Saturday, September 26, 2009

Trial: Italian-Language Reporting Now Faster And More Objective Than English-Language

Posted by Peter Quennell


It is no secret that the English-language reporting increasingly seems all over the map these days.

This is being much-discussed behind the scenes, and informed commenters like MacK MacK are being quite open about it. Some English-language reporters seem too anxious to keep on the good side of the FOA while they seem to have no pipeline at all to Meredith’s family, or her friends, or her supporters.

Meanwhile, all of the major TV networks in New York are concluding that the FOA line is basically non-credible and history as far as they are concerned - and that the REAL emerging story is to be Meredith.

We think they have the much smarter take here. A lot more attention needs to be given to Meredith now, and a lot less attention to the highly over-exposed mantras of the FOA.

None of the English-language reporting on the trial today is out yet. But here is some of today’s Italian-language reporting - straight reporting without spin:

1) From TGCOM

The computer consultant appointed by the defense of Sollecito has tried to show that during the time of the death of Meredith Kercher the accused was at his house and was using his laptop to watch a movie on DVD.

Between 9.30 and 11:00 he would have seen a film “The Wonderful World of Amelie” in the company of Amanda Knox. The expert analyzed the computer and the internet data of the young Pugliese.

Next will be heard a computer consultant appointed by the defense of Amanda Knox, who has analyzed the same computer. With the testimony of these two experts, the defense depositions before the Court of Assizes of Perugia draw to a close..

TGCOM then includes several objective, low-key paragraphs on yesterday’s testimony about why Knox was freaking out at the police station.

She was freaking out but not we think for the bizarre reason the expert provided.

2) From the Italian AP

Proving that Raffaele Sollecito at the time of the death of Merdith Kercher was in his house and was using his laptop to watch a movie on DVD was the purpose of the technical analysis of a computer consultant for the defense, a Mr Giovinazzo. He was asked to give evidence today in court for the trial over the death of Meredith Kercher that occurred on November 1, 2007 in the house on Via della Pergola.

He claimed that Sollecito between 9.30 and 11 would have watched a film, “The Wonderful World of Amelie” in the company of Amanda Knox. This has been claimed for almost two years by the defense of the boy from Puglia.

Here is the Machine’s meticulous description of the prosecution’s take on Sollecito’s alibis which directly contradicts this.




Comments

I’m not clear about the testimony of the computer expert.

From what you’ve said it looks as if they’ve proved that Rafaelle was watching a movie between 9.30 and 11.

Is that right or was the testimony quite weak?

This is probably the biggest hurdle right now for the defence.

If they can prove without doubt that Rafaelle was watching a movie between 9.30 and 11 then they have an alibi - for him at least, and Amanda too if he says she was there with him.

That said, he could have set the movie going at 9.30 before leaving the house but that’s clutching at straws.

Do you have any more info on that?

Posted by mikeyverve on 09/26/09 at 03:57 PM | #

Hi Mikey,

Pete said nothing of the sort. You’ve misunderstood what the Italian AP reporter wrote. The reporter merely stated that the computer consultant’s purpose was to prove that Raffaele Sollecito was using his laptop to watch a film at the time of Meredith’s death.

Claiming something and proving something are two completely different things. Sollecito’s computer expert hasn’t proved anything in court and he won’t be able to either.

Posted by The Machine on 09/26/09 at 04:27 PM | #

Hi Machine,

Do you know if the prosection expert who testified that there was no activity on Sollecito’s computer was refering to the ‘laptop’ or a PC? And whether they only tested for Internet activity or any sort of activity?

The reason I’m asking is that I think Sollecito’s defense are playing the dirty trick of trying to mislead the jury & judges with technical jargon: I clearly remember Sollecito’s testimony specified he had ‘down-loaded’ a film, and not watched it on DVD. So even if his defense team now want to argue that it was actually a DVD he watched & hence the prosecution analyst missed that because he only checked the computer for internet activity, this would still contradict Sollecito’s original statement (that he downloaded the film). So it can’t get Sollecito out of trouble, but simply confirms that he keeps changing his statement. Am I right in thinking that?

Posted by Scooby on 09/29/09 at 09:42 PM | #


Make a comment

Smileys



Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Why Perugia Is At Less Risk Of Earthquakes Than Its Neighbors

Or to previous entry Trial: Today And Tomorrow Are To Be The Final Two Days Of Defense Testimony