Monday, March 03, 2014

As Knox & Sollecito Try To Separate Themselves, Each Is Digging The Other In Deeper

Posted by willsavive




1. Sollecito Blabs Yet Again

One of an increasingly long list of “gotchas” for the prosecution, flowing from their tendencies to talk way, way too much. 

In a recent exclusive interview on an Italian TV news broadcast, Sollecito said he has several “unanswered questions” for his former girlfriend, Amanda Knox.

“You all know that the focus was only through Amanda to her behavior, to her peculiar behaviour, but whatever it is, I’m not guilty for it. “Why do they convict me? Why do put me on the corner and say that I’m guilty just because in their minds I have to be guilty because I was her boyfriend. It doesn’t make any sense to me.”

This adds yet another waiver to the many different explanations Sollecito provided over the years about the same details.

In their “official” story, in the part that remained consistent, Knox and Sollecito both claimed that Knox left his flat the morning after Kercher’s murder and returned home, where she noticed the door left wide open and witnessed blood spots in the bathroom.

Knox claimed that she found it odd and just assumed that one of her roommates was menstruating and left blood behind. She proceeded to take a shower and returned to Sollecito’s flat and ate breakfast.

2. Telling Narrative Change

“Certainly I asked her questions,” Sollecito explained in his latest interview. “Why did she take a shower? Why did she spend so much time there?” When asked what responses he had for these question Sollecito replied, “I don’t have answers.”

In the interview, Sollecito said Knox left his apartment to take a shower, then returned hours later looking “very agitated.”

Yet, in an interview with Kate Mansey on 4 November 2007 just two days after the murder, and two days prior to arrest, Sollecito said:

But when she went into the bathroom she saw spots of blood all over the bath and sink. That’s when she started getting really afraid and ran back to my place because she didn’t want to go into the house alone.


3. RS Differs Sharply From Knox

This is a far cry from what Knox said in her email also dated 4 November 2007 to friends and family, Knox wrote:

I returned to raffael’s place. after we had used the mop to clean up the kitchen i told raffael about what i had seen in the house over breakfast. the strange blood in the bathroom, the door wide open, the shit left in the toilet. he suggested i call one of my roommates, so I called filomena.” (6th paragraph).

The discrepancies between Knox’s version and Sollecito’s version is strikingly different.

  • Raffele claims Knox was visibly distraught when she returned and that this was the focus of discussion (i.e. being the first thing they discussed).

  • Knox claims that she did not even bring up the bizarre circumstances back at her apartment until “after” they finished mopping the kitchen floor.


4. My Analysis Of The Above

In his latest statement, Sollecito is clearly trying to distance himself from Knox, believing that there is far more evidence against her than against him. But:


  • Sollecito forgets to mention the bloody barefoot prints at Knox’s apartment, found to be in Kercher’s blood attributed to him.

  • Also the knife found in his apartment that scientists say was the murder weapon.

  • Also his DNA found on Meredith Kercher’s bra that was found in her room, even though Sollecito claims that he was never ever in that room.

  • Also his own strange behavior, which includes providing a false alibi (saying he and Knox were at a party with a friend on the night of the murder).

Also several conflicting other versions.

But what’s there to question if you [Raffaele] were with Knox the whole day and night of Meredith Kercher’s murder?

It appears as though Sollecito is alluding to the notion that he knows something far more than he is saying; yet, he is being very careful with his words—only providing us with a hint of this.

His latest statement is a clear attempt to distance himself from Knox.

5. Sollecito Freaks Out On Twitter


Sollecito appeared on Twitter recently, for what he claimed was to answer questions and clear his name.

He was very outspoken of his innocence and had no problem in his witty, sarcastic responses to those who questioned his innocence.

However, when I asked him about the Mansey interview he denied claiming that he was with Knox at a friend’s party on the night of the murder [huh?!].

Sollecito disappeared for a couple of days, came back to Twitter writing only in Italian, and ceased responding to any more questions.

Is it possible that Sollecito will turn on Knox altogether at some point when the pressure mounts over the next year? Guess we’ll have to wait and see…



Cross-posted from Savive’s Corner




Comments

LATEST FROM ANDREA VOGT TWITTER,

Broadcast Magazine: @ bbc3 ” Is Amanda Knox Guilty?” docu has drawn over 1,686,000 viewers (not including i-player downloads).

https://twitter.com/andreavogt

Posted by True North on 03/03/14 at 04:34 PM | #

Thank you, Will.

Posted by Bettina on 03/03/14 at 06:37 PM | #

I am posting this here instead of the post below since I want to current.

I have read extensively the posts that claim Knox’s innocence, and apart from holding my nose, one thing stands out and that is the total ignorance regarding the evidence presented to the US public.

The obvious conclusion is that the US media is being censored, because the facts are just not being reported. The American population believe that they live in a free society protected by the US constitution. This is not true.

Obviously if all the facts of this case were released in the USA then Knox support would just disappear.

Therefore I urge as much true media coverage as possible. Only then will the news networks, CNN and others, be able to see that they have been duped and censored into believing a lie. That lie being the innocence of Amanda Knox in order gain credit ratings.

When this happens I see a backlash occurring and true justice being served. The pro Knox media outlets (If I can call them that) Ground Report for example, have gone very quiet over these past weeks and if they publish anything then it’s by hack writers such as Nigel Scott from elsewhere in order to make copy. If you look closely these posts are just a paste of old regurgitated material written before which mostly comprise attacks upon the Italian Justice System

The US media is being censored and free speech does not exist in this case

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 03/03/14 at 10:13 PM | #

War propaganda initiated by Gogerty Marriott.

Posted by Helder Licht on 03/04/14 at 02:28 AM | #

There is no censorship here in the U.S. that is applicable to this case.  Anyone can publish just about anything.  It doesn’t help the cause of justice for anyone to make claims about censorship.

What is happening is that the U.S. media is not used to a situation where PR is so lop-sided.  For most controversial issues, you have two competing viewpoints, so if one “side” says something outrageous, someone else will quickly argue the opposing view and the media will cover both perspectives, often giving more weight to one side or another.

Here you effectively have had only one “side” speaking.  Few journalists will have taken the time to read the court records and testimony so what they report on is what they can easily access - and those are interviews with Knox’s family and friends and other supporters.  They can’t easily access counter arguments from English-speaking people who can represent the prosecution perspective.

Those of us who are closely following the case and have read the documents are not actual “parties” to the case, so it doesn’t make sense for any of us to be interviewed or quoted.  The end result is that media has been hearing the perspective of people who have reason to believe Amanda is not guilty - and that perspective is not balanced by people who can speak on the record (or even off the record, but with “standing” and expert knowledge) from the perspective that she’s guilty.

A media critic like Jay Rosen should analyze the coverage of this case once all is said and done. 

For more balance, either media would have had to work harder to ignore the Knox team or work harder to get the prosecution perspective.  The prosecution could have made it easier for media here in the U.S. by designating a surrogate to speak on their behalf in the US - someone who was kept up to date and capable of speaking on the record.  But that also would have its downsides.

All of this only matters in terms of getting balanced media coverage, and what the prosecution team focused on was the actual judicial process and presenting its case to the judges and juries in Italy.  Fortunately for the cause of justice, that’s the more important place to focus energy and effort, something that the Knox team clearly misunderstood.

The Nencini report will be the first opportunity media have to really understand why Knox and Sollecito’s convictions were upheld - but because of translation delays and the competition to write fast instead of smart, it’s likely very few journalists will actually take the time to study and absorb the document. 

Meanwhile the Knox supporters will actively discuss the case.  And it’s that imbalance that’s likely to keep the status quo - which is heavily biased and unbalanced reporting.

Posted by Media Watcher on 03/04/14 at 03:49 AM | #

“There is no censorship here in the U.S. that is applicable to this case.”

Not true, it is bought censorship.

Posted by Helder Licht on 03/04/14 at 04:16 AM | #

Here’s what the ACLU has to say about censorship.

What Is Censorship? (2006 resource):  Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are “offensive,” happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups. Censorship by the government is unconstitutional.

What’s happening in this case is simply the constellation of two things:  1) a pro-Knox PR effort without a counterbalancing pro-prosecution perspective which creates unbalanced coverage; 2) mainstream media not taking the time to dig deeper to understand and/or present the prosecution case.

No one “controls” the media in this case, but with few exceptions, media has badly served the public interest in this case.

Meanwhile there ARE a few journalists who have consistently paid attention to the evidence and have done a good job covering the case.  We just need more of them to do a quality job.

Posted by Media Watcher on 03/04/14 at 04:33 AM | #

Once you could interview AK, provided you could not ask her anything. Call it passive, money driven censorship.

We do need ethical people (Not the Oprahs and the Egans)

Posted by Helder Licht on 03/04/14 at 05:13 AM | #

@Media Watcher

I agree with much of what you say but I think the problem is deeper that “inequality of PR”. Journalists used to have a desire and often a vocation to ferret out the truth, now apparently they are not to be blamed if they lazily accept the PR of one party if that’s all that’s on offer.

Call the one-sided coverage what you will, self-censorship, commercially-driven bias, lack of journalistic integrity, etc. Then add in a a dash of xenophobia which always relishes the opportunity to express base sentiments, this time against the hapless Italians and their “crooked” justice system.

I don’t know what’s to be done about it but the sheer numbers of angry Knox supporters who suddenly descend en masse and infest the comments section in any article on the case is something to behold. Clearly something not very noble has been stirred in the psyche of many Americans. Let’s not beat about the bush, the media have created these poor deluded souls who believe they are in possession of the facts, and on that basis they are apparently ready to go to war with Italy. Or, lol, at the very least impotently deny the country their tourist income by vowing never to take a vacation there (as if it’s likely that the opportunity and finance would ever arise).

When push comes to shove the media has to put its own house in order, both in the US and the UK. The ongoing phone hacking scandal in the UK shows that your average individual journalist doesn’t understand the meaning of self-regulation.

Part of the problem may be that the circulations of mainstream newspapers are in free-fall, so the pressure may be on to file copy that panders to the lowest common denominator - and bugger the consequences.

Posted by Odysseus on 03/04/14 at 06:53 AM | #

@Media Watcher

I note that in your last post you also make the points that “media has badly served the public interest in this case”, and that there are some (not enough) journalists doing a good job, so we are probably in broad agreement.

Posted by Odysseus on 03/04/14 at 07:41 AM | #

I’d add one thing to MediaWatcher’s point about media tilted by massive one-sided PR: that the Italian system is inquisitorial (a search for the truth) not adversarial; and heavily adversarial PR which lies about people and evidence breaks Italian law.

So far Italian authorities are only intent on winding back the claims in the RS and Knox books (this will go public soon and create a huge jolt) and false claims of Sforza, Aviello and Spezi (and Oggi) but Italy could certainly put on trial for example the Guardian as well. Not so much to punish as to leave standing one truth.

Worth noting that the US cable news channels are all endemically sliding in ratings and almost desperate for viewers. The two CNN channels are so far down that it seems only time before Time Warner pulls the plug. The only one with growth is Al Jazeera which promotes itself with the most foreign news (true, more than the BBC).

The most scathing denunciation which I’ve seen lately of the slippery slope much news media have got themselves onto was by the actor George Clooney. I’m on the road but maybe someone could google his remarks?  He’s created a documentary group to get across some important truths. This case could be a good one for him to pick up - especially as ironically he has an option on the lie-infested Doug Preston MOF book.

Worth noting also that most Italian reporting has been cool, elegant, factual and on the ball. It flows from the inquisitorial system. Accused of being tabloid, but I see almost zero of that. The Porta a Portas and similar crime shows are a model of balance for the world to follow.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/04/14 at 08:05 AM | #

“Is it possible that Sollecito will turn on Knox altogether at some point when the pressure mounts over the next year? Guess we’ll have to wait and see… “

I believe he will once the SC confirms the Nencini verdict and he gets carted off to prison while Knox is ‘free’ in the USA fighting extradition.

Time will be running short for her but he will only see the immediate - that he has copped it and she hasn’t.

Posted by thundering on 03/04/14 at 10:33 AM | #

Just reflecting on the Knox fan club, it seems there’s a significant number who honestly can’t believe that the “angel-faced” (sic) damsel in distress can be anything but innocent.

It’s totally immature and a denial of reality (most mature people understand that “evil” comes in many guises). It’s as if what’s at stake here is a fundamental belief in “face values” (literally) which prevents any recognition of guilt, so much so that a whole nation must be deemed corrupt rather than accept something that will shake their belief systems to the core.

What kind of world would it be if we can’t judge anyone by their face? (Answer – the real world).

Underneath it all isn’t there a pathetic and puerile longing for a simpler world where things are always just as they seem to be? And the damsel is always innocent and always rescued from distress? Maybe they’ve all spent too many hours as kids plonked alone in front of the TV watching Hollywood movies.

Reality isn’t so comfortable but it has the overwhelming advantage of being true. If they wanted comfort they should have asked the negligent mum for a hug. Too late now.

“The truth waits for eyes unclouded by longing”. - Lao Tzu, “Tao Te Ching”

Posted by Odysseus on 03/04/14 at 11:49 AM | #

Odysseus -> “If they wanted comfort they should have asked the negligent mum for a hug. Too late now.”

No, no, they can still hug their TV smile

Posted by Bjorn on 03/04/14 at 12:17 PM | #

I find it strange they people can emphatically believe that Knox or Sollicieto are either guilty or innocent.
I doubt, because of the way the trial has been played out in the media and horse-trading and egotism that seems to characterise Italian justice that we will ever know the truth.
But based on the evidence available, I don’t see how Knox and Sollicieto can be deemed to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
I am not a “supporter” of anyone, I just want to know the truth and I want Meredith’s family to have closure on this.

Posted by semm31 on 03/04/14 at 12:21 PM | #

“Angel faced” sic indeed.  “I could judge her by her face.”

But ok, we have the real world here, so we judge her by the evidence.

Posted by Helder Licht on 03/04/14 at 12:23 PM | #

@Bjorn

“No, no, they can still hug their TV”

True. They might get a shock but that’s what life often delivers when you’re living in a dream!

Posted by Odysseus on 03/04/14 at 12:30 PM | #

Semm, educate yourself here! You’re still young (31?)

Posted by Helder Licht on 03/04/14 at 12:31 PM | #

I am educated thanks, and don’t rely on how someone looks as a guide to whether they are innocent or not. I use my brain

Posted by semm31 on 03/04/14 at 12:36 PM | #

“horse-trading and egotism that seems to characterise Italian justice ...”

that’s quite a description for a system that is painstakingly thorough, inquisitorial, and has several different layers of highly qualified judges (versed in the nuance and skills of logic) counter-checking the work of other judges.

not much chance of ‘egotism’ surviving the process, I would have thought.

Are we ever totally educated? Does not education continue through life?

*    *    *

thank you for the quote from Lao Tzu, Odysseus. much appreciated.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 03/04/14 at 12:53 PM | #

@semm31 There is a ton of information on this site and others, I am disappointed by your position.

But, I will share my personal “clincher” with you: the fact that Sollecito provided an explanation regarding the presence of Meredith’s DNA on his kitchen knife (he “pricked” her finger while cooking at his flat, turned out to be bullshit, they had never met at his flat, he blamed that statement on the fact that he was in solitary confinement when he wrote it (probably another lie, was he ever in solitary confinement?), but see, both the knife and the DNA presence are being challenged by the defense, and yet Sollecito hurriedly provided an explanation, why would he do that?

Please answer me, and we’ll continue the discussion.

Posted by Bjorn on 03/04/14 at 03:01 PM | #

The BBC3 Documentary “Is Amanda Knox Guilty” is still available on YouTube.com if you haven’t seen it yet. Here is the link or you can search youtube.com for “new documentary is Amanda Knox guilty” and it will come up. YouTube shows less then 5,600 views! link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joZV0XARmvA

Posted by irne on 03/04/14 at 04:05 PM | #

Will Savive, thank you for the Kate Mansey interview captured on your website, Savive’s Corner. It’s amazing that only two days after the crime Raffaele told a British journalist that he and Amanda had been OUT at a party with his friends on the night of the murder.

Yet when brought in for police questioning, he pretended confusion. How hard is it to remember a party that you’d already told a British journalist you attended?

No wonder Raffaele refuses to answer Will Savive’s questions about the Kate Mansey interview. She was a journalist for the British Sunday Times. How appropriate that a British newspaper should catch a British citizen’s killer in lies.

Posted by Hopeful on 03/04/14 at 05:34 PM | #

Hello Semm31
I suggest that you examine the high resolution photos of the knife that is deemed to be the murder weapon. It’s on this site only several posts back. Also please, don’t forget that the defense excepted the presence of both DNA attributed to Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox on the afor mentioned knife. That is why they claimed contamination which was shot down at this appeal. There has not been three trials/two trials or what ever the pro Knox bunch are claiming this week. But this has been an appeal which under Italian law is automatic.

Finally when I say that there is censorship in the USA and the UK that is true. There is an avenue of release of information called the ‘Freedom of Information Act’ which is a joke. So many want to believe that they are not being lied to, so they take the lazy route and believe what they have been force fed into believing.

The Amanda Knox PR bunch, for example, deletes any countervailing view of this case and if they agree to have Knox interviewed, it is only under the proviso that the interviewer asks the questions provided by her supporters. 

Perhaps a better description would be self censorship by the media in order to sensationalize this case and thereby improve their ratings. However it is still censorship.

Lastly all governments lie all the time and censor all news programs. You may not want to believe this but it’s true It’s called “In the public interest.”

One last thing. You may note that the Knox supporters don’t write any new copy at all, but just paste all the old stuff and regurgitate it as new in the hope that her supporters (who watch nothing more intelligent than “Here comes Honey Boo Boo.”) will be taken in once more.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 03/04/14 at 07:15 PM | #

Hi Grahame, I work with media all the time and understand very deeply what “rules” they follow.  There isn’t any government censorship on the Amanda Knox case.

On the media side, there is laziness, there is bias, and there is incompetence - and sometimes in a perfect storm, all come together.  There is also the drive for ratings, which means sensationalizing things.  If you want to call all of that something that results in self-censorship, fine, but let’s be careful not to conflate or confuse that type of self-censorship with government censorship or some organized media-wide censorship effort.

The reason I’m being a bit dogmatic about this discussion is that I strongly believe the best chance for justice is to make clear that this at heart is a criminal trial involving a young woman who was brutally murdered.  The thing that distinguishes it is that the press coverage has been so lopsided - and there are practical reasons for that, which are pretty easy to understand.

The U.S. government has a role to play in making sure this trial is treated as any other criminal trial where the ONLY thing that really distinguishes it is how the press has covered it - which is due in large part to a lopsided, organized PR effort.

I want goverment entities that may yet weigh in (on an extradition proceeding, e.g.) to treat the case seriously and soberly and to look at the actual case record, and have some understanding why the media bias is so extensive.  I don’t think they should have to deal with unwarranted claims of censorship (which most people think of as government-enforced) or media conspiracies.

There’s been no government censorship in this case here in the U.S. and there’s been no media conspiracy either.  There has been poor, unbalanced reporting but that should have no impact on how the government responds when and if an extradition request is made.

The best path forward is for the U.S. government to show that PR campaigns will not affect the judicial process or treaty conventions in what, absent an organized PR effort by one side, should have been a straightforward criminal proceeding.

Posted by Media Watcher on 03/04/14 at 09:21 PM | #

Re Post by semm31 on 03/04/14 at 12:21 PM:

“....based on the evidence available, I don’t see how Knox and Sollicieto can be deemed to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.”

I find it strange that you can emphatically believe that you understand the meaning of reasonable-doubt, and know the Evidence-Available.

Have you even read the reasons SCC gave for annulling H/Z ?

Posted by Cardiol MD on 03/04/14 at 11:31 PM | #

Peter Quennell

I first became aware of the al-Jazeera when I saw an advertisement at Doha airport. I have been impressed with their professionalism. Although they report from an middle-eastern angle, their reporting, on the whole, is superb.

A major part of the American news comes from the feeds and independent investigation is rather an exception and not the rule. As far as this particular case is concerned, they are simply reporting what the PR beast is feeding them. However, the few who have spent some time on the case, reading the original documents, have to brave the PR machine assault. We can see the results.

It takes time and effort. Last but not the least, an open mind.

Posted by chami on 03/05/14 at 01:41 AM | #

Semm13

“But based on the evidence available, I don’t see how Knox and Sollicieto can be deemed to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt”

What are the evidences you are considering? What is your idea of reasonable doubt?

I agree that individually any single evidence can be explained away with a set of catch all phrases. But how do you explain that dozens of such evidences being present at the crime scene?

One thing I fail to understand: why these two nice kids have to keep on telling lies after lies? Why they cannot tell the truth?

Posted by chami on 03/05/14 at 01:51 AM | #

I have realised there are a relatively small group of people (mostly men) commenting constatly on Amanda’s blog and expressing their support for her. It’s always the same names who comment there, day after day, several posts a day, week after week.

They really don’t have anything else in their lives goin on, so that’s their no. 1 hobby! Really sad! One of them even made a comment to Amanda: “Your friendship means everything to me”! Seriously! How severly lonely those men are that clinge on to her!

They must be really desperate for any human interaction with women. M. P. is similar, it sseems to me. No any other friends, so she thought she have to go great lengths to keep at least this one with her, disquicing that as an act of mercy or symphathy.

I actually think she saw A.K as a ticket to her 15 minutes of fame, that she absolutely couldn’t let pass without using!

Posted by Poppins on 03/05/14 at 08:49 AM | #

Hi Chami

Its amazing to me that from a little principality in the Persian Gulf, Qatar, this excellent news service Al Jazeerah has arisen and has the assured funding and the guts to continue to expand worldwide.

We had a post about it when it first launched in the US. Going back some years it was controversial, but seems far less-so now, even as it tackles tougher & tougher issues very constructively.

Here is a quote about from Wikipedia.

In the 2000s, the network was praised by the Index on Censorship for circumventing censorship and contributing to the free exchange of information in the Arab world, and by the Webby Awards, who nominated it as one of the five best news web sites, along with BBC News, National Geographic and The Smoking Gun. It was also voted by Brandchannel readers as the fifth most influential global brand behind Apple, Google, Ikea and Starbucks. In 2011, Salon.com said Al Jazeera’s coverage of the 2011 Egyptian protests was superior to that of the American news media. Hillary Clinton stated that the US was losing the information war as “Al Jazeera has been the leader in that [they] are literally changing people’s minds and attitudes. And like it or hate it, it is really effective,” she said.”

That was Hillary Clinton the Secretary of State talking. In effect she’s saying it is eating the lunch off the Voice of America and even the BBC which these days is forever cost-cutting (both BBC cable channels in the US carry extensive advertising; Al Jazeerah carries some).

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/05/14 at 11:11 AM | #

Hi, Poppins, I very much agree with what you say, and, from a male’s perspective, I find other males’ attraction to Amanda Knox rather unbelievable. Psychologists can explain this better, but it’s probably the elements of messy murder, sex toys, and defiance that combine and play a sick kinky trick on these guys’ minds.

For the people out there who think Amanda Knox is their good-looking best friend, there are people of much better quality (and better looking!) than Amanda Knox, already behind bars and atoning for their mistakes, see http://www.prisonpenpals.com and others similar, be dignified if you do, though, many of these prisoners actually deserve respect.

Posted by Bjorn on 03/05/14 at 12:10 PM | #

Hi Media Watcher and Grahame

Good post by M-W on 03/04/14 at 09:21 PM. It could form a part of our mission statement if we had a written version, as it’s something almost all here could subscribe to - seemingly even the Grahame we have known here for years!

Grahame with his long-term interests in healthy society has long been a dogged foe of those who demonize governments and their structures & staffing, especially the Italian one. He has also told us that (in his role as a government operative!) he also had first-hand acquaintance with some acts that were unspeakable and which he tries to forget about.

The parts of government that tend to be volatile and occasionally prone to murky deeds are most often the political, and I never came across any career civil servant anywhere in the world who was running thier own secret agenda. Not ever.

The US government is our friend going forward. Despite what Grahame said about Freedom of Information being a joke (1) its something very few other governments have; and (2) its been incredibly helpful in getting Rome embassy cables released (to Andrea Vogt) which showed no critical reporting of the trial. That will matter greatly in extradition.

Heavey & co have tried to capture the commanding heights of government but have been brushed off by Hillary Clinton and semi brushed off by Maria Cantwell. In fact most elected officials including especially Italian American naturally epsouse more to what we stand for and have little liking for the demonizing of Italy or any justice system.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/05/14 at 12:10 PM | #

Hi Poppins and Born.

Its surprising that the kinky slobbering is allowed to be so obvious on Knox’s own website. Normally parents (and lawyers and PR managers) shut that damning sort of thing down.  Only a matter of time before Italian media have a field day translating it.

You might like to google “white knight syndrome” which is an actual syndrome although not normally considered as worrisome or worthy of therapy. We’ve never had a post exclusively on it but there is a whole category of posts which relate to it.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C328/

Almost all of the main males incessantly trying to hijack the pro-Knox parade first emerged slobbering. Sforza, Fischer, Heavey, Moore, Hampikian, Nigel Scott,  and Girlanda all first emerged slobbering; some since have tried to do a u-turn or set up phony enterprises (“Injustice Anywhere”) to attempt to re-write history for their loved ones (Fischer especially as his wife’s family supports him).

This could be part of Sollecito’s problem. Of all of them he is the only one to get to third base with Knox that we know of (Sforza tried and was evicted from the Mellas household) but he was already losing her when the attack on Meredith occurred (maybe why he joined in the attack so lustily).

Guede also may have had a thing for Knox. I dont think its her looks, its Knox’s tough attitude, which weak men get a kick out of being subjected to. Knox as domanatrix.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/05/14 at 12:21 PM | #

@Peter Quennell

Thanks for the details on Al-Jazeera.

I think it was GWB who wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera. He sure did not like their style of reporting. I understand that simple message is that the American media is overly compliant. I have read some of the columns of Maureen Dowd (in New York Times) on GWB’s next man in command and they can be hardly considered complimentary. But the real question that begs an answer: Is that all for public consumption?

At least one Al-Jazeera reporter was reported to spend some time in Guantanamo prison. There was hardly any noise made- just for reference compare our darling reporter Franck Sforza!

I am happy to recycle a quote from above:

“The truth waits for eyes unclouded by longing”.

Posted by chami on 03/05/14 at 12:27 PM | #

To the posts above mentioning issues like censorship and media bias, I’d like to add a couple psychological qualities that many people possess that influence their thinking in this case: egotism and exceptionalism. It amazes me that AK, RS, and RG can be found guilty by a court of law and yet some people still question whether they are innocent or not.

It takes quite an ego and a view of one’s self as “exceptional” to think that one knows better than teams of experienced, professional investigators, forensic experts, lawyers and judges. Thank god for the rule of law - otherwise there would be quite a free-for-all, with ignorance and violence dominating no doubt.

Posted by Patrizio on 03/05/14 at 12:44 PM | #

Hi Chami

Yeah back before Al Jazeerah launched here in the US GWB did have his beefs with it! Public perception moved against the 2nd Iraq war regardless.

When you are next in the US take a look at it. In a single day you will see maybe 10 top US leaders pleased to be interviewed on it. There is no just-lefties or just-righties, they are all there happily.

It carries a lot of reports about the less fortunate and, as I said above, those elsewhere. Maybe it will drag other news media in its direction as they seem clean out of a formula that works.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/05/14 at 12:44 PM | #

Hi Patrizio

Great point. Both Cardiol and Chami questioned semm31 on his self-important claim that “reasonable doubt” applied to what HE is thinking.

As you say that takes quite some chutzpah and major ignorance of court codes globabally. And in this case it is even more irrelevant.

About 1/4 of the 2009 trial was behind closed doors and a video and one-day recreation of the attack and some other things seen by the jury have even now not been made public, though they are pretty generally known about in Italy.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/05/14 at 12:55 PM | #

@semm31

I know that many biggies also make mistakes and probability is a rather tricky concept. I can perhaps give an example:

A says that he/she has seen X at a given place and time but not quite sure: he/she is only 25% sure about it.

B also says that he/she has seen X at the same place and time but he too is not quite sure: he/she is also 25% sure about that!

C says the same thing. (25% - just taken to illustrate a point).

A, B and C are all independent witnesses.

What is the probability that X was there?

If we consider individually, 25% is not acceptable. We want more than 50%. In this way, all the three evidences will be discarded.

However, we must consider evidences together and the acceptance or rejection must be applied to the total evidence, not to individual evidences.

We have a formula for such cases:

P(A+B+C)=P(A)+P(B)+P(C)-P(AB)-P(BC)-P(AC)+P(ABC)

Now you know why I have taken 25% as an example. It is just 1/4 and is easy to write and calculate.

The result:

3/4-3/16+1/64=0.578125.

It is more than 50%: individual evidences may be weak but together they can make a strong case!

There is a similar basis when you approximate the final result. If you want your results accurate to 4 decimal places, all the calculations need to be carried out to 6-8 decimal place accuracy and approximate the final result to the 4 decimal place. Do not approximate the intermediate results!

Posted by chami on 03/05/14 at 02:45 PM | #

@Patrizio

I agree and it’s always baffled me how casual “drive-by” observers of the case can nonchalantly form instant opinions as to guilt or otherwise without recourse to any of the trial proceedings, and yet think they are better informed than the authorities who have spent 7 years on the case.

Any reasonable person would have to conclude that far too many humans can be sentimental buffoons who will only surrender to the plain truth “kicking and screaming”, just like the wayward heroine herself in fact. It’s never easy growing up and we should have some small compassion but why do these damn fools make it so hard for themselves?

Posted by Odysseus on 03/05/14 at 03:13 PM | #

I’m new to this site.  Just received my password (yeah), but not new to this case.  I have been trying to get through all the information and I definitely believe (at this point) that AK and RS were involved in this crime.  However, I do have a question for somebody that has more knowledge than I.  Did Rudy every state that AK and RS were there and did he ever state what the motive was?  I have read so many different stories, I want what he really said.  Is that in the original report somewhere?  Thanks for any help.

Posted by Rexcrayola on 03/05/14 at 05:30 PM | #

Hi Rexcrayola

Rudy Guede was willing to “tell all” in 2009 but the prosecution felt they did not need him.  The furthest he has gone since when not under pressure except that caused by Alessi is reflected in his letter in this post.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/rudy_guede_now_counter_claims_from_prison_that_knox_and_sollecito/

He confirmed that position when on the witness stand during the annulled appeal in 2011. He has made some other statements including one several weeks ago that go about as far as that one.

We think he is only likely to go any further either when under great pressure (though what would that be?) or when he is fully free and feeling quite safe from payback.

The lone wolf theory is a joke in Italy and Sollecito’s own lawyers called TWO witnesses (Alessi and Aviello) to contradict it which suggested even they know it is a crock.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C720/

Most recently Sollecito and Bongiorno seem to be ge=heading back to trying to blame it all on Amanda.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/05/14 at 05:57 PM | #

OK I stand corrected. However please excuse my paranoia but I have seen so many things swept under the rug and discounted for a multitude of reasons all involving “Public Interest” The question that remains though is that perhaps the US media is just lazy or is there something else going on for if all the facts were disseminated, then the Knox support would simply vanish. the vast majority of the US and UK populous are woefully ignorant of all the evidence so please excuse me if I smell a rat. The fact that Steve Moore for example, is interviewed on CNN is indicative of this. His claims regarding his involvement in FBI operations is just plain silly when you consider his job as a Cessna pilot. People in charge of an asset are ordered never to leave that asset alone as he claims. My point is that such people who are touted as being experts with proof of innocence bother me no end, since it is obvious that CNN and others are indulging in some sort of censorship even if it is self imposed.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 03/05/14 at 06:09 PM | #

This is urgent. Please join in the celebrities’ campaign to save BBC3

Twitter #saveBBC3

The news: https://www.google.com/search?aq=f&hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&btnmeta_news_search=1&q=BBC3

Take the poll: http://www.theguardian.com/media/poll/2014/mar/05/bbc3-axed-bbc3-poll-gavin-stacey-being-human

Posted by janenewyork on 03/05/14 at 09:10 PM | #

@Grahame,

My favorite anecdote on this point involved a front page national media story.  It involved something that the person I was with (a very senior executive) had VERY intimate knowledge of.  He said, “I can’t believe this reporting….let’s just start with the blatant factual errors….” and then he started ticking them off.  He then turned the page, started reading another story, and said, “Wow, I can’t believe this…look what’s happening….”

I felt compelled to remind him, “Wait, on the first story, you know it’s untrue because you have first-hand knowledge and on the second, because you don’t have first-hand knowledge, you accept it as truth?” 

He laughed, but hopefully never read the news or watched it again without a healthy dose of skepticism.  In the age of budget cuts and job cuts across the entire field of journalism, it’s even more true. All of this is to say that quality journalism depends on the trustworthiness and sourcing of the journalists - and in the age of the Internet, going to source material directly and reading multiple accounts from varied sources is incredibly important.

There are a few journalists on this story I generally trust - because they’ve earned it, and when I check what they’ve written, it’s consistent with underlying source material.  But most of the coverage has been relentlessly bad, repeating and amplifying information that is demonstrably false.

Posted by Media Watcher on 03/06/14 at 01:04 AM | #

I don’t trust abstract ‘big’ named media. (‘Times’, ‘Ground’, ‘National’, etc.)

I do trust concrete ‘modest’ named media. (‘Desk’, as in f.e. ‘Freelance Desk’ grin  )

The first are about stories.
The second about hard work.

Posted by Helder Licht on 03/06/14 at 05:41 AM | #

At the moment, all the interest seems to be in the possibility of a fall-out between Knox and Sollecito, with the latter distancing himself and perhaps seeking to lay all the blame on Knox, much as Guede once did.

But speaking of Guede, he appears to have largely vanished from sight, apart from rumours that he is shortly to be released. However, the really big mystery that has never been addressed, so far as I can see, is how Guede could have come to be involved in an attack on Kercher, which involvement is undeniable, given the forensic evidence of his contact with her body after the attack, while she was bleeding heavily.

It is relatively easy to develop a hypothesis about how Knox and Sollecito could have become involved in a joint attack on Kercher, which may or may not have been premeditated.  They had been in a close relationship for just over a week, and had spent a lot of time together, with plenty of opportunity to agree on a common plan for action.

However, there appears to be no discernible link between them and Guede. The only evidence of any link between Knox and Guede appears to be the two occasions when she met him at the house she shared with Kercher, when Guede visited the four young men who lived in the downstairs flat, who were his friends from playing basketball together.  On both occasions Kercher was also present, so it appears hardly likely that a plot to attack her could have been hatched while she was listening in.

Apart from those two occasions, there appears to be no link between Knox and Guede; nobody seems to have witnessed them together, either on the night of the murder or at any other time.

There is no evidence of Sollecito ever having met or known of Guede prior to 1 November 2007.

On the evening of Thursday 1 November, Knox was fully expecting to go to work as usual at Lumumba’s bar, which usually involved her being there until 02:00 the next morning.  It was not until around 20:30, when she received the message from Lumumba telling her not to come into work, that she realised that she would have the evening free.

It follows logically that prior to receiving that message, she could not possibly have conceived any intent of returning to her house, let alone of attacking Kercher or murdering her, since she expected to be at work until well after midnight.

Furthermore, before receiving that message she could not possibly have met Guede and made any agreement with him to go and do something to Kercher.

The various judgements against Sollecito and Knox appear to agree that their presence in his apartment can be attested to until about 21:15, ie that it was only after that time that could have left the apartment and gone to 7 Via della Pergola.

That leaves only a very narrow window of opportunity for them to have encountered Guede and gained his agreement to go with them to attack Kercher.

How they could have gained such agreement, or even imagined to themselves that they could have gained it, is very hard to imagine, given that Knox barely knew him, and Sollecito did not know him at all.

A crime committed by three people acting in concert implies a certain level of trust and confidence between the participants, which cannot have existed between Knox and Sollecito on the one hand and Guede on the other, due to their lack of knowledge of each other.

While it is possible to imagine Sollecito joining Knox in an attack on Kercher, due to his close albeit brief relationship with the former, it is difficult to see any reason why Guede would join in such an attack.  However, the hard evidence shows conclusively that he did take part in an attack on Kercher.

One of the big failings I see in this case is the lack of attention to the actions of Guede during the period leading up to the murder.  The actions of Knox and Sollecito in that period have been subjected to the closest scrutiny and analysed to find the smallest discrepancy, but nobody appears to know what Guede was doing; he seems to just materialise in Kercher’s bedroom in time to take part in the assault.

To my mind, Guede’s undisputed presence in the house together with Kercher before, during and after the murder can only be adequately explained if we assume that his actions on that night were determined by motives peculiar to him alone, and unrelated to any actions of Knox, whatever they might have been.

In other words, his presence at 7 Via della Pergola from about 20:30 onward were a result solely of decisions made by himself, not as a result of any agreement with Knox.

It seems to me that there are two possible explanations for Guede’s presence while Kercher was being murdered.

1.  He had broken in for the purpose of stealing money, and killed Kercher we she came home and surprised him.

2.  He was admitted to the house by Kercher exactly as he claimed, perhaps because she knew him as a friend of her boyfriend who lived in the downstairs flat, he took the opportunity to try to press her to have sex with him, she resisted, a struggle ensued, and he ended up stabbing her, which may well not have been his original intention.

I consider the second scenario to be the more likely, given the observed problems with the break-in scenario.

In neither of those scenarios do Sollecito and Knox play any role, and thus they obviate the problem of the lack of any discernible link between Knox and Guede of sufficient strength to enable a joint resolve to commit a criminal act.

Thus, the killing of Kercher can be more rationally and satisfactorily explained in terms of Guede’s acting on his own, driven by his own motives, whether robbery or lust, than in terms of an agreement on joint criminal action between Knox and Guede for which there is no evidence whatever.

Posted by Michael Mills  on 03/06/14 at 05:55 AM | #

In cauda venenum

Posted by Helder Licht on 03/06/14 at 06:27 AM | #

Michael Mills

You forgot to mention that Guede morphed his foot into the exact size and shape of Sollecito’s to leave a visible bloody print on the bathmat, all the while leaving no DNA presence in that bathroom.

And made sure the ‘double DNA knife’ was helpfully placed in a drawer in Sollecito’s kitchen.

Posted by Rocket Queen on 03/06/14 at 08:22 AM | #

Re Michael Mills on 03/06/14 at 05:55 AM:

“There is no evidence of Sollecito ever having met or known of Guede prior to 1 November 2007.”

Welcome to The Obfuscators Hall of Fame!

No Evidence?

Do you even know what is meant by the term “Evidence”?

Your flat pronouncement implies that you Also-Know All of the evidence known to the Court when it declared the Defendants to be Guilty.

It’s quite a trick to balance a whole Pyramid inverted on a Pinnacle of False Assumption!

Posted by Cardiol MD on 03/06/14 at 08:40 AM | #

Hi Michael Mills

Skimpy reading, right? You dont even seem to have read the thread above, in which Odysseus posted this: “It’s always baffled me how casual “drive-by” observers of the case can nonchalantly form instant opinions as to guilt or otherwise without recourse to any of the trial proceedings, and yet think they are better informed than the authorities who have spent 7 years on the case.”

Meredith went home with a slight headache to finish an assignment and go early to bed. No way she would have let Guede in. He had no known interest in her (or knowledge of any money in the house) but he was known to hanker after Knox. He had no crime record at all despite what is said on the sites which you flood with posts.

You mischaracterize the prosecution scenario which was most recently advanced in forceful terms in the Florence court. Please read our Florence reports. Particularly what Dr Crini said. The attack was described as having come together at short notice, not necessarily with the intent of a murder at the end, and escalated fueled by group rage and drugs. 

You mischaracterize the huge volume of evidence against the other two. Cardiol above refers to the approximately 1/4 of the trial which at Meredith’s family’s request was held behind closed doors. We dont know all that was presented there but (as do most Italians) we have a pretty good idea.

It covered the autopsy, which left no doubt in the panel of judges’ minds from the wound pattern that three attackers and at least 2 knives were involved. And it covered the evidence throughout the room in a depiction of a 15 minutes attack which could also only be explained by three attackers being involved.

You also mischaracterize much other evidence, in the public domain, which shows Knox and Sollecito were involved and were right there in the room - proven DNA on two items, mixed blood outside the door, Guede’s shoeprints headed straight out the front door, partial clean-up, falsified break-in, various witnesses, computer evidence, cellphone evidence, on and on.

It doesnt seem best use of our time to repeat for you in this thread here what you can easily read for yourself on this site and its three sister sites (see button links in left column above). Good places to start:

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C443/
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C720/

We suggest to read from the first post up. When you have absorbed these posts you might like to email that you have come that far.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/06/14 at 09:16 AM | #

Hi Rocket Queen

Great points. Key posts for further reading here:

1) On Sollecito’s footprint.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/Tips_For_The_Media_3_in_fact_theres_far_more_evidence/

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/powerpoints_10_telling_evidence_against_sollecito_the_experts_seem_to_/

2) On the double DNA on RS’s knife.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C745/

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/06/14 at 09:45 AM | #

I had to laugh about the name ‘Mill’.

In the Netherlands we use the expression ‘emotioneel molenwieken’, that is figurative, making circle movements with your arms, like the sails of a mill, based on nothing with the intention to just fill the room.

It is a bit static, a sort of saint like (‘Michael’)

Ok, it might be a real name. I like the humor of it.

Posted by Helder Licht on 03/06/14 at 11:58 AM | #

@Michael Mills

“Guede could have come to be involved in an attack on Kercher, which involvement is undeniable, given the forensic evidence of his contact with her body after the attack, while she was bleeding heavily”

The same (or similar) evidences applied to Knox and Sollecito becomes tainted or contaminated but when it comes to Guede, they become undeniable?

I know you are trying to defend the indefensible but then there is something called reason and logic…

You are distorting the truth when you say “nobody seems to have witnessed them together”- do you have any evidence?

A case of bad logic when you claim: “It follows logically that prior to receiving that message, she could not possibly have conceived any intent of returning to her house”- what is the evidence there?

I presume that she was looking for an opportunity that evening and the opening came…- can you deny that? Who killed Cock Robin?

Posted by chami on 03/06/14 at 12:14 PM | #

Michael Millls simply doesnt know the case. He should read the entire Lone Wolf and Guede areas on TJMK before posting anywhere further.

Here are some of his shoot-from-the-hip assumptions and the quick reasons why they dont stand up:

Silly assumptions and straw men of Michael “the black man did it” Mills

[RS] perhaps seeking to lay all the blame on Knox, much as Guede once did.

Straw man. No Guede didnt. He laid equal blame on both

...speaking of Guede, he appears to have largely vanished from sight…

Straw man. No he hasnt. He’s in Viterbo prison and periodically speaks out.

...the really big mystery that has never been addressed, so far as I can see, is how Guede could have come to be involved in an attack on Kercher…

Silly assumption. Read Micheli and Masssei. Scenarios are fully addressed.

...there appears to be no discernible link between them and Guede.

Silly assumption. Knox admitted she knew him, and RS probably did (they lived a few yards apart up the same street); and they would readily have encountered him in the Piazza Grimana park where he hung out.

There is no evidence of Sollecito ever having met or known of Guede prior to 1 November 2007.

Silly assumption. See above.

It follows logically that prior to receiving that message, she could not possibly have conceived any intent of returning to her house, let alone of attacking Kercher or murdering her, since she expected to be at work until well after midnight.

Silly assumption. If the message threatened Knox it could have been the last straw on the camel’s back. She had no work permit, and was racing through cash (it was probably going on cocaine), and desperately needed that job. 

Furthermore, before receiving that message she could not possibly have met Guede and made any agreement with him to go and do something to Kercher.

Straw man.

That leaves only a very narrow window of opportunity for them to have encountered Guede and gained his agreement to go with them to attack Kercher.

Silly assumption. The windows was as much as several hours, during which Knox was known to have been in the park.

How they could have gained such agreement, or even imagined to themselves that they could have gained it, is very hard to imagine

Silly assumption. If the attack began with a heated argument, what requirement for an agreement is that?

A crime committed by three people acting in concert implies a certain level of trust and confidence between the participants…

Silly assumption. An explosive and cowardly pile-on requires zero “level of trust and confidence” and since the attack there sure has not been much.

While it is possible to imagine Sollecito joining Knox in an attack on Kercher, due to his close albeit brief relationship with the former, it is difficult to see any reason why Guede would join in such an attack.

Silly assumption. No it isnt if he hankered after Knox and she roped him in.

One of the big failings I see in this case is the lack of attention to the actions of Guede during the period leading up to the murder.

Silly assumption. Do read Micheli and Massei.

To my mind, Guede’s undisputed presence in the house together with Kercher before, during and after the murder can only be adequately explained if we assume that his actions on that night were determined by motives peculiar to him alone, and unrelated to any actions of Knox, whatever they might have been.

Silly assumptions. Its only the panel of judges’ minds that matter. Read Micheli and Massei where explanations “adequate” for them can be found.

In other words, his presence at 7 Via della Pergola from about 20:30 onward were a result solely of decisions made by himself, not as a result of any agreement with Knox.

Silly assumption. If she roped him in at the park, then she was involved and he did not act alone.

It seems to me that there are two possible explanations for Guede’s presence while Kercher was being murdered. ....  He had broken in for the purpose of stealing money, and killed Kercher we she came home and surprised him.

Silly assumption. He had no idea anyone in the house had money; and he had no prior record of stealing anything. See Micheli.

He was admitted to the house by Kercher exactly as he claimed… he took the opportunity to try to press her to have sex with him, she resisted, a struggle ensued, and he ended up stabbing her… I consider the second scenario to be the more likely, given the observed problems with the break-in scenario.

Silly assumption. Although there was indeed no break-in this lone-wolf attack is not born out by the autopsy or the voluminous evidence inside or outside the room or witnesses, computer records, cell-phones, and more. Even the defenses knew it wouldnt fly.

In neither of those scenarios do Sollecito and Knox play any role, and thus they obviate the problem of the lack of any discernible link between Knox and Guede of sufficient strength to enable a joint resolve to commit a criminal act.

Silly assumption. In a spontaneous flare-up attack no “sufficient strength to enable a joint resolve to commit a criminal act” applies.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/06/14 at 04:33 PM | #

@Michael Mills:  It has been established that Meredith was murdered some time around 23:30 and not earlier as you have reported.  There was ample opportunity for Knox to have met with Guede and allowed him into the cottage during the course of the evening.

You’re correct in your conclusion that Guede did not break into the cottage.  There’s no evidence that he broke in or that anyone else did either.  Therefore, you must also likewise agree that the crimescene was staged after Meredith was killed.

Who do you think did that?  And why?

Posted by Stilicho on 03/06/14 at 04:34 PM | #

IMO, semm31 & Michael Mills are a Propaganda Team, dedicated to propagating the Innocentisti Faith.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 03/06/14 at 06:39 PM | #

@ Micheal Mills

Sorry but that does not add up. In my experience the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

Knox and Sollecito met Guede on the way tO Merediths house and offered him sex with Meredith since he was black. Knox and Sollecito are of the opinion that black people are inferior as shown by their history. Knox in Seattle; and her involvement and denunciation of Patrick Lamumba for example, and Sollecito since given his none involvement with people of colour it would take very little to sway him in that direction anyway.

In other words it would be demeaning. (according to them) to force Meredith to have sex with a person of colour since they considered her inferior anyway given the fact that she was so very much better than Knox could ever hope to be, and therefore Knox was Jealous of Meredith and wished to make her suffer.

I believe it was a chance meeting with Guede and nothing else, which was why coincidentally Guede ran away without flushing the toilet when things got out of hand. ie the scream.

Of course this is just conjecture on my part. What is not conjecture is

The knife.
The stolen money.
The break in.
The DNA evidence.
The footprints.
The lies.
The changing stories.
The fact that Sollecito refused to back up Knox alibi.
The cell phone evidence.
The computer evidence.
The water under the sink.
Sollecito claiming Meredith cut her finger when he was cleaning fish even though she had never been to the place where he lived.
The implication of Lamumba who sat in jail for two weeks.
Knox written statements, and I could go on with the phone calls to mummy in the middle of the night plus everything that has come after which are the lies from the Knox supporters who consider this to be a competition and little else.

Meredith Kercher (the true victim in all of this) in some of the American media has all but been forgotten.

So for anyone to claim that Guede did this on his own is a joke and grasping at straws.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 03/06/14 at 06:45 PM | #

Rudy Guede says he bought a ‘bad kebab’ that night from a place in the vicinity of where Amanda Knox’s received Patrick’s SMS message not to come in that night.

She may have met Guede then, and, knowing from the boys downstairs that he was a source for drugs, may have invited him over that night. (His ‘off to see a girl’ to friends)

I always believed that drug dealer Hekuran Kokomani’s presence that night was no coincidence.

Posted by Ergon on 03/06/14 at 06:47 PM | #

A possible scenario, albeit speculative, is that Amanda encountered Guede in the square, guessed he might be a source for more drugs, and had the idea, as she was feeling tight and insecure about money, that such drugs could be paid for with sex instead of money.

The fact that she had a cocaine dealer’s number on her phone (who she rang before and after the murder, apparently) who was known to swap sex for drugs, means this concept was probably not unfamiliar to her.

However, being in a nascent liaison with Sollecito meant it would be awkward for her to offer herself…  so what about offering Guede her flatmate, Meredith, (who’d dared to criticise A’s behaviour)?

She persuades Guede of the idea, and embroils the two in her ‘prank’. Bring a large knife to scare her, she might have suggested to RS- this would fit with his habits, and also explain his obvious guilt about the knife, given his spurious tale.

AK often has spontaneous, ill- considered ‘plans’ or pranks. Even her lying is off the cuff, and then covered by another spontaneous lie. No wonder RS couldn’t keep up with her ‘strange behaviour’.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 03/07/14 at 02:16 AM | #

@SeekingUnderstanding

Sex and drug always go together.

I too think that AK is not a systematic lier. RS was wise to keep his mouth shut in the court.

I often wonder why AK has not yet joined politics?

Posted by chami on 03/07/14 at 02:44 AM | #

Next post hopefully today Friday is the first in a series on the case coverage by the UK Guardian, and whether it forms a deliberate obstruction-of-justice pattern to poison opinion - a felony.

The extraordinary resources the Guardian has assigned to the case over the years is proving a little hampering! Dozens of reports, videos and opinion pieces by reporters in UK, US and Italy.

If anyone has any tips they’d sure be welcome.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/07/14 at 07:48 AM | #

What is not known by all: is that Hekurian Kokomani’s eyewitness testimony propably is true. This is because before his name was made public, somebody was asking around in the albanian community in Italy about what was his name. They even went so far that they offered a big sum of money (100.000 euros, or something) for the information of his name or how to reach him.

I was apalled to only reacently hear about this. It is obvious it was Sollecito’s lawyer or father behind this. So, they must have told papa that yes, he saw them and that he is a key witness. I’m horrified of this news! They probably were planning to first offer him money not to testify, to disappear, and if that didn’t work, to kill him! That’s why Kokomani covers always his face in photos.

I heard somebody tried to murder Guede in prison. Can anybody confirm this? I heard also Sollecito’s lawyer PAID to those child murderers Aviello or Alessi (or whatever)to make a fake statement that 1. His Brother is the killer of Meredith, and 2.Guede confessed that Knox and Sollecito are innocent, wich both are lies.

This woman lawyer is one of the kind. One piece of work indeed! I hope these thing are one day added to the list of evidence against K&S, that list seems to be growing and growing every day. Only a fool would ignore this as an evidence of their guilt.

Posted by Poppins on 03/07/14 at 09:08 AM | #

@Peter Quennell on 03/07/14 at 07:48 AM

I have been reading the guardian online on and off. I have never commented on any of their articles but I have often felt that I should have.

Once they started the US operation (their site became .com from .co.uk), there is a subtle change in their reporting. They care more now for the US public opinion.

Is criticizing Amanda Knox a taboo in the US? I think theguardian (it was only guardian before) thinks so simply because the number of comments in favour of the American’s innocence.

I dislike when people decide on the truth by a public vote.

Posted by chami on 03/07/14 at 10:44 AM | #

Hi Poppins

We have SOME information to suggest that yours above on Kokomani and other dirty tricks is all more or less true though not yet as much as we’d like to get.

Investigators believed Kokomani was one supplier of amphetamines (believed coke) to the two and wanted to pursue this, but Judge Micheli in becoming irritated at him (after agreeing he had the timeline right for the broken down car at the T-junction) accidentally sealed off that line of enquiry.

Guede was beaten up in the sex offenders wing at Virterbo by two prisoners but was too nervous or otherwise dissuaded from pursuing a complaint.

It was Aviello’s cellmates in prison who claimed the RS forces had hinted at bribes for testimony; Aviello did not confirm that at the Nencini appeal, and is on trial for perjury in Florence. Bongiorno said she’d sue him but suspiciously never did.

Its a close ally of hers (and political foe of Judge Nencini) who got the complaint about Judge Nencini making remarks to reporters in front of the CSM. The CSM hearing is next Friday, at which point another dirty trick probably drops dead.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/07/14 at 10:49 AM | #

Hi Chami

Using google site-search on the Guardian there are 56,000 hits for Amanda Knox. Thats what we are wading through. The slant is nearly 100% pro-Knox.

Only The Daily Mail beats it at 73,200, and the The UK Telegraph has 16,200, probably both for the reason you give - penetrating the US market (both are erratic in their bias.)

US media hits are all lower. ABC News has 13,000. NBC and CBS may be similar. The NY Times has 3.260 hits.  The Seattle PI (including Dempsey) only 3,890. No other US media seem to come close.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/07/14 at 11:11 AM | #

On Tue Mar 11 a special panel will convene and hear Judge Nencini’s explanation for his comments expressed in an interview the day after Jan 30 sentencing. This special panel of members of the Cassazione will try to decide whether there are merits or not to start proceedings to transfer him to other office for incompatibility. Here is a link but the article is in Italian. It also mentions some disagreement about the members about having Nencini there for example.
http://www.lanazione.it/firenze/cronaca/2014/02/19/1028023-nencini-meredith-indagini-ministero.shtml

Posted by irne on 03/07/14 at 01:37 PM | #

Hekuran Kokomani’s testimony, while not pursued to its fullest, stayed at the back of the mind of the Massei Court, and was one reason behind their decision to convict, IMHO.

Motivations reports are a summary of the judge’s reasoning and consideration of the evidence. They do not cover all 10,000 pages and private discussions in camera.

I believe that Kokomani’s testimony helped guide the decisions of not only the Massei and Nencini court, but the courts that convicted Rudy Guede.

Posted by Ergon on 03/07/14 at 02:03 PM | #

Hi Irne

We are not giving the Judge Nencini hearing before CSM much space because we know it is highly political, initiated by a close friend of Bongiorno, and will have zero effect on the sentencing report of the Florence appeal court.

In no other country in the world would a judge face a hearing for the quick and accurate explanation he gave in answer to reporters.

Read Yummi’s latest post below for the real problem: Bongiorno had promised too much to her clients and despite all her myriad dirty tricks she cant make a case for RS and is losing.

Through surrogates, she is grandstanding. In the real world it is she who should be facing severe discipline.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 03/07/14 at 02:17 PM | #

I re-read an interview with Lumumba yesterday and it struck me that when he reduced Knox’s job to that of passing out flyers but no work in the bar, she might have panicked.  She no doubt had high outgoings on drink and, mainly, drugs, and would not have been at all happy to be left in a spot where she could not afford either.  It may have even meant her having to return to the States.

On top of this, Lumumba tells her that he has offered a job to Meredith.  Knox’s reaction was to go stony faced and to leave without saying a word.  Lumumba knew her and was around her more than most, and he appears to be very perceptive when it comes to summing up her character.  He says Knox was very envious of Meredith and I see no reason to disbelieve him. 

Lumumba also made comment of the fact that he knew Knox had a long term boyfriend in America, and that she had no qualms about cheating on him repeatedly.  She then hooked up with Sollecito but this was bound to have been short-lived because Lumumba saw her in this period flirting with other men in Le Chic.

It is very indicative of Knox’s character that, dependant as she was on her income as money for drugs, she endangered this by failing to even do the simplest of jobs!  All she had to do was to hand out flyers and collect empty glasses, but instead Lumumba constantly caught her sitting with and flirting with male customers in his bar. 

Given this, her behaviour in the States before she left to Italy, her inability to clean either herself or the cottage, her attention seeking ways, her love of trouble, her love of picking up strange men in bars and taking them back home with her, the drugs and the inability to be responsible, Knox was a nightmare waiting to happen.

Posted by MHILL4 on 03/08/14 at 09:30 AM | #

MHILL4 - You’ve put it all into a succinct nutshell.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 03/08/14 at 09:40 AM | #

Semm31 in response to http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/as_knox_and_sollecito_try_to_separate_themselves/#c20202

What we believe or the media played out is irrelevant.  Horse trading and egotism of the system are again products of your unsupported opinion.

If you are in bad faith you do not need to read.

If you are in good faith I suggest you read the verdicts of these trials, starting from three trials against Guede and then the verdicts issued in the K/S separate trial. Only those verdicts and trials matter.  You will find the only court that doubted the 2 defendants being on the scene of the crime did so by using “manifest illogical” arguments in all their reasonings, this Court had to disregard, neglect or forget evidence in order to do that.

Since in Italy no judgement is valid if not logically argued in writing ... their verdict was rightly canceled, better demolished by the Supreme Cassation court (that had already established btw Guede did not act alone). Rightly in my humble opinion but our opinions do not really matter, there are Courts of Law, judges with great experience and thousands of pages photos and documents.

The same Supreme court will no doubt confirm the guilt of the 2 accused and the overwhelming evidence against them can be read in details in all the verdicts, those that were not cancelled, 5 of them counting all defendants with a 6th coming.  This is what counts here.

Going to my opinion ref why that happened, it is simple:  AK admitted to be on crime scene 3 times always in writing but also verbally, she accused an innocent man and was convicted to 3.5 years for calumny, AK lied numerous times on her whereabouts, this is proven, RS lied numerous times and did not confirm AK’s alibi, AK and RS contradict each other on very important details of that morning,

RG said the 2 were on the crime scene and did it, mixed DNA and mixed blood of AK and MK was found in several spots, a big patch of blood of AK was found on the tap showing she bled that night, footprints of people who cannot be Guede were found with luminol in the flat mixed in blood and they are compatible with AK and RS, there is a staged break in, DNA mixed of AK and MK was found in one of these footprints found with luminol in Filomena’s room, several witnesses claim many people escaped from the scene, AK and RS were seen outside the flat at around the time of the murder when they claim they were home, AK was seen in early morning at a shop when she claims she was sleeping, this is compatible with their lies on time of wake up as proven by PC and mobile phones, MK’s body shows signs of multiple attackers, then we have DNA on knife and bra clasp as final cherries ... they are not really needed but we have them.  This case is a slam dunk.       

If you find it strange someone may think they are guilty I do not agree ... I do not find it strange they were convicted. I need no emphasis.  This case is quite easy evidence is overwhelming and points to presence of the 2 and guilt. Not one element in this trial makes me think otherwise.

To make me think “not strange” the fact they could be convicted by a Court ... her confession and her patch of blood on the sink would suffice.  I am sure these 2 elements would be sufficient in most courts in the world. But Courts here had much more and ruled accordingly.

Posted by Popper on 03/08/14 at 04:28 PM | #

It’s a scathing criticism of the US media that their reporting is so biased and one sided that it appears to be indistinguishable from a government controlled media. Can the US honestly say to other countries “we have a better informed public because of our ‘free press’ than your state controlled propaganda outlets”?

Bias occurring as a result of financial interest is not technically censorship. In some ways it is worse, because people are deluded into thinking they are getting “the truth”. At least with government censors, you know you are being lied to.

Posted by bobc on 03/11/14 at 05:19 PM | #

@bobc

Great point.

Posted by Media Watcher on 03/11/14 at 08:28 PM | #


Make a comment

If you are reading this please log in to post a comment.

Smileys



Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Obstruction Of Justice? How The Guardian Poisons Public Opinion Against The Italian Courts

Or to previous entry What We Might Read Into Sollecito Lawyer Giulia Bongiornos Final Arguments To The Appeal Judges