Barbie Nadeau Cracks The Mystery Of Why Sollecito’s Lawyer Was Arguing For Knox

Posted by Peter Quennell


Click above for the report in the Daily Beast.

Yesterday’s strategy by Ms Bongiorno had been puzzling us behind the scenes. Even the Italian media seemed confused. Some thought she was subtly saying that Knox had framed Sollecito. This analysis sounds authentic.

American murder suspect Amanda Knox was nervous Monday morning when she entered the courtroom in Perugia…

Sollecito’s co-counsel Giulia Bongiorno…. surprised court observers and spent most of the morning ignoring her own client. Instead, she defended Knox even though Sollecito is the only of the two with DNA evidence in the room where Kercher was murdered…

By doing the work of Knox’s defense team, Sollecito’s own defense took a calculated risk that it will be harder for the jury to convict them both. But in doing so, she paved the way for the two to be judged as one, meaning they will either both be acquitted or both receive life sentences.

And by defending Knox and attacking the forensic evidence against her…. [Bongiorno] is banking that Knox’s lawyers will also do their bit to defend Sollecito later this week when it is their turn.

“She is not Amanda the Ripper,” Bongiorno told the jury, which at times must have been wondering when she would get to Sollecito. “She is a little crazy, extravagant. She does the cartwheels in the police station because reality for her is too strong to deal with. She is spontaneous, immediate, and imprudent.”

It was a moment of obvious relief for Knox. The last few weeks have been particularly arduous for her. Two weeks ago, Rudy Guede, the man who has already been convicted for his part in Kercher’s murder, testified in his appeals trial that he saw her silhouette in the window of the crime scene the night of the murder.

The same week, the prosecutor painted a disturbing picture of Knox as a drug-fueled vixen who called Meredith Kercher “prissy” before threatening her at knifepoint to have group sex with Guede and Sollecito. Then last week as the civil plaintiff’s closing arguments against her concluded, Knox was called a “dirty minded she-devil” by lawyers for Patrick Lumumba….

[Monday] was the best day the defense has had in this trial. Bongiorno’s oratory was a tribute to criminal defense. The jury didn’t take their eyes off her as she weaved a story separated by her own self-titled chapters. And when Knox’s defense lawyers begin their summation, they are expected to do their part and pick up where Sollecito’s defense left off.

“We are really four lawyers with two clients,” Knox attorney Carlo Dalla Vedova said after court. “We are all in the same boat.” Soon the jury will decide whether it will stay afloat.




Comments

Do we know if, as we could guess, there are other evidences or testimonies that we haven’t heard about? I am thinking at the Kerchers’ testimony, for example, that - unless I am wrong - was not made public. I would assume that they told what their daughter was saying about “Amelie of Seattle”, if she was considering moving etc…

We do not know about that, but I guess the jury knows, doesn’t?

Posted by Patou on 12/01/09 at 03:40 PM | #

“She is a little crazy, extravagant. She does the cartwheels in the police station because reality for her is too strong to deal with. She is spontaneous, immediate, and imprudent.”

Exactly. I’ve sometimes thought that Meredith’s murder was a spontaneous and immediate act.

Posted by mortytoad on 12/01/09 at 03:55 PM | #

I am praying that justice is done.  It’s scary when you think that all reasonable doubt must be gone to convict.  Look at the O.J. case.  There was no other person who had the opportunity and desire to murder his ex-wife and boyfriend, the evidence was there, but he was found non-guilty in the criminal case!  I also think the jurors were worried about rioting if he was convicted after the riot that happened before in 1992 after 4 white police officers were acquitted of beating Rodney King (African-American).

Even with all the evidence, I’m still nervous about the outcome!

Posted by BARBM on 12/01/09 at 04:03 PM | #

Interesting to note that Patrick is not being investigated for criminal defamation.

Interesting to note that he was also physically and mentally abused by the police during his interrogation.

Interesting to note the timing of the defamation case against the Knoxes.

Interesting to note that Patrick is not seeking damages from the police department.

Interesting.

TheMailOnline

November, 2007

At 6.30am on Tuesday, November 6, the bell to his fourth-floor flat in the town buzzed insistently and a woman’s voice outside demanded he opened the door. He had barely had time to do so when the woman, assisted by, Patrick Lumumba estimates, 15 to 20 others, barged their way in.

“They were wearing normal clothes and carrying guns,” he says. “I thought it must be some sort of armed gang about to kill me. I was terrified.

“They hit me over the head and yelled ‘dirty black’. Then they put handcuffs on me and shoved me out of the door, as Aleksandra (girlfriend) pulled Davide (son) away, screaming.”

He was greeted outside by a convoy of seven police cars, sirens blazing, and driven to Perugia’s police station, where he was subjected to a ten-hour interrogation.

“I was questioned by five men and women, some of whom punched and kicked me,” he claims. “They forced me on my knees against the wall and said I should be in America where I would be given the electric chair for my crime. All they kept saying was, ‘You did it, you did it.’

“I didn’t know what I’d ‘done’. I was scared and humiliated. Then, after a couple of hours one of them suggested they show me a picture of ‘the dead girl’ to get me to confess.

Posted by kendall on 12/01/09 at 04:07 PM | #

Hi Kendall “Interesting to note that Patrick is not seeking damages from the police department.”

That is incorrect. Patrick recounted this take on events when he was in fact seeking damages from the government. There may or may not be some truth to this - in the Knox-Mellas case there seem to be proven untruths, criminal slanders. 

It was not investigated or verified, and the damages Patrick did receive were very small.

If Knox is found guilty of slandering Patrick the damages she may end up owing him could be considerable and she would face a prison term.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/01/09 at 04:44 PM | #

Ciao,

Tigger34 - a minor comment: I suppose that nobody wants to se Amanda railroaded for a crime she did not do, but what I had in mind in my previous post was the risk of a ‘right’ conviction due to ‘wrong’ reasons.

Best, Fiori

Posted by Fiori on 12/01/09 at 05:05 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 The Summations: Andrea Vogt Summarises Knox Defense By Della Vedova

Or to previous entry The Summations: Today’s Arguments For Amanda Knox By Her Lawyer Della Vedova