posted by stewarthome2000

[Above: left room of Conad; manager serves in deli; arch by door connects with right room]

[above: right room of Conad store; cashier is against wall to right; arch is to left of door]

Multiple Witnesses In Court

Today at the trial we heard from a number of witnesses, and quite frankly I was looking forward some significant new testimony.

On the witness stand were (1) Jovana Popovic, (2) Alessandra Formica, (3) Rosa Natalia Guaman Fernandez De Calle, (4) Marco Quintavalle, and (5) Fabrizio Angeluce.

(1) Jovana Popovic

First up was Jovana Popovic, who is studying medicine in Perugia and who became a friend of Raffale’s after meeting him at a mutual friend’s house some months before. They were not really close, but they did go out with mutual friends together a number of times over a couple of months.

She stated that on November 1st, she passed by Raffaele’s around 5:30-5:45pm to ask if he could drive her in his car to the bus station, to pick up a suitcase that was due to arrive from Milan on a bus at midnight that evening. Since others were busy, and Raffaele had a car and it was late at night she asked him to do her this favor.

When she buzzed his door she was invited up, and Raffaele was there with Amanda. She requested the favor of him, he thought for a minute, and then he agreed to take her to the bus station at midnight.

She testified that he was a bit cold, then clarified that by saying that relative to the fun”“loving smile he always had, he seem a bit different, nothing to make a too big a deal over.

She stayed only a few minutes and left and planned to call, and she guessed they would meet in front of his place just before midnight to go get the suitcase. She recalled it was 5:30-5:45 because she had an appointment at 6:00pm about a 15-20 minute walk away and she was on time.

Not long afterwards, she was informed that the suitcase was NOT coming that night. So after her meeting which ended around 8:00pm she headed home, and decided to pass by Raffaele’s house, because it was on the way, to tell him she will not need any ride that evening. She said she rang the bell about 8:40pm, and Amanda answered and came to the door on the street.

She said that Raf was upstairs and invited Giovana up, but Giovana declined and said she just wanted to tell Raf that there was no need to go to the station but grazie anyway.

She spoke to Amanda for just a minute or so and then went on her way. That was the entire testimony. It helped both sides because on the one hand it proved AK and RS were together, and on the other hand it proves that they were in fact together at his apartment like they said.

(2) Alessandra Formica

The next witness was Alessandra Formica. She is the person who had informed the police that she and her boyfriend, while walking back to their car after dinner, bumped into a “person of color” on her way.

Essentially she testified that she and her boyfriend had parked their car in the famous parking building across from Meredith’s house around 8:00pm. They walked out of the garage, past the house, up across the square, and through the Etruscan arch to have dinner. The place was full so they waited about 40-50 minutes and finally finished dinner around 9:30pm.

They then took a short walk in the center of the old city and then headed down to their car. As they passed the basketball courts and started down the stairs and onto the road that leads down to Via della Pergola, she noticed a man in a dark puffy jacket, walking in a hurry with his head down, and he bumped into her. She focused on his face and could state the he was a “person of color” which essentially meant a black man.

She said “excuse me” and he said nothing and just kept going quickly in a rush. She noted how rude that was (rude as in “ill mannered” not ruede-y!) That incident occurred, by her estimates and the garage ticket, around 10:00-10:30pm.

She also remarked that just near the parking building entrance there was a station wagon with a guy outside it on his mobile phone, calling for help as the car did not start. She also saw a women in the back seat with a baby seat next to her”¦baby in it or not, she could not say.

Comment. It does seem that she most likely saw Guede leaving the crime scene, at between 10:00 and 10:30pm. This also fits with one of Meredith’s stolen mobile phone picking up another cell tower at 10:13pm. If Guede took the phones, it seems to me that this helped the Knox and Sollecito defenses more than the prosecution.

(3) Rosa Natalia Guman Fernendez de Calle

Next Rosa Natalia Guman Fernendez de Calle, an Ecuadorian woman, took the stand. She had been Sollecito’s cleaning lady. She had worked for him about 2 months and would come every Monday around 2:00 to 4:00 pm to clean his apartment. She stated that she used only Lysoform, which is a general household cleaner like Mr. Clean. She would vacuum, mop the floor, clean the bathroom and kitchen, and so on. The cleaning products were kept under the kitchen sink as in most homes, and there were usually about 5-6 different cleaning products there and other cleaning supplies.She had been told to only ever use Lysoform to clean.

The last time she cleaned the apartment went was on November 5th, and Sollecito and Knox were there then. She went under the sink to get the cleaning products, and noticed a bucket with water in it and wet mop rags. She asked why the wet rags and the bucket, and he said they had had a leak. She did say the bucket had water in it and it was clear.

When asked if she ever used bleach in his home she said absolutely not. When asked if there was bleach among the cleaning products, she said she could not say either way. The 5th of November was the last day she worked for Sollecito as he was subsequently arrested.

(4) Marc Quintavalle

The next witness was the highlight of the day. This was Marc Quintavalle, the owner of the small grocery store located on Via Garibaldi, the street that Solliceto lived on. Comment: his testimony was very precise, almost too precise for someone who recalls a long-ago incident from memory, but here goes”¦

On November 2nd he was heading back to his grocery store after lunch. He parked his car, and noticed there were carabinieri, police, etc. on Via della Pergola. He walked past them all, stopped to get a coffee at the bar on the corner, and then headed back to work. He was told at this time there was a murder.

It was not until many days later that he was told that Sollecito, a frequent customer in his grocery store, had been arrested with his girlfriend for the murder. After some time, he had remembered the day of the murder because he encountered the police and carabinieri cars several days after.Then it hit him what had happened that morning.

He said he arrived at his shop at 7:45am to open the security doors to be open for business. His two cashiers and helpers (two women) get there at 7:30am and begin to get ready for customers before opening time.

He said as he was opening the security gate on the store, a girl was standing at the door with him waiting for the store to open. He remembers that she had a hat on, jeans, a scarf and a grey-white jacket. But most of all he remembers that she had blue, really blue eyes. He noticed because her skin was very pale.

He opened the store door and said “buon giorno” but she did not say anything in response, and she headed to the part of the store [second image at top here] where they stock cleaning products, soap, towels, and also cups, coffee, and miscellaneous household items. The cashier is also located there.

He paid her no attention, but he did see her eventually leave and head down the street in the direction of the piazza that connects to Via della Pergola. Since he was not at the cash register he did not serve her and he could not say what she bought, and he did not think to ask the cashier at that time .

Many days afterwards, he saw a picture of Amanda Knox in the paper and said to himself, “OMG that is her, that is the girl that was at my store that morning”. Having seen her various times previously in the store, he was sure that it was Knox. He confirmed that it was some months later that he went to the police to tell them what he had witnessed the morning after the murder.

The courtroom was on edge when the prosecutor asked Quintavalle to identify the person he saw that morning by looking at a picture.

He finally looked directly at Amanda in the courtroom, staring at her in the eye only a few feet away and stated, “era lei, era Knox…” - “It was her, it was Knox, she was the person I saw that morning”.

Comments: this was quite a climax of a scene. A direct eye witness testifying, without any doubt in his mind, that in effect Knox was lying about not getting up until around 10am on that morning.

Quintavalle had asked his cashiers if they remembered her or what she had bought that morning, but they did not remember anything. Quintavalle stated that detergent bleach is sold in his store for 1.09 euro per bottle and he carries only one kind (ACE), and they are all 1.09 per bottle.

Comment: if the prosecution introduces a till receipt for a 1.09 euro item sold at approximately 8:00am on November 2nd this would be very telling. So far such a receipt has not been introduced. The Police sequestered the till receipts, but have not officially released the findings. A possible problem is that many places don’t even ring up the items on the register to save the taxes and half probably go missing anyway. But overall, this was quite damning testimony.

The defense attempted to discredit Quintavalle, noting that it was all so long ago and how could anyone say in such detail who was there with any certainty? They also drilled him for supposedly violating a gag order, giving interviews for money, appearing on “Porta a porta” and so on.

Comment: that essentially washed away. I must admit he was so certain, and gave so much detail of what happened that morning after so much time had passed, it seemed like a feat of superhuman memory. But Quintavalle prides himself on his excellent memory, and now his statement is in the record.

(5) Fabrizio Angeluce

Finally we heard from Fabrizio Angeluce, the owner of the laundromat and dry cleaners also located on Via Garibaldi.

His testimony was simple. He basically said that Raffaele came into his store on either Friday the 2nd or Monday the 5th of Nov ““ he could not remember the exact date but it was one of the two ““ and dropped off one shirt that was not exactly new, and seemed to have been washed. (Comment: For me it must have been the 5th as he was said to have dropped it off midday and we know where he was at midday on the 2nd.)

Sollecito had asked if he could dry clean the shirt as soon as possible, and get a rush service done because he needed it urgently. The witness said the shirt was brown and not exactly new. and and it seemed to have already been washed. He washed and ironed the shirt and that was it.

He decided to come to the police after he heard that Sollecito was arrested. Sollecito has claimed that he needed his shirt soon as it was the one he would wear to his graduation exam and ceremony.

Bottom line

Other days at trial I am thinking this is all looking bad for the defendants, but then after a day like today, I am thinking the defense can use these witnesses when it’s their turn at bat. Except for the testimony of Quintavalle, the other witnesses also supported some defense points.


The latest rant from Mellas is unbelievable.  He’s now quoted as saying AK was “repeatedly beaten” during an all night interrogation.  Not even AK herself has said or alluded to such conduct.  At least he concedes that her decision to wear the garish and offensive “all you need is love” shirt to trial was a “debacle.”  I still find the shots of her grinning at the media (and Meredith’s family?) on that occasion repellent.

Posted by Sierra1049 on 03/22/09 at 07:30 PM | #

That interview and report are by Peter Popham of the UK paper The Independent. Do a search here on TJMK on Popham and start reading from the bottom post.

You’ll probably perceive that he seems to have a giant chip on his shoulder toward Italian officialdom and the roman catholic church. He has been the very best source of misinformation about the case, and he rarely seems to get more than two facts in a row correct.

He also seems the one reporter left now who is still eager to carry water for Mellas and the fading FOA campaign. This “story” has been picked up by no other outlet. Given the giant money interests surrounding the campaign, we sometimes wonder if Popham is being slipped a bit on the side!

He could probably use it. The Independent seems weeks way from following the Seattle P-I down the tubes. Sad business when a paper folds like that - and he really didn’t help.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/22/09 at 09:12 PM | #

Lack of New Evidence

I too have been looking forward to some new testimony or evidence.  Again, this weekend came to an end and nothing much new.  I have been trying to figure out why this is so.  These are my thoughts:

I think there are three reasons for the dearth of new information at the trial.  First, because of the Italian legal system, there were numerous pre-trial hearings which were required to keep Amanda Knox and Raphaelle Solicito in custody.  This led to some of the evidence being made public.  This information was combined with other information previously made available to the press.  Some of it was allegedly “leaked.”

Second, because of Rudy Guede’s fast-track trial and the judge’s written explanation of his verdict, more information was either released or confirmed.  The 106 page document was a superb description of his thought process.  IMHO, Guede’s defense team will have their work cut out for them to dispute much of this.

Lastly, the Blogosphere, especially sites such as this one, has contributed immensely to a scientific explanation of what happened.  By “scientific” I mean that possible explanations and theories are put forward and then people all over the world either tear ‘em apart or confirm them.  Previously this type of analysis would be constrained to news reports and letters to the editor.  Information has been uncovered and published by all sorts of people with all sorts of backgrounds.  How else would we have known in what type of abroad program Amanda was undertaking?  How many unsuspecting people would have bought in to the unfair trial situation proposed by FOAK?  This is not to say that all is known; for example, I am still unclear of what the washing machine evidence actually is - was it running or warm etc. when the Postal Police arrived.  In any case, evidence, when finally brought forward, has already been deduced and “baked in the cake”.

Furthermore, a trial unfolds following certain rules and with strategies and tactics well known to trial lawyers and judges - like a chess game.  All the evidence that the prosecution is going to present has already been made available to the prosecution.  This is one of the reasons trials take so long to get underway.  Defense lawyers, for example, need to talk with all the prosecution witnesses even though they may not know exactly what the witnesses have specifically told the prosecutors. 

An interesting characteristic of the Italian legal system is the ability for a defendant to blurt something out at any time.  This must be a defense attorney’s worst nightmare.  Imagine what would happen if AK suddenly jumped up and said, “It didn’t happen that way!  I know!  I was there!”

Finally, w/r/t Chris Mellas’s statements.  He is wrong when he keeps saying that there was no damaging evidence introduced.  It’s like having a noose around you neck and, every time it is tightened, saying that each movement doesn’t hurt a bit.  As for his statements about Amanda being beaten, I don’t believe a word she says after she lied about Patrick and almost sent him to prison.  WHY does anyone believe anything she says after that?

At this time, it’s all about introducing constraints for time and location for the various players.  Ruling out a break-in totally changed the landscape of the trial.  It ruled out about 6 billion potential perpetrators.  So did the broken lock on the front door - there was no way to keep it shut without having it locked with a key.  It’s unlikely that someone unknown to Meredith would have been able to enter without her taking some kind of defensive actions.

The prosecution also has to figure out what the defense is going to do and try to defuse it.  I think that is why we’re seeing witnesses that attest to AK’s not being a sweet little girl.  The prosecution has to get these witnesses on the record now because they probably can’t bring any new witnesses to testify after the defense is finished.

The end result is what appears to be a prosecution without a smoking gun…yet.

Arnold Layne

Posted by Arnold_Layne on 03/23/09 at 05:15 AM | #

Sierra1049: “At least he concedes that her decision to wear the garish and offensive “all you need is love” shirt to trial was a “debacle.””

Interesting, Chris Mellas’s take on this. The tee-shirt was purchased by Curt Knox (or so he told the world when it surfaced) and there was some theorizing that it could have been a strategic move - to show the world that Amanda is a consistently daffy but well-meaning person.

Were hard words exchanged over this between Chris Mellas and Curt Knox behind the scenes? We don’t know, but at a guess, they have hardly been best buddies over the years (does Chris Mellas have any buddies?!).

And now that they are both staring at a kid on trial that might well have benefited from better parenting, and are quite possibly both in the cross-hairs of post-trial liability suits… can we now look forward to the joy of watching Curt Knox and Chris Mellas wrestling it out in the mud?

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/23/09 at 02:26 PM | #

Arnold: “The end result is what appears to be a prosecution without a smoking gun…yet.”

Behind the scenes we believe there is a real shocker (go back and read Brian on Micheli and you may spot it) but it may never need to be laid on the table as it were. And I don’t think Arnold is implying that there needs to be one.

Stewart’s first sentence above was interesting (“frankly I was looking forward some significant new testimony”). He had sat through several days of slow-moving testimony up to Friday night where the answer seemed to have been hiding in plain site all along.

Then on Saturday he sat through some new revelations (we knew very little of Jovana Popovic, for example, and had wondered if she was the cleaning lady) and some real drama (the Conad manager pointing to Knox) and clearly felt rewarded for devoting his day to this.

All of Arnold’s points are interesting, and the one about the noose getting tighter really made me laugh. In effect Chris Mellas as the coyote who is chasing the road-runner and runs right off the edge of the cliff. Still treading air and his remark there is “well, so far, so good!”

I would have added to Arnold’s list only the fact that there are two defense teams here and both of them get to cross-examine. That is adding about 25 percent to the entire time duration of the trial. And by the time we get to the n+1 character witness from Seattle, this could really be like watching paint dry.

But will any of us really switch off and go away? I think not.

First, the incremental little pieces of evidence are all of them another little turn of the screw and each one has its own small satisfaction.

Second, justice for Meredith is actually being served very well in a slow-paced drama where we all get 24 free days every month to give the evidence a careful once-over. There are clearly no looney-tunes on the prosecution side and Mignini’s role is hardly being mentioned.

Third, there really is the chance of some tremendous blow-up ahead where one or other of the two defendants or Rudy Guede suddenly break away and try to throw the other two under the bus.

All three of them of course have had a history of doing just that - not that that has worked out very well for them so far.

Knox tried to throw Patrick and Sollecito and the interrogating officers under the bus and she actually came out a net loser (lawsuit from Patrick and additional charge of slander from Mignin). Where is she going next in a way that might work?

Guede pointed to both the defendants as at least having been around at the time and arguing about money with Meredith. Micheli disbelieved everything and slapped 30 years on him. Where is he going next in a way that might work?

And Sollecito has so far refused to back up Knox’s claim that she was with him all night and there asleep with him until 10 in the morning, and has made remarks right to the court that suggest separation is for him very much a main option.

And fourth, there is the simple daily joy of watching the wheels come off the amazing and incredible PR campaign. This will probably become a PR model for generations on how not to do such things.

And although we don’t think that the full Meredith is out there yet, we know enough to see her as one we would all have been proud to have known. And to feel incredibly sad that her last half-hour seems to have been one of fighting off a drug-dealing rapist, a vampire-junkie, and a crazy-jealous taunter and knife-slasher.

World opinion is a bit like a supertanker in this case -  it will take some time to turn, and to recognise that something horrific AND AVOIDABLE happened in the small house in Perugia. But that it is already in the process of doing so, we have no doubt.

And if it does, Meredith will not have died entirely in vain.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/23/09 at 03:20 PM | #

“Behind the scenes we believe there is a real shocker (go back and read Brian on Micheli and you may spot it) but it may never need to be laid on the table as it were.”

Could it be this: “[Rudy had} written the letters “AF” on the wall because he couldn’t understand her {MK’s) attempted words?” Haven’t heard anything else about that. Will Rudy be testifying?

Curious. thanks.

Posted by ragazza americana on 03/23/09 at 10:53 PM | #

I don’t know much about how the law works, especially when it comes to how cases get battled out in court. I have always been under the impression that all the prosecution’s evidence is laid out before the defence, pre-trial, and then argued out in court. If this is the case, then this gives AK and RS time to fill in the blanks. And also, does this not then diminish the chances of us getting our ‘smoking gun’ if these two were given the chance to communicate with one another, either personally or via somebody else…. Like their lawyers perhaps. Would the defence lawyers keep on defending even though they realised that actually there is no way in hell these two are innocent. They probably would because, correct me if I am wrong, their moral obligation lies not in TRUTH AND JUSTICE FOR MEREDITH KERCHER but in providing the most effective defence for their client. 
And what of AK and RS folks? Would they continue to maintain their child’s innocence even though there may have been a late night confession (never mind eminent bankruptcy) ? What else to do but support your child through this, having to go back home with their reputation in tatters? All the money raised to help AK?
My heart breaks for this poor girl and her family and I pray for justice to be served in the true meaning of the spirit.

Posted by Tammy on 03/23/09 at 11:25 PM | #

“I have always been under the impression that all the prosecution’s evidence is laid out before the defence, pre-trial, and then argued out in court.”

Yeah that is what happened here. The prosecution’s famous 10,000-plus pages of evidence which the defenses got to see. Whether the prosecution brings up everything they believe they have is their choice. The defense lawyers must hang in there to the end unless they see some other way to advantage their clients.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/24/09 at 02:01 AM | #

Maybe Chris Mellas should be called FOXY

At this stage, it seems quite incongruous to me that the Mellases and leaders of FOAK would continue to do things that the defense team felt was hurting Amanda.  Let’s assume for a minute that they are acting in concert.  What might this mean?  Does it, for example, mean that there is a benefit to convincing everyone that this is not a slam-dunk?

It could be trying to set up the defense i.e., “Amanda is a good little girl who could never have done this.”  All possible defense witnesses would then have seen “the party line” no matter where in the world they live.  Swaying public opinion now is probably not going to help since the case has gone to trial.  Too late for political or international pressure.

A witness might exist who has not yet come forward.  This could be aimed at keeping them from speaking up.  (a stretch, but possible)

It could be a diversion.  If this is the case, the only people worth having their attention diverted are the police and the prosecution.  The jury has been selected so it will not influence potential jurors.  Is there some evidence not yet discovered?  Remember the defense has had a look at all the prosecution’s evidence and would know if a key piece existed but was not yet found.  An alternative is that there may be a witness or some evidence that has been uncovered but the prosecution has not realized its significance.  The defense might be aware of this since some of the prosecutions case has already been uncovered in earlier hearings.

I don’t know the answer, but if everyone thinks about it, we may come up with something.  I don’t think the defense has to tell the prosecution about its evidence and witnesses but I could be wrong.

Here is a hypothetical to get us started:

Amanda has remembered where she was that night and it wasn’t with Solecitto.  AND she has proof.  Raphelle and Rudy go down for the count and AK is set free.  No sense in bringing this up now and giving the prosecution a chance to investigate it.  Meranwhile, the police are focused on proving the DNA evidence is correct and that AK was not beaten in the police station.

So the question is.  “Why might Chris Mellas continue to make statements that, on the surface, could harm Amanda Knox’s case?

Arnold Layne

Posted by Arnold_Layne on 03/25/09 at 08:20 PM | #

Perhaps Mellas, living on a daily basis in a household gone to pieces, is merely trying to be the big man and make up for his previous lack of guidance. He should be feeling some guilt over having provided his wife’s kids with alcohol and then calling them a couple of shitheads on his webpage ( takes one to know one?) He is only 36 (old enough to know better?) but not old enough to be HER dad. I think he just has something to prove but now that his “piehole” is open, he can’t help throwing bad commments after bad. Why is the mother so silent? The one I pity is the younger sister. She will have a hard time carving out her own niche in the world, after her sibling’s class act.

Posted by mimi on 03/25/09 at 08:43 PM | #

I haven’t seen this point addressed in media coverage or on this blog. Has anyone else?

When Rudy said Meredith had tried to identify the murderer, I didn’t think she was trying to say someone’s initials. That seems ridiculous to me. I thought she was trying to say someone’s name, and I thought that name was “Raf.” Someone who had their throat cut would have a hard time making the “r” sound, but could probably still make “a” and “f” sounds.

I do think it’s quite possible that Raffaele, who obviously played with knives, wielded the murder weapon. If Amanda’s DNA is on the handle, it could be that she was the one to clean the knife, and left her DNA in that way.

This would also be consistent with pieces of Amanda’s and Rudy’s stories: that Amanda was in another room when the killer inflicted the fatal wounds to Meredith. As troubled as she is, I can imagine that Amanda would have instigated an initial aggressive, even sexual confrontation, but that outright murder would be beyond the pale for her. Not so for someone steeped in violent pornography, like Raffaele, who was more removed than Amanda from Meredith’s humanity.

Posted by wayra on 03/26/09 at 02:12 AM | #

Hi Wayra,

Rudy Guede’s account of what happened at the cottage on the night of the murder is clearly ficitious and was dismissed by Judge Paolo Micheli. You can completely disregard Guede’s claim that Meredith attempted to tell him who had stabbed her. In case you didn’t know, Guede sexually assaulted Meredith and took part in the fatal attack on her. He was not a knight in shining armour, who had come to her rescue.

I’m absolutely astounded that you’re quoting Amanda Knox’s and Rudy Guede’s fictious accounts of what happened that night to support your opinion that it’s possible that Raffaele Sollecito inflicted the fatal wound. Amanda Knox and Rudy Guede are compulsive liars. They have both given several different versions of what happened on the night of the murder. You’re quoting Amanda’s Knox’s handwritten note in which she accused Diya Lumumba of murdering Meredith. I’m sure you’ll agree, it’s hardly the most reliable and trustworthy of sources.

The autopsy reports and detailed analysis of the crime scene by the Violent Crime Analysis Unit of the scientific police led them to conclude that Meredith was attacked by three people. They believe that Knox wielded the knife, Guede sexually assaulted Meredith and Sollectio restrained her. They didn’t rely on Knox’s and Guede’s ridiculous cock and bull stories when coming to their conclusions.

Posted by The Machine on 03/26/09 at 03:24 AM | #

Without wanting to engage in some kind of blog war, I’d like to clarify my earlier comment, in light of the response from “The Machine.”

I am not suggesting that Guede is a hero. I fully agree that he, Knox and Sollecito are responsible for and guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher.

My point is that no one alive except for the three of them knows exactly what happened that night—and as we all know, life and the “truth” are not usually straightforward and simple. Evidence and aspects of what each of them have said, written or appear to have done are being pieced together to create a coherent theory. But theories are just that—theories.

In other words, just because each of them is trying to concoct a story that demonstrates their innocence doesn’t mean that everything they put forward is completely fabricated. Isn’t it obvious that it’s the responsibility of the judges and prosecutors to distinguish between what might be true and what can’t be true?

I remember early on in the case reading that the knife wounds to Meredith’s throat were considered by some to be too deep to have been easily made by a woman. And I’ve never read anything that “proves” that Meredith did not try to communicate something about the killer. Only Meredith and God know that.

Posted by wayra on 03/26/09 at 10:14 PM | #


Thanks for the links, I noticed that Suze says ‘freedom is scary’ ... not in the context of this case, but it could be?.

I’ve seen that in Florence there are 7000 US students who pass through each year, but the authorities only consider about 10% a problem. that is still 700 in a small area, which is why it probably seems like more.

Yesterday, there was a Russian girl claiming she was raped by some guys in the bathroom of a pub. The barmen thought she looked ‘up for it’.

Knox hadn’t even arrived in Perugia and she had sex with a guy on the train. I’m sure her behaviour in the house, influenced what Guede thought he could get away with?. Has anyone counted how many guys she had in during that short time? , Daniele from Rome etc. This, plus the vibrator on display would have been sure to upset the Italian girls, they knew that effect it has on guys like Guede. As often happens, its not her who pays the price.

In florence there have been some initatives setup to occupy students such as drama groups etc, there is still some residual goodwill from when US students helped out during the flood in the 1960’s. However the mayor called in the US consul to complain ... I think that was after a group of 20 girls were seen falling over, vomiting in the side streets etc.

Knox sending RS a ‘virtual’ brithday card makes most of the Italian papers, it does seem that she needs him more than he needs her in this trial?.

RS passed his exam for Verona University and is getting thinner according to his lawyer. I think the evidence from his friends will be enlightening in the next couple of days.


Sorry the site only allows me to post once a day or so, I’ll tag this on here:

Micheli thought that Guede’s description of the victim trying to identify the killer as something from a movie or crime novel. He warns about believing parts of a what a suspect says and not others. We are all very tempted to do this but he is a professional. I think what he means is that until you get a complete, plausible, consistant story, which fits all the know facts and physical evidence, don’t believe it.

My pet theory is that Knox met Guede at the basketball court on her way home, because she talked about seeing Patrick there, then Guede asking if he could use the bathroom in the house .... then I think, ‘No, Micheli is right, we really don’t know’.

Posted by Kevin on 03/26/09 at 11:06 PM | #

Make a comment


Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Impressive Public Push In Italy, Anti Crime, Pro Stronger Justice System

Or to previous entry Trial: Did Someone Prevent Meredith Calling Home On The Night?