Questions For Knox and Sollecito: Why Claim Rudy Guede Did It Alone When So Much Proof Against?

Posted by Marcello




1. Problems Of Your “Guede did it alone” Mantra

Your attempts to frame Guede for the entire attack sound racist, and they fly in the face of a multitude of hard facts.

Why are you and your more untethered supporters arguing to the media that Rudy Guede alone attacked Meredith (he could not have), that he was a drifter (he wasnt), a burglar (he wasnt), and drug dealer (he wasnt), and that his DNA traces are “all over Meredith’s room” (they werent)?

There are surprisingly few DNA traces of Guede in there, and outside Meredith’s door there is only evidence of (1) his prior use of the south bathroom, and (2) his shoeprints headed straight for the front door.

There is zero evidence that Rudy Guede was ever in the shared bathroom (the one with Sollectio’s bloody footprint on the bathmat) and zero evidence he was in Filomena’s room (the one with the broken window and the mixed DNA of Meredith and Knox). 

2. Evidence Against You Is Far, Far Stronger

Explain if you can about Sollecito’s bloody footprint. Explain if you can about the evidence of cleanup. Explain this and this about your multiple contradictory alibis.

Explain if you can why YOUR own witnesses Alessi and Aviello were such disasters for your side in court. Explain your cell phone actions (or non-actions) and the timing and content of your phone calls, and your computer actions (or non actions).

Explain why in Sollecito’s book he claims he sent several emails throughout the night; but there zero records of such emails with his email provider. Explain why both Sollecito and Knox framed Dr Mignini.

There are three compelling reasons above all why the Massei court and the Supreme Court will remain totally unbending on the point that Guede did NOT attack Meredith alone, and that it had to be a pack attack on Meredith.

  • One is the full day of closed court testimony at trial by crime-scene experts from Rome who accounted for every point of evidence in Meredith’s room with a depiction of a 15 minute pack attack involving three people. This seriously upset the jury and your own defense was left essentially speechless.

  • One is the prosecution’s video shown in closed court during Summations of the recreation of the attack on Meredith, which accounted for every point of evidence with a 15 minute pack attack involving three people.  This seriously upset the jury and your own defense was left essentially speechless
  • .
  • One is that the entry of an attacker via Filomena’s room is so absolutely unbelievable. Your own defense always knew this, and barely tried to make that sale (hence the witnesses Alessi and Aviello).

There are seven other routes for a burglar to enter the house, all of them faster and quieter and five of them darker. You can see five in these images below: two via the east windows, three up onto the balcony and into the house via the louvre door or the kitchen window.

All seven routes would be obvious to any burglar, long before he walked all the way around the base of the house to beneath Filomena’s window (which he did several times in your scenario). 

3. The Numerous Questions From Which You Hide

On or after 6 November you have both promised to appear in the appeal court in Florence. You are apparently too nervous to face cross-examination under oath, but you have said you intend to try to explain things.

    1) Rudy Guede had been to the apartment at least twice already on prior occasions and knew the boys who lived in the lower story. Why did Guede choose to NOT break-in to the lower story where he knew (or could ascertain) that all four boys were away on holiday, and therefore could break-in and rummage with some certainty of not getting caught?

    2) Why did Guede choose to break-in to the upper story of the villa when he surely knew Knox and Kercher would be staying at the villa for the holidays and could have returned at any time to “catch him in-the-act”?

    3) Why did Guede not check the cottage to make sure no one was there before attempting the break-in? Surely he would have verified that no one was present by circling the cottage and checking if any lights were on in the windows.

    4) If Guede did circle the cottage to make sure no one was there before attempting the break-in, why would he then choose the most visible and more difficult path of entry through a second story window, as opposed to the more hidden and easier path of break-in at the back of the villa, which he would have noticed while circling the villa?

    5) Why would Guede choose to break-in through a second story window that was highly exposed to the headlights of passing cars on the street as well as exposed to night lighting from the carpark?

    6) Ms. Romanelli testified that she had nearly closed the exterior shutters. Assuming her memory is correct, there is no way a burglar could easily verify if the windows were latched and if the inner scuri were latched to the window panes, which would make access to the window latch impractical unless one was armed with a core drill or an ax. Why would Guede, who was certainly familiar with such windows, choose to attempt the break-in through a window that he could not easily verify would allow him quick access?

    7) Assuming the shutters were closed, Guede would have to climb up the wall and open the shutters before smashing the window with the rock. The night of the murder, the grass was wet from rain the previous day. Why was there no evidence of disturbed grass or mud on the walls?

    8) Guede had Nike sneakers, not rock climbing shoes. How did he manage the climb up the wall with that type of footwear?

    9) If the shutters were closed, or somewhat closed, how did Guede manage to lift himself up to the sill with only an inch of sill available to grab onto?

    10) Assuming Guede opened the shutters, how did Guede verify if the inner scuri where not latched to the window panes, which would prevent access to the window latch? There was no light inside Ms. Romanelli’s room to reveal that the scuri were ajar.

    11) Assuming Guede managed to check that the inner scuro behind the right-hand window was not latched, how did he manage to break the glass with a 9 lb rock with one hand while hanging on to the sill with the other?

    12) Assuming Guede managed check that the right-hand inner scuro was not latched, how did he break the glass with the rock without having glass shards fly into his face?

    13) If Guede climbed down to the lob the 9 lb rock at the window from 3 meters below, how would he do so to avoid glass shards raining down on him?

    14) If Guede climbed down to the lob the rock at the window from below, why would he choose a 9 lb 20 cm wide rock to lob up to a window 3 meters above him, with little chance of striking the window in the correct fashion?

    15) If Guede climbed down again and climbed back up to the carpark (up a steep slope with slippery wet grass and weeds) to lob the 9 lb 20 cm wide rock from the car park, why is there no evidence of this second climb down on the walls?

    16) Why did Guede choose a 9 lb 20 cm wide rock to throw from the car park, given that a large, heavy rock would be difficult to lob with any precision? Especially considering that the width of the glass in the window pane is only 28 cm wide, surely anyone, experienced or not, would have chosen a smaller, lighter rock to throw with greater precision.

    17) If Guede lobbed a 9 lb 20 cm rock from the car park, such a lob would require some velocity and therefore force. Guede would have been roughly 11-12 feet away from the window, in order for the lob to clear the wood railing at the carpark. If the rock was thrown with some velocity, why is the upper 1/2 of the glass in the window pane intact, without any fracture cracks at all?

    18) If Guede lobbed a 9 lb 20 cm rock from the car park, such a lob would require some velocity and therefore force. Why is there so little damage to the scuro the rock hit, so little damage to the terrazzo flooring impacted by the rock, and so little damage to the rock itself, which surely would have fractured more on impact with a hard terrazzo floor?

    19) Why was there no evidence of glass shards found in the grass below the window?

    20) If Guede climbed the wall to open the shutters, climbed down and up to the car park to throw the rock, then climbed back down and up again to the window, how does he manage to hoist himself onto the sill without cutting himself on the glass that was found on the sill?

    21) If Guede climbed the wall to open the shutters, hoisted himself onto the sill, tapped the glass with a 9 lb rock to lightly break the glass in a manner more consistent with how the window was broken, why did he throw the rock into the room, rather than let it fall into the grass below?

    22) Why was no dirt, grass, muddy shoeprints or similar trace evidence found on the window sill?

    23) Why was no dirt, grass, muddy shoeprints or similar trace evidence found in Romanelli’s room?

    24) If Guede climbed the wall to open the shutters, climbed down and up to the car park to throw the rock, then climbed back down and up again to the window again, hoisted himself onto the sill without cutting himself on the glass that was found on the sill, unlatched the window and stepped inside Filomena’s room, how did he manage to get glass on top of Romanelli’s clothing that was found under the window sill?

    25) Why would Guede, who would have spent a good 10 minutes trying to break and enter with the climbing up and down from the carpark, waste valuable time throwing clothes from the closet? Why not simply open the closet doors and rifle through the clothes without creating more of mess?

    26) Why did he disregard Romanelli’s laptop, which was in plain view?

    27) Why did Guede check the closet before checking the drawers of the nightstand, where surely more valuable objects like jewelry would be found?

    28) Why were none of the other rooms disturbed during the break-in?

    29) Assuming Ms. Kercher arrived to the cottage after Guede’s break-in, presumably when Guede was in the bathroom, why did she not notice the break-in, call the police and run out of the cottage?

    30) Assuming Guede was in the bathroom when Ms. Kercher returned, why go to the extent of attacking Ms. Kercher in her room rather than try to sneak out the front door, or through the window he had just broken, to avoid if not identification, at least more serious criminal charges?

    31) Assuming Ms. Kercher was at the cottage while Guede broke-in, why did she not call the police the moment she heard the rock crash through the glass, loudly thud to the terrazzo floor and investigate what was happening in Romanelli’s room while Guede was climbing back down from the car park and climbing back up to the window?

    32) Assuming Ms. Kercher was at the cottage while Guede broke-in, Guede could have been on the sill already because he had tapped the glass with the 9 lb rock to break it. Therefore perhaps Guede was already partially inside Romanelli’s room when he was discovered by Ms. Kercher. In this case Guede follows Ms. Kercher to her room in an attempt to dissuade her from calling the police and the assault ensues. But then, if this scenario is correct, when does Guede have time to rifle through Romanelli’s clothing and effects?

    33) Why is there a luminol revealed footprint in Romanelli’s room that has mixed traces of Knox’s and Kercher’s DNA ?

    34) Why does this footprint not match Guede’s foot size?

    35) If multiple attackers were required to restain Ms. Kercher, holding her limbs while brandishing two knives and committing sexual violence, then who else was with Guede and why no traces of this 4th (or more) person(s) were found, either in shoeprints, footprints, fingerprints, DNA or otherwise?

    36) If Guede and others were involved in the assault, why has Guede not acknolwedged them, and instead consistently hinted that, and finally admitting that Sollecito and Knox were with him during the assault?

    37) If Guede and others were involved in the assault, why do the other shoeprints, footprints, DNA traces and fingerprints all point to Knox and Sollecito being present during the assault, in one way or another?


4. Italy Is Not Buying The Racist Mantra

If your racist mantra remains “the black guy did it alone” and “Italians are corrupt and stupid” you need to PROVE that. If you cannot answer all of these questions above, this will deservedly cook you.

You could be facing 30 years with the “mitigating factors” canceled and the new penalties you will incur for your dishonest books and PR campaigns.


[Five easier ways in: 3 via balcony (note two drainpipes, window grid below), 2 via side windows]












Comments

The Lone Wolf burglary-gone-wrong scenario has many things wrong with it.  Apart from the lack of any forensic traces, or the odd method by which a “burglar” chose the more difficult of several possible entry points, there is a reliance on Meredith acting oblivious to her surroundings.

If she were at home and a 4 kg stone sailed through the window and crashed across the floor she would have easily noticed this and done something about it.  Likewise, if she had returned home after the poorly-conceived break-in, she would have noticed elements of a crime in progress before entering the cottage.

Cassation has already ruled that Guede committed his crime with others.  Sollecito needs to explain why the only “others” of which there is any evidence is himself and Knox.

Posted by Stilicho on 10/08/13 at 02:47 PM | #

Great to have you Marcello.

All of our many previous posts on this pesky theory are here:  http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/C720/

The theory fools no-one within miles of the courtroom, Cassation says forget it, but it rises repeatedly like a zombie in the US.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/08/13 at 03:48 PM | #

Good questions, Marcello. Guede would have felt a comfort zone in the boys’ downstairs apartment having visited there, plus it was an easier entry than Filomena’s window. It makes more sense he would have broken into the boys’ window, knowing they were all away but that two girls might still be upstairs.

Guys tend to have more big ticket items to hock. Guede knew what the boys owned.

The lined up shards of glass on the windowsill that were left in a straight line reveal that no struggling foot scrambled over them. Absence of glass on the ground below corroborates this in yet another clue. A clean almost white wall without any signs of wet or dirty shoeprints on it says it’s unlikely Guede climbed there after a damp rain. His messy footprints running out of the cottage front door and his sloppiness in Meredith’s room also suggest that he wouldn’t have concerned himself with muddying the outside walls.

As you point out, it is Guede’s obvious lack of cleanliness and indifference to leaving signs of himself at the scene that strongly suggest the cleanup was the work of others. So he wasn’t alone.

Thank you for thinking through all the many possibilities about the rock and the window that prove the break-in was a fiction.

Posted by Hopeful on 10/08/13 at 04:19 PM | #

Actually considerable credit goes to Pete, who took my 37 question list and properly couched with photos and even more forceful opening paragraphs. My knowledge of the case is limited with respect to others here, but Pete sets the context extraordinarily well. My list of questions are really minor details, though they do add up. So thank you Pete! Also credit goes to Judge Micheli, from whom I ‘borrowed’ some of the questions.

Posted by Marcello on 10/08/13 at 04:38 PM | #

You are refreshingly modest Marcello,...the long list of questions are so well thought through. It’s this kind of detail, together with ‘ordinary’ human behaviour that we all know is probable - that reveals what must have been.
One is left in no doubt at all.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 10/08/13 at 04:53 PM | #

Thank you Marcello…

Posted by Bettina on 10/08/13 at 05:16 PM | #

Marcello kindly wrote the last 3/4 without amendment. It represents a lot of work on his part and is a valuable addition to that important subject area. I did add some contemporary framing to the first 1/4 from 2009 after suggesting it. The last 3/4 is the guts of the piece though. Great piece.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/08/13 at 08:51 PM | #

Absolutely compelling article & rock-hard reasoning, Marcello!  Thank you for this fantastic contribution.  No one can refute the logic & evidence combination that you’ve provided, & no one without ulterior motives would try.

Posted by all4justice on 10/08/13 at 10:20 PM | #

Excellent - some points I had pondered over, and others were new information to me.  I hadn’t remembered how big the rock was, and how difficult to lob it correctly, and how small the window sill actually is.

Posted by believing on 10/08/13 at 10:43 PM | #

The third photo link does not show up for me.

Posted by believing on 10/08/13 at 10:44 PM | #

I think we must take into account that Ms. Kercher was not an Italian citizen or even Italian. She is just an ordinary girl from England.
Believe it or not, all the TV news shows in America ,that I have seen, have expressed their opinion on this case, and they say Amanda is innocent.
When an American decides where he will be going on his next vacation, he might choose Italy, or he might choose one of the thousands of other places. He has too be really keen on going to Italy.
If he believes what he saw on TV and thinks Amanda was framed, he might feel that America must do something to retaliate, so he won’t bring his money to Italy. It is very easy for him to find somewhere else to go.
Therefore the bad publicity relating to Knox and Italy is bad for business.
Now, if Amanda had killed an Italian, they may have wanted justice for their citizen and not have worried about bad publicity, but since she is from England (who was an enemy of theirs in the last war)they may be willing to compromise a little bit if that is necessary to help people forget about this case.
So, Maybe they thought that Amanda has been in prison for 4 years, and she went through the ordeal of being prosecuted for murder, therefore she has been punished enough.
If Raffaele marries Amanda, he will be the spouse of an American citizen. When he and Amanda are in the U.S. they will live in a land where if your conviction does not stand up on appeal, it is like you never committed the crime. Perhaps Italy is ready to just give them another guilty verdict and close the case.

Posted by hamilton3 on 10/09/13 at 12:25 AM | #

Hi Hamilton3

Thanks for the perceptions. I’m not sure we’re all seeing that. I think more than ever now, Italy will follow through to the end.

We are seeing a Florence court harder and more no-nonsense than the Perugia court. We’re seeing a US government very disinclined to use up precious capital on this case. We’re seeing dozens and maybe hundreds a day realising the true story is not what they were told.

We’re seeing an Italian government increasingly ticked at the PR and its mafia fellow travellers. And we’re seeing a Knox on TV who looks hard, cold and self-obsessed, a Sollecito who frankly bores people, and a former couple who increasingly show irritation at one another.

I dont think Italy will have gone through all of this just to see the perps if their convictions are confirmed go free. Thats not what the population wants. And as I said, the US h-government is not in the corner of the perps. Stay tuned…

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/09/13 at 01:04 AM | #

In my experience, the English are honoured in Italy. This was certainly true in the days of Mrs. Thatcher. They were envious of her ‘no-nonsense’ and strong organization.

Don’t forget how much ordinary Italians suffered during the last war. I met people who, 40 years later, would refuse to mention it, and grown men with tears in their eyes.

Meredith had the colouring, and in some ways, the temperament of many Italians, (beautiful). There is a natural sympathy, as well as outrage at the degree of cruelty in this murder.

And what happened in their beautiful Perugia, steeped in tradition, of learning, justice and culture.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 10/09/13 at 03:57 AM | #

@hamilton3

“...Perhaps Italy is ready to just give them another guilty verdict and close the case”.

We can only hope.

Regarding Meredith being from England “who was an enemy of theirs in the last war” - are you seriously suggesting that kind of swivel-eyed, dumb consideration comes into it? You can’t have travelled in Europe much.

WW2 has about as much relevance now as to how Europeans feel about themselves and each other as the Trojan War does to current day Greeks, thank goodness.

Posted by Odysseus on 10/09/13 at 06:38 AM | #

“Breaking news from Rome: the Italian national communications police are entering the case because of the massive media and internet campaign of disinformation and defamation right out of the mafia playbook; a request for FBI assistance is expected.”

Is this true?

This is good news indeed.  I have long thought that there should be an intervention at an ‘authority’ level. 

I really hope they DO call in the FBI.

Justice for Meredith.

Posted by thundering on 10/09/13 at 06:53 AM | #

P.S. Excellent post, hamilton3 smile

Posted by thundering on 10/09/13 at 07:07 AM | #

Hi Thundering

We know this one from certain lawyers here in the US. This will probably be following the Florence and Bergamo patterns, acknowledge the investigation if asked, but say little more.

We’re noticing that certain corporate media sites have already removed defamatory and inaccurate reports without being asked. King5 Seattle is one.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/09/13 at 08:30 AM | #

Good news indeed.  I have noticed that King5 are being more restrained lately and look forward to others following suit.

The day the fawning ABC tones down the battle on the media front may well be over.

Thank you for updating us - as usual.  Looking forward to more on this one !

Posted by thundering on 10/09/13 at 08:35 AM | #

There has been occasional talk that the case could affect US tourism in Italy. In fact, it hasn’t, and likely wont.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turismo_in_Italia

http://www.enit.it/it/studi-ricerche.html

Between these two sites, 3.9 million Americans went to Italy in 2009, 4.46 million in 2011.

Posted by Marcello on 10/09/13 at 08:43 AM | #

Well done Marcello!  I would like to add to your list of questions.

Why were the inner shutters and window not in the ‘closed’ position? While researching break-ins by windows at night, it became apparent that any burglar ‘draws’ the curtains so that they can turn on the light for searching, without being detected by someone outside. For Guede to turn on the light he has to shut the window and the inner shutters and probably latch them. As we know these were found in the ‘open’ position.

Another question (among so many more) that bothers me. How did Guede manage to find the ‘hidden’ bathroom?

Posted by starsdad on 10/09/13 at 08:52 AM | #

“Breaking news from Rome: the Italian national communications police are entering the case because of the massive media and internet campaign of disinformation and defamation right out of the mafia playbook; a request for FBI assistance is expected.”

First stop should be Groundreport where they invent evidence and make it up as they go along.

Posted by starsdad on 10/09/13 at 09:20 AM | #

First stop apparently IS Ground Report. Over 100 posts organized by Mellas and Fischer have appeared there. US-based lawyers are working on this, which is how we first found out. We have confirmed it in Florence and Rome since.

The owner of Ground Report is NY city employee Rachel Sterne. She keeps herself and all her editors and lawyer (if any) very, very well hidden, obviously knowing they are parties to the breaking of many laws by a paid, mafia-backed gang.

You wont find her name or the editors’ names anywhere on Ground Report. She is cowardly as well as defamatory of people outside the US who cant hit back; and money-grubbing contemptibly off the death of a fine girl.

Rachel Sterne (married name Haot) is ultimately responsible under tort law for what appears on her site, one of the nastiest in the world. She sure has a legal target on her back. Here she is with her collaborator Max Haot: 

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

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


Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/09/13 at 09:51 AM | #

I would not have bothered too much if it were an individual occasional and emotional outburst. The thing that is really worrying is the systematic and professional manipulation of truth over a long period.

I am aware that marketing firms can create truth for the public and for their business but over a murder? This is not even a political event!

They had an excellent chance of success but for the counter campaign by the truth and justice seekers - and the number is growing.

I am also disturbed by the role the press has played in this “game”. Is it really so difficult to do even a cursory investigation? Some of the news reports look like advertisements.

The Italians must have been particularly careful from the beginning as an American girl is involved. But this was really beyond all imagination…

Posted by chami on 10/09/13 at 01:59 PM | #

@chami

That’s right. The PR campaign has indeed been systematic and “professional” (if that’s the right word), and this is highlighted by the extent of their success in influencing the UK media, where you’d have thought - especially but not solely when it comes to the murder of a UK citizen abroad - there might be at least the attempt to report objectively, or at least not question the due process of of a foreign legal system. On the contrary, they have clearly supped eagerly from the same poisoned chalice as the US media.

One thing we learn from all this is that the PR industry is devoid of any ethics and sees only dollars/pounds. On the other hand the media doesn’t have to buy their nauseating output - that they do is down to the corruption endemic in journalism (and much else) these many years, for which I blame the prince of darkness himself,  Rupert Murdoch, and all his works.

Posted by Odysseus on 10/09/13 at 03:06 PM | #

@Odysseus and chami,

Yes, it is disturbing, and shameful.  I am shocked that this can be perpetrated by people, persistently as you say, seemingly with no shame.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 10/09/13 at 03:16 PM | #

Congratulations on a well written article, Marcello!

It appears that what RS is most afraid of now is what might come from the DNA testing of trace 36-I of the “Double DNA” knife, as his latest interview with OGGI also shows.

But indeed, his “Rudy did it” mantra, given all that has happened since, seems like all he can say?

Posted by Ergon on 10/09/13 at 03:22 PM | #

@Ergon

Exactly. His “Rudy did it” mantra is obviously over-explaining to all but the congenitally stupid.

How does he know, why does he care who “did it”? He can rest assured he wasn’t there, end of story. No need to point fingers elsewhere (are you listening AK?)

Only the arrogantly guilty try to solve the case for the police.

Posted by Odysseus on 10/09/13 at 03:39 PM | #

Hi Ergon,

The defence teams will be dreading the results of the DNA tests tomorrow. If they were genuinely confident that the remaining DNA doesn’t belong to Meredith, they would have asked for the tests to be carried out at the first appeal. The fact they didn’t tells its own story. Actions speak louder than words.

Posted by The Machine on 10/09/13 at 03:50 PM | #

Thank you for that reminder about impending news regarding DNA test results tomorrow.

Why would a supposedly seasoned burglar(Rudy) throw such a heavy rock. Would he not know a 2 pound rock would break the window?

Posted by Bettina on 10/09/13 at 04:22 PM | #

Hi, The Machine,

The Defense teams will indeed be dreading when the DNA is tested tomorrow. The Scientific Police experts have been told to report back to the court immediately if they determine the DNA cannot be tested or is inconclusive, and their report must be completed no later than Oct. 31. Nov. 06 is when it will be presented in court (and I hope there are no leaks before then)

When I posted the first high def photographs of the knife this year people were shocked to see how pronounced the grooves (it looked like someone had scoured the blade with a steel wool pad-hint: there’s a photo of one under his sink)

Me, I thought then: looks like there might indeed be DNA trapped in one of the grooves. WE shall see.

Posted by Ergon on 10/09/13 at 04:36 PM | #

It should also be pointed out that the DNA sample had been sitting in Carla Vecchiotti’s lab for the last two years. Not that I suspect it has been tampered with smile

Posted by Ergon on 10/09/13 at 04:40 PM | #

@Ergon

“Nov. 06 is when it will be presented in court”.

Unless I’ve got the dates wrong that’s 6 years to the day since AK was arrested.

An augury?

Posted by Odysseus on 10/09/13 at 04:46 PM | #

Hi Ergon,

We already know there’s enough DNA for two tests and that it’s possible to obtain totally reliable results using the latest technology.

Posted by The Machine on 10/09/13 at 04:47 PM | #

Hi Ergon

Conti & Vecchiotti have indeed had a strong vested interest for two years in destroying the sample if they could get away with this, including by simple non-action to make sure it was safely preserved.

As you know C&V are under investigation already for the extreme bias and very low professional quality of their work. There are strong signs that they colluded with Hampikian and that one of the judges was a friend of one of them.

Expectations of the prosecution (which was confident enough in the huge strength of their case to ask for the test) and Judge Nencini are said to be low, but this just might pay off.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/09/13 at 05:14 PM | #

Well Yes be that’s as may be. but we all know that no matter what the eventual outcome, to us Knox and Sollecito will always be guilty as hell. As for me personally, I’m proud to be a “Guilter"as they want to call us since to me the term is synonymous with the truth.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 10/09/13 at 05:28 PM | #

@Grahame Rhodes
Yes, am glad to adhere to truth, and honour logic, and pay attention to detail.

Pete, I wondered whether perhaps we could have a post on the double DNA knife, soon? With a picture and summary and so on….?

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 10/09/13 at 05:49 PM | #

Andrea Vogt has posted an update on the new DNA tests on her website:

http://thefreelancedesk.com/front_featured/amanda-knox-appeal-2/

Posted by The Machine on 10/09/13 at 06:13 PM | #

Rachel Sterne is not only Mrs. Haot, she is very hot.
While you may not think her appearance is relevant, in this case it is.
Many of the most pro-Knox people are lonely men.
They may have learned about love when they had developed crushes on the many beautiful porn stars they have seen on their computer.
They feel that Amanda is a beautiful damseille in distress, and they are going to rescue her.
If there is a conflict, these guys will be on the side of Foxy Knoxy and Hot Rachel.

Posted by hamilton3 on 10/09/13 at 11:33 PM | #

@Odysseus, Nov. 06 is indeed six years to the day when Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were arrested. The report must be handed to the court by October 31, or Halloween, and the night before Meredith’s murder. It is also, the first day of Frank Sfarzo’s trial for defamation, the first of many such trials.

For those interested, March 26, Raffaele’s birthday, was the day Cassazione handed down its epic ruling, and just before November 06, there will be a solar eclipse.

The augury is not very favorable for any of the defendants.

Posted by Ergon on 10/10/13 at 02:49 AM | #

Really Hamilton3

Perhaps you’re right but there is a saying which goes. “Beauty is skin deep whereas ugly goes straight to the bone.” Obviously under the makeup there is a great deal of ugly going on lonely old men notwithstanding. Brings to mind Judge Healy as an example plus all the other collection.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 10/10/13 at 12:16 PM | #

Can’t say I agree that Rachel Sterne is hot, average at best, better looking than her website mind you, terrible design. As Grahame mentioned, ‘Beauty s skin deep’, which means the lonely Knox desperados will eventually find a younger, prettier damseille to save, Knox has lost her youthful looks, she will be forgotten, Meredith will be remembered.

Posted by Urbanist on 10/10/13 at 07:06 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 Testing Of The DNA Sample Starts Today Though Possibly No Results Announced Before 6 November

Or to previous entry Dr Mignini Pushes Back Against His Demonizers Trying To Pin To Him False “Satanic Theory” Claim