![](https://truejustice.org/ee/images/website/tjmkfrontpage.jpg)
Breaking news: In its August 9th report the Florence Court again explains why Knox is guilty of unprovoked calunnia against Patrick - and left him in prison for several weeks. Very hard line, hits back against the Supreme Court's overruling of Florence in 2015. We hope to have it up in English by month's end. So Knox's deeply dishonest smear of the investigators in court in June had zero effect.
Tuesday, January 28, 2014
Strong Proof That Raffaele Sollecito Also Stabbed Meredith Kercher Causing The Lesser Wound.
Posted by Ergon
Sollecito’s “pocket knife” is a Spiderco Delica4 Emerson Opener made for killing people
Overview
This picks up from from my previous post just below on the large knife that overwhelming evidence shows was wielded by Amanda Knox.
Sometime around Thursday, January 30, 2014, Judge Nencini of the Florence Appeals Court will be delivering the verdict of the court in the case of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, at which time all arguments regarding the knives, staged burglary, DNA and forensics, false accusation, wonky alibis, and reliability of witnesses will be rendered moot.
There will be nothing left but an argument about the legality of the process, and not the evidence, presented by the defenses if they choose to at some point in the fall of 2014 before Cassazione, the Supreme Court in Rome.
But, until then, we are left with the indelible image of Raffaele Sollecito’s defense attorney Giulia Bongiorno a few days ago flailing with two knives in court, arguing (1) the kitchen knife doesn’t fit the major wound, and (2) there’s a missing knife, which she suggested was a pocket knife wielded by Rudy Guede.
In part I, I proved that the imprint of the knife on the mattress sheet matched the kitchen knife, in shape and dimensions. We have already seen in other articles here on TJMK, that there is a definitive match with Knox and Meredith Kercher’s DNA on the murder weapon, and now we know it was transported to the cottage, to leave its mirror image on the bed.
Here, in part II, is a recap of Massei on the knives and wounds inflicted on Meredith Kercher, and how the defense continually tried to divert us away from the knife image by saying it did not fit the dimensions of the major wound.
Also we will have Frank Sfarzo and Bruce Fischer’s amateurish attempts to prove that Rudy Guede caused the knife wounds. And it will try to address what happened to the missing knife that inflicted the lesser wound on Meredith, and who might have wielded it.
Closeup of the stabbing end of the Spiderco knife shown at the top
Deliberate false claims
One of the many myths surrounding this case was that investigators had no reason to seize the kitchen knife from Sollecito’s flat, and when I showed the photos from Conti’s lab, with the deep scratches on it, that it may have been altered in some way, and denying that was where some of Meredith’s DNA might have been trapped. IIP even posted an out of focus picture some time back to prove that point.
Here is Frank Sforza on the late and unlamented Perugia Shock.‘ANY KNIFE COULD HAVE DONE THAT WOUND’
End of a Myth
Frank Sfarzo, Sept. 19, 2009
Quote: “It was introduced in the room, it was taken out of the box with all precautions, it was shown to them like a relic. They could have a look at it from a distance, and see, or believe to have seen, the groove into which the biological material of Meredith was found.” And:
“Amanda Knox’s lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova brought him (independent expert Professor Cingolani) to say something very clear about the main one: any single-edge knife is compatible with Meredith’s larger wound.”
Here is Bruce Fischer on the error-ridden Injustice In Perugia.
Quote: “The knife was a common kitchen knife retrieved from the kitchen of Raffaele Sollecito. The knife was chosen from the drawer because it looked clean. (Editorial note: it was also, deeply scratched and nicked)
No blood was on the blade.
No DNA was on the blade.
The knife doesn’t match most of the wounds on Meredith.
The knife doesn’t match the bloody imprint left on the bed.
The photographic evidence shows that Raffaele’s kitchen knife is to (sic) large to match the bloody imprint on the bed.
At 4 cm from the tip the knife blade is 2.2 cm wide, while the injury (i.e. the small wound) is 1.5 cm wide. Raffaele’s kitchen knife could not have caused the wounds. The knife blade is also too long to have inflicted the large wound.” (Ed. note: Here they are conflating the dimensions of the lesser wound with the knife that inflicted the major wound, to cause confusion)
This is typical of the dishonesty of Bruce Fischer, who was only parroting what the defense experts had been saying in Massei’s court.
Fischer’s source was these posts from the now discredited Frank Sfarzo: Knife doesn’t match wounds and Knife doesn’t match imprint on bed.
An image of Sollecito’s 2004 model Brian Tighe knife specifically made for killing people
From the Massei Report
This is from the excellent PMF translation.
P. 99: The witness (investigator) recognized it when shown Exhibit 36 as that same knife (pages 176 and 177, hearing on February 28, 2009). He remembered that in the drawer there were other knives, but he collected what was later indicated as Exhibit 36. It had the following dimensions: blade 17 cm. and handle of dark colour 14 cm. He recalled that in Sollecito’s bedroom they found another knife whose total length was 18cm, with an 8cm. blade.” (This would be his Brian Tighe pocket knife, the Spyderco flick knife was seized from his person when he was arrested)
P.135: The stab wound corresponding to the injuries on the right side of the neck was indicated as being a little wound of very small dimensions with a very small path. The path of the wound is 4cm long and only 1.5cm wide. The blade used to make this wound must have had a width of 1.5cm at 4cm from the point. This blade only entered 4cm into the neck “because it encountered the angle of the jaw” (page 33 of the transcripts).
P.147: Professor Vinci testified at the hearing of August 18, 2009. He considered the subject of the “bloody stains” found on the undersheet in Meredith Kercher’s room. In relation to these stains, on the basis of graphics given in the report dated June 30, 2009, he asserted that the knifeprint found on the undersheet in Meredith’s bedroom could have been made either by an 11.3cm knife blade, or by a 9.6cm knife blade together with a mark 1.7cm long left by the handle of the same knife. In either case, the blade could not be wider than 1.3/1.4 cm. (Ahem)
P. 154: Prof Cingolani: He clarified that irregularities present on the blade, on the edge of the blade, could have created the rippling in the wounds.
P. 157: the examination of the wound on the right part of the neck, which had absolutely incompatible dimensions: 1.5cm long and 0.4cm wide with a depth of 4cm.
p.164: she was therefore struck on the right latero-cervical region with a single-edged blade which produced a wound with dimensions of 1.5cm by 0.4cm, with a penetrating depth of 4cm: an action not relevant in determining the cause of death but intended, as before, to subdue Meredith Kercher’s resistance.
p.166: the width of the (kitchen knife) proximal third [blade one third of the distance from the handle] is 3cm.
p166: Along the edge, there was evidence of irregularities in the form of thin ridges at 2.2cm and at 11.4cm from the tip.
p. 167: The experts and consultants who were examined during the course of the trial, taking into examination the various wounds present on the neck, excluded the compatibility of the knife Exhibit 36 and the wound inflicted on the right latero-cervical and having the following dimensions: 1.5cm by 0.4cm, with a depth of 4cm in an oblique upwards direction. They in fact showed that the confiscated knife, at a distance of 4cm from the tip, has a width of approximately 3cm and thus almost double the 1.5cm width of the wound, a width thus incompatible with the dimensions of the blade of this knife.
p.172-3: In relation to the above, the thesis of the incompatibility of the most serious wound and the knife Exhibit 36 is held to be unacceptable, though this knife is incompatible with the 4cm-deep wound, as we have seen. Nor does this conclusion contrast with the circumstances illustrated by Sollecito Defence consultant Professor Vinci in his report relating to the “šanalyses of the haematic stained shapes discovered on the mattress cover in Meredith Kercher’s room”›.
p.175: The reconstruction offered by Professor Vinci certainly appears suggestive. Some doubt remains in the reconstruction of the dimensions of the knife derived in relation from the marks found on the bed sheet. If these marks indeed derived from the knife placed on the bed sheet, then they should in fact have been more abundant, and should have outlined the shape of the knife with greater precision, for the following reason: the knife, if it was placed on the bed sheet, was placed there immediately after it had been used to strike Meredith; therefore, the fresh and abundant bloodstains present on the blade should have been imprinted onto the bed sheet in a more evident and copious way than is actually appreciable. It cannot in any case remain unobserved that, if one of the knives used had a blade length of 11.3cm, or else 9.6 cm ““ according to what was indicated by Professor Vinci in the conclusions to his report ““ the argumentation set forth to sustain the incompatibility of the knife Exhibit 36 would not, on this alone, have any foundation.”
For the record, here are the paragraphs from the English translation of the Massei Report where Patricia Stefanoni describes the streaks and scratches on the double DNA knife and locations where samples were taken.
Judge Massei (on pg. 196) wrote about forensic expert Patrizia Stefanoni:
“She specified that trace B had been taken from a point on the face of the blade; she added that no biological trace was visible to the naked eye. However [she added that] “under considerable lighting, a series of streaks were visible to the naked eye. These streaks ran parallel to the upper part of the blade, therefore, more or less, they were parallel to this side [of the blade] and towards the point they went downward and, therefore, they followed the shape of the point. These streaks, anomalies in the metal, were visible to the naked eye under intense lighting” (page 95 of the transcript). Still in regard to the visibility of these streaks, she specified that they were “visible under good lighting by changing the angle at which the light hit the blade, since obviously the blade reflects light and thus creates shadows, making imperfections visible”.
The samples taken from the handle, in the points indicated with the letters A, D, F were taken in order to verify the possible presence of DNA by the person who grasped that knife. In particular, for sample “A”, a particular point had been chosen, “in which there’s the hand-guard” (page 95) and therefore, in all likelihood, the point where there was the most friction between the hand that grasped the knife and the handle. This sample yielded the result of Amanda Knox’s genetic profile.
The other samples yielded negative results, except the one taken from the blade, from the “scratches and streaks visible under good lighting, by changing the angle of the lighting with regards to the blade” that yielded the genetic profile of the victim (page 96 hearing May 22, 2009).”
And now we know: Dottora Patrizia Stefanoni got it right.
And some disagreement amongst the experts: p.291-2: Professor Cingolani had in fact noted and declared the following: “in the second lesion, the one that is 2 centimetres deep and 1.5 centimetres wide from corner to corner, the only thing that we are tempted to do, [albeit] in an absolutely amateurish/unprofessional way, because we only have photographs available, is to measure, assuming that only the tip entered, how wide the blade is [at a point] 2 centimetres from its tip: it is precisely 1.5 centimetres wide!”
A closeup with measurements of Sollecito’s Brian Tighe knife made for killing people
My own investigation
Here is my initial close examination first posted on PMF dot Net last summer.
Ergon Post subject: INVESTIGATION OF THE KNIVES USED IN THE MURDER Posted: Sun Jun 09, 2013 12:42 am
Investigation into the death of Meredith Kercher-THE CAUSE OF DEATH AND THE MEANS BY WHICH IT WAS OCCASIONED
The murder of Meredith Kercher was particularly bloody and brutal. Reading through Massei, pages 109- SURVEY AND EVALUATION OF THE FORENSIC RESULTS through to 158-173, THE CAUSE OF DEATH AND THE MEANS BY WHICH IT WAS OCCASIONED we are reminded of the brutality with which the attack took place, the sexual assault by more than one person, the restraining, the defensive wounds on Meredith’s hands, the torture by more than one knife, restraining by a hand over the mouth when she screamed, (even while she bled to death) and two major knife wounds, one to the left of the throat, the other, to the right. Massei rightly concludes, as did the Supreme Court, that more than one attacker was involved, and, per Massei, there was more than one knife used in the attack. The defense experts tried to draw attention away from the kitchen knife, but, reading through Massei again, I saw how they dropped clues to what the dimensions of the second knife might have been.
We know that Raffaele Sollecito had a fetish for violent porn, that he had an expensive collection of knives, and his many alibis for the night in question have been thrown out by the court. From my studies of criminal psychology, from reading both Amanda and Raffaele’s books and watching videos of their court appearances and television interviews, their psychopathology seem apparent not only to my eyes, but even to the general public that must have looked at them and decided their story somehow did not ring true, and refused to buy their books. There are indeed certain neurological deficits apparent in their demeanor that renowned German neurologist Dr. Gerhard Roth postulates shows up as a ‘dark patch’ in brain scans of all those who display criminal behaviour, and even, “The second type is the mentally disturbed criminal who looks at his world as threatening. A wrong look, one false move, he can explode and become a killer,” he said.
I was shown videos of the crime scene, and able to observe the wounds in Meredith’s neck. The scenes of the room in which the murder took place and, the neck wound, were truly horrifying to me, and showed the extent of the attack. Those images still sit in the mind, but also, cause me to want to get to the bottom of this mystery, hence, my work on the case.
I believe, observing the photos I already posted in the Evidence Files that the kitchen knife was the murder weapon that struck the fatal blow that night. I also believe, reading the pathologist’s report, that the blade that was stuck in Meredith’s neck, in the right latero-cervical area to a depth of 4 cms, was Raffaele Sollecito’s Brian Tighe pocket knife, photo also in the evidence files. Yes, no DNA or blood was sampled from it, but that only indicates it was successfully cleaned that night. My reading of Sollecito’s pathology is that he would not want to dispose of the knife he used, it being very expensive and also as an extension of his fetishistic ego. One other thing I asked to look at: The high resolution photos I posted of the bed show the outline and dimensions of two knives. I believe that both images are of the kitchen knife that struck Meredith in the left latero-cervical to cause a cut of 8-9 cms in depth, and a length of 8 cms (p. 167)
There are two exhibits of the mattress cover, one marked “J” and the other, “O”, both displaying the approximate size and dimensions of the kitchen knife, which I will explain when I post the photos. The first, “J”, has more blood because I believe the knife was placed there first and wicked on to the sheet, causing the distorted splotch at the end. By the time it was moved to its final position by the purse, “O”, it retained just enough blood to leave a clearer, indelible impression.
It was a butchery.”
One last point: Rep. 33A/B/C/D were four samples taken from a black-handled folding knife. It tested negative for blood, but, in one sample, the DNA profile matched a mix of Knox and Sollecito. The other samples were negative. Stefanoni: pp. 103-104
Looking at the images produced by my illustrator, and taking the average of the two estimates of the wound depth, 2 and 4 cms, one arrives at a blade width of 1.5 cms at 3 cms length from the tip of Raphaele Sollecito’s Brian Tighe collectors knife, on which, coincidentally, both Amanda Knox and Sollecito’s DNA was found.
Conclusion:
Raffaele Sollecito stabbed Meredith Kercher, causing the lesser wound. And my personal opinion? It was with the Brian Tighe knife, and somehow both he and Amanda Knox got their DNA on it around the same time that night.
Monday, January 27, 2014
An Investigation Into The Large Knife Provides Further Proof That This Was THE Knife
Posted by Ergon
Overview
This is the first report of an investigation (the second part follows soon) of the kitchen knife used in the murder of Meredith Kercher, RIP.
Specifically its compatibility with the imprint of a bloody knife found by police investigators on her bed under-sheet which as you will see here seems possible to prove.
Two other recent posts also concentrated on aspects of the knife as strong proof: (1) proof of both Knox and Kercher DNA and (2) proof from the throat wounds.
- Reference files are from very high definition crime scene photos not in general circulation.
- Grateful thanks to the volunteers of the Meredith Kercher community who assisted in this production
Florence Court of Appeals
This is our poster Machiavelli, tweeting from the Florence courtroom on November 26, 2013:
“(Prosecutor Alessandro) Crini stated that this kitchen knife was compatible with the knife print on Meredith’s bed sheet”.
And this is from the defense summing up on January 09, 2014:
Bongiorno: “It’s too big, not the murder weapon.”
“Bongiorno shows a picture with an envisioned “knife” (pocket knife belonging to Guede?) together with the print on the bed sheet.”
“Nobody brings a “small blow with a big knife” “You don’t use half of a big knife” (she says)
Genesis of an investigation:
To recap: evidence was been presented at the Massei court of the first instance, which accepted that the kitchen knife, containing both Meredith Kercher’s DNA on the blade (trace B) and Amanda Knox’s DNA on the handle (trace A) was the weapon that struck the fatal blow to Meredith Kercher’s throat.
At some point after the attack, the perpetrator, Amanda Knox, puts it down on the bed, leaving “hematic stains” (bloody imprints) on the mattress.
The court concludes the shape of the imprints are compatible with the kitchen knife. It also concludes, based on the size of a lesser wound that a second, smaller knife caused the wound on the other side of the neck, and, the impossibility of accepting that a single weapon inflicted both wounds.
This is what it boils down to now, as we come to the final arguments of this case on January 30, with a decision to be handed down by the court later in the day:
- Was the kitchen knife found in Raffaele Sollecito’s kitchen the murder weapon that killed Meredith Kercher on November 01, 2007?
- Did the killer leave behind proof in the form of bloody imprints on the under sheet covering Meredith’s bed?
- And is the defense trying to divert attention away from it, even though the image on the bed fits the dimensions of the kitchen knife?
- And pointing to a second knife, not ever found?
This article (to be followed by part II) was prepared to offer answers to these questions.
Methods used
As someone with a keen interest in photography, I know we see things in photographs that are not always apparent to the naked eye.
Where before we had all been misled by low definition photographs released by the defense to obscure incriminating details, I was able to obtain and view the high definition photographs shown here that proved that indeed, the bed imprints matched the seized kitchen knife, exhibit 36.
These photographs, first posted at Perugia Murder File Evidence Files have been circulating for some time, with members trying to match the knife to the bed imprints, but not, in my opinion, being able to match it exactly.
First, note that the killer placed a knife on two separate locations on the bed, marked by reference cards “J”, and “O”. (Reference photos below.)
I discarded “J”, because there was too much blood there to form an accurate measurement. The killer lifted the knife and then placed it at “O”, which gave a better image, but even then, did not match exactly. Still, it was clear the images looked like a kitchen, and not, a pocket knife as alleged by the defense.
Looking at the reference photo, I saw a double image of a knife blade at “O”. (see where there’s a curved edge of the blade? That’s what convinced me there might be a double image there)
Conclusion reached
My opinion is the knife shifted slightly when it was placed there, hence the double image, which now made a perfect match with the kitchen knife, in both instances (see reference photos).
So I got a professional illustrator and other skilled people people to do the scale drawings and produce the video you see above which seems to provide conclusive proof the murder knife was placed on the bed.
Reference photos:
Image 1 above (click for larger image): Bed II (Image J and O on under sheet, shot November 02, 2007)
Image 2 above (click for larger image): Knife II (Image O on under sheet, shot November 02, 2007)
Image 3 above (click for larger image): FOTO5BIS (Conti-Vecchiotti lab, Mar. 22, 2011)
Image 4 above (click for larger image): Knife-Bed-Vector-AllScales (To prove the scales used to match the images)
Image 5 above (click for larger image): Knife-pos-lower-hi (The knife’s first resting position at “O”)
Image 6 above (click for larger image): Knife-pos-upper-hi (The knife’s final resting position at “O”)
Next steps
There are only four more days left till the Florence Appeals Court under Judge Nencini issues its verdict. It must of course consider ALL the evidence, of which there is a preponderance that indeed suggests the verdict will, as would be proper, be guilty as charged.
Part II will be ready ASAP. It will be a recap of Massei on the knife, and how the defense continually tried to divert us away from the knife image by saying it did not fit the dimensions of the major wound. Also will have Frank Sfarzo’s misdirection and Bruce Fischer’s amateurish attempts to prove that Rudy Guede caused the knife wounds.
Happy as always to do my share for justice for Meredith Kercher.
Monday, January 20, 2014
Appeal Session #9: Sollecito Team Concludes, Prosecutor Crini Rebutts Defenses’ Claims
Posted by Our Main Posters
[Above: Sun hits the facade of of one of the most modern courtrooms in Europe]
5. Andre Vogt’s Excellent Post-Court Reporting In The Week
From Amanda Knox’s fugitive fears: she’s right to be worried
Sources close to defence lawyers confide that they, too, fear it may not go their way.
It didn’t help that Knox ignored her lawyers’ pleas to travel from Seattle and attend court in Florence - she sent an email instead - nor that she repeatedly requested to meet the Kerchers, only to be sternly rebutted by their lawyer, who suggested she act more like a defendant.
Then she started a new blog and began blithely responding to comments ““ most recently posting an admission that she had once faked a break-in as an April Fool’s prank before she left for Italy (a staged burglary is a key part of the case against her).
Have the wheels come off Knox’s public relations machine now that she’s safe in Seattle? She may need them again soon, because this appeal differs radically from the first one in 2011 which resulted in her acquittal, but which was harshly criticised and eventually annulled by Italy’s Supreme Court earlier this year.
There are three good reasons why this trial is different ““ and why Knox has reason to be nervous:
First, her co-defendant Raffaele Sollecito’s lawyers have distanced his defence from Knox’s. “He may have brushed her hair and cleaned her ears, but he would not have killed for the love of Amanda,” his lawyer Giulia Bongiorno told jurors in closing arguments earlier this month. “Turn off Amanda,” she said. “Raffaele is not Amanda’s other half.”
Second, the uncompromising Perugia prosecutor Giuliano Mignini has stayed away from Florence. Without him in court as a convenient villain, the “innocent American abroad being railroaded by a rogue prosecutor” narrative no longer holds water. The Florentine prosecutor, Alessandro Crini, has distanced the state’s case from the always controversial kitchen knife that may or may not have been the murder weapon. He’s also given less credence to the “˜sex game gone wrong’ theory that was central to the prosecution case in the first trial. Instead he’s considered all the evidence as a whole. There might have been a fight about missing money and hygiene, he said, but motive doesn’t matter: murders happen all the time for banal reasons. And convictions happen on much less evidence.
Third, the strict Florence judge, Alessandro Nencini, has curbed all antics by lawyers, public and media. There are no perp walks with popping flashbulbs this time. However the appeal ends, no one can argue that this trial wasn’t professionally managed.
4. Tweets by freelance reporter Andrea Vogt
14. Sollecito defense on bra clasp: For us, the condition of the room and conduct of the forensic police tells us there was contamination.
13. Judge interrupted Sollecito lawyer with a booming “No!” saying wiretapped conversations of Sollecito family not to be discussed this trial.
12. Maresca: Whatever you decide, we believe justice will be done & all elements considered in depth. We will serenely accept your decision.
11. Kercher attorney Maresca: Perugians reacted angrily to amanda knox acquittal because it was scandalous: acquittal was decided in advance.
10. Fabbiani, attorney for Meredith’s brother, urges court to look beyond motive. Perna for her sister: one person alone did not kill Meredith.
9. Lumumba attorney Pacelli concludes with this phrase to the jury: “Convict liar Amanda, the diabolical slanderer.”
8. Presiding Judge Nencini has cut Pacelli’s amanda knox monologue short. Says going off track. Pacelli promises to finish in 5 min.
7. Lumumba’s attorney Pacelli is delivering a vitriolic rebuttal on amandaknox - mixing his unbridled contempt w/her own statements.
6. Prosecutor asks (in case of conviction) cautionary measures so defendants can’t flee. Options are: passport, house arrest or arrest.
5. Prosecutor Crini: a lack of motive does not equal proof of innocence.
4. Trial back in session after “pausa caffe” during which Sollecito and his accusers were in tiny court coffee bar at same time. Only in Italy!
3. Sollecito attorney: The only things certain are the death of Meredith Kercher and the presence of Rudy Guede in the house that night.
2. Sollecito attorney: This case is an anomaly. Various judges interpreted facts differently over the years. There’s reasonable doubt.
1. In court, Sollecito attorney Maori contesting prosecutor’s arguments point by point. Knife, bathmat, alibi, witnesses. Afternoon rebuttals.
3. Tweets by our main poster Machiavelli
[At this point Machiavelli signed off]
62. Crini: Nencini asks the clerk’s officer to write down formally the exact terms of prosecution request to issue cautionary measures [if verdict guilty]
61. Crini says his conclusions are unchanged. Prosecution suggests arrest decrees are issued immediately if defendant(s) is(are) guilty
60. Crini points out the crime and motive originate from group dynamic.
59. Crini: Bongiorno had pointed out that anyway Sollecito should be accounted only for what he had done (implicit: not what Knox did)
58. Crini: The excessive and too quick reaction to a situation of rising argument is typical of group reaction.
57. Crini: Argument about cleaning was also reported by Meredith to her father John Kercher
56. Crini: Massive rejection of English [girls] testimonies is “weak” on the part of defence; tensions and dislikes in the house are recorded on paper
55. Crini: Movite cannot be assessed preliminarily as if it was a piece of evidence to be discussed
54. Crini: if you need to prove a crime, it is opportune to detect a motive, but a motive is only a plausible conjecture not basis for deduction
53. Crini: Bongiorno called all English girls ‘unreliable’ (because English, maybe coached by lawyers etc.)
52. Crini calls ‘amusing’ Bongiorno comparing her client with captain Schettino
51. Crini: Some thoughts about the motive.
50. Crini: It makes no sense to say the large kitchen knife is ‘incompatible’ with the big wound.
49. Crini: To the court: can you imagine a ‘surgical operation’ with a small knife producing a wound with clear margins on a live struggling victim?
48. Crini: it is difficult to produce an 8x8 cm large wound with a small 8cm long knife, it would produce at best a wound with irregular margin
47. Crini: The blade hypothesized by defence from the bed sheet stain is anyway larger; these are anyway conjectures. Datum is compatibility
46. Crini: thinking you can preemptively deduce the size of the blade from bed sheet stain is ‘unrealistic’
45. Crini: The “double knife theory” is based on the small size of the right wound, experts point to a likely much smaller knife with thin blade.
44. Crini: no defence wounds, no fight bruises, nothing under nails, bruises indicate forced restraint of victim; how she was immobilized
43. Crini: Massei court did not decide about attribution of pillowcase shoeprints, Crini objects Vinci’s finding, thinks prints are too small
42. Crini: Knox defence: says when Guede leaves palm print on pillowcase leaves a signature
41. Crini: Bongiorno called the murder scene “flooded” with Guede’s DNA. Crini points out his traces in room indicating he had free hands (no weapon)
40. Crini: The defences also dealt thoroughly with the use of the knife, wounds, blade size
39. Crini: The dynamic of the crime. Maori attributed all traces to Rudy Gede alone
38. Crini: All alleles of the victim were found in a scratch on the knife blade. Human DNA is normally not on knife blades
37. Crini: Vecchiotti admitted there was a scratch on the blade
36. Crini: The same defence experts did not object to the attribution Y haplotype of Guede found in the victim’s vagina
35. Crini: Calls Vecchiotti’s reasoning on bra clasp “a priori”, dismissed for reasons totally general and vague. Doesn’t read Y haplot. and X together
34. Crini: Points out a passage where Vecchiotti’s report misquotes police findings inserting the word “only”, built a strawman
33. Crini says let’s look at the Conti-Vecchiotti report, to see what it says, if you can subscribe with the report.
32. Crini: Tagliabracci in 2008 objected to quotes of prof. Gill calling them “too recent”
31. Crini: Objections referred to Low Copy Number are obsolete, and also partly undermined by the RIS report
30. Crini: Calls “embarassing” Bongiorno when alleges the police was wrong in attributing stains to cat’s blood
29. Crini: Disproves Bongiorno’s allegation that the clasp was stepped over.
28. Crini: Novelli rules out there was contamination in laboratory, as well as tertiary transfer in situ.
27. Crini is “pleased” the defence did not attempt to allege laboratory DNA contamination. Points out findings by Novelli
26. Crini: report says had there been internet surfing or writing activity, this would have resulted as obvious.
25. Crini cites arguments about computer expert reports, hearings of 14 Mar 2009 and Dec 2010 say further investigation is unnecessary
24. Crini: Maori omits to quote pieces of Curatolo’s testimony.
23. Crini will deal with Maori’s “theory of alibi” only very briefly
22. Crini says defence arguments on bathmat print are conjectures. Rinaldi is actually same person who correctly attributed shoeprint
21. Crini: Bathmat print: compatibility assessment can be done on what is measurable
20. Crini: Guede knew the hous and apartments, would have chosen logical entries and logical behaviour, Crini calls burglary theory ‘not credible’
19. Crini: alleged small wounds on Guede’s hand, inconsistent with absence of his blood on scene
18. Crini: Talks about Bongiorno’s criticism to staged burglary scenario - the scenario of Guede already inside apartment
17. Crini says police report timings, records of CCTV video camera and phone calls are ‘consistent’
16. Crini does not see corroboration of alleged 7-minute late clock error of CCTV. The 13.29 call was from Carabinieri HQ and don’t change anthg
15. Crini tris to “strain” the timing of police arival to favor the defence, to see if scenario fits. Considers possible CCTV time error
14. Crini: Sollecito calls Carabinieri too late, also because last phone call to Romaneli was at 12.38
13. Crini: Call to Sollecito’s sister, and then Sollecito’s call to Carabinieri at 12.51-45. Crini: this timing is late independently from Battistelli
12. Crini: Battistelli arrives on foot about 10 minutes eariler than postal police car
11. Crini wants to look better at some arguments about Sollecito’s declarations to postal police. Battistelli recalls 12.35 consistent with CCTV
10. Crini talks about Sollecito ‘sidetracking’, talking about statements to postal police
9. Crini: Knox’s Calunnia also contains details that have external corroboration and she could not have deduced from simple burglary scenario
8. Crini: A Calunnia is itself incriminating (require strong defence explanation), but Knox’s Calunnia also contains furth incrimiating details
7. Crini: Knox maintained her calunnia against Patrick over a period of several days. Crini points out the logicality of Cassazione argument.
6. Crini: Knox statements: ‘Patrick had sex with Meredith’ and ‘there was a loud scream’ were new elements, unrelated to known facts and not retracted
5. Crini: On calunnia, Crini points out that there was an argumentation about Knox defence about usability of Knox’s statement. argument is wrong
4. Crini: Theoretically all defense points could be replied to, Knox’s Calunnia, Sollecito statements to police, the staged theft, the mat print; DNA evidence
3. Crini says he will talk briefly only about a few selected points, without repeating himself, and without discussing old arguments again
2. [After the break] Prosecutor General Crini begins to reply.
1. [After the break] Sollecito entering the court, asked what he expect, says “no comment”
2. Tweets by reporter Barbie Latza Nadeau
44. Judge especially hard on Sollecito sub lawyer, reprimanding her for introducing new arguments when she is only supposed to be refuting.
43. Sollecito sub lawyer argues no DNA from Meredith Kercher on bra clasp w/Sollecito’s DNA, failing to mention she was wearing the bra..
42. Six years of Kercher trials and some lawyers still pronounce the K in Knox.. “ka-nox” as Sollecito’s sub lawyer just did.
41. Kercher lawyers finished, now Sollecito lawyers up for rebuttal, but both his principal lawyers had to leave early.
40. Kercher atty Maresca: Perugians reacted angrily to Amanda Knox acquittal because it was scandalous: acquittal was decided in advance.
39. Kercher lawyers ask court to consider all the previous testimony they say proves more than one person killed Meredith Kercher.
38. Lumumba lawyer says his client has not received any of the €22k he is owed by Amanda Knox even though the slander conviction is final.
37. Judge reprimands Lumumba lawyer for veering off course, he is only to discuss slander aspect of case, not murder itself.
36. Lumumba’s atty Pacelli is delivering a vitriolic rebuttal on Amanda Knox - mixing his unbridled contempt w/her own statements.
35. Lumumba keeps referring to Amanda Knox as “the American”, says she had a penchant for drugs, alcohol, sex.
34. Lumumba lawyer calls Amanda Knox a “diabolical slanderer” “¦
33. Lumumba lawyer says Amanda Knox substituted Patrick for Rudy Guede.
32. Court back in session with Lumumba lawyer up. Sollecito back in court after break.
31. Prosecutor Crini: a lack of motive does not equal proof of innocence. Amanda Knox
30. Prosecutor focused on knife, says traces of Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox are valid.
29. Sollecito staring at prosecutor as he delivers rebuttal, jury taking notes, judge listening intently, journalists trying to stay awake.
28. Prosecutor in new Amanda Knox appeal says motive in murder is never simple and clear, like murder itself is complex.
27. MeredithKercher lawyer says her brother and sister plan to come for verdict Jan 30.
26. Prosecutor just referred to Amanda Knox as “la nostra Knox” as he tries to refute defense arguments.
25. Trial back in session after “pausa caffe” during which Sollecito and his accusers were in tiny court coffee bar at same time.
24. Prosecutor making brief rebuttal, pushing Sollecito and Amanda Knox back together after Sollecito lawyer clearly tried to separate them
23. Sollecito just told group of reporters he was not sure if he would come for verdict.
22. Sollecito lawyer finished. Judge asks lawyers how much time they need for rebuttals. 15 minute
21. Sollecito lawyer says his client is not guilty. Does not mention Amanda Knox in final moments of closing arguments.
20. Sollecito atty: This case is an anomaly. Various judges interpreted facts differently over the years. There’s reasonable doubt.
19. Sollecito lawyer tells the court they can only accept that Meredith Kercher was murdered and that Rudy Guede is the lone killer.
18. Sollecito lawyer G Bongiorno has just arrived in court with three male assistants.
17. Sollecito lawyer says Sollecito was never with Guede, Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox. Says testimony that they were was false.
16. Sollecito lawyer working to discredit witnesses. Says store owner who says he saw
15. Judge in response to Sollecito lawyer asking if jury is tired: if we are tired now we will have to kill ourselves by the end of the day.
14. Sollecito in court today. Will he come for verdict on 30th?
13. Sollecito lawyer lays out why homeless man in park who testified he saw Amanda Knox and Sollecito arguing night of murder is unreliable.
12. Patrick Lumumba also absent from court today.
11. Judge in Amanda Knox new appeal rarely looks at Sollecito lawyer, writing notes, scrolling tablet, but minimal eye contact.
10. Sollecito lawyer on mass media tangent, says the “super witnesses” for prosecution in earlier trials were all for show.
9. Judge in Amanda Knox 2nd appeal asks for clarification on hard to follow techie evidence.
8. Sollecito lawyer showing computer records for Raf’s computer access, says access was human, not automated. Jury squinting at slides.
7. Sollecito lawyer moves on to Raf’s computer, how computers belonging to Amanda Knox, Meredith Kercher were all “accidentally” destroyed.
6. Sollecito lawyer back on break in. Frequent reference to Guede “the real assassin”. No mention of Amanda Knox at all yet.
5. Sollecito lawyer focusing on staged break in.
4. Sollecito lawyer G Bongiorno not in court this morning.
3. Sollecito lawyer Maori says luminal also picks up fruit juice, not just blood. Judge taking notes.
2. Sollecito lawyer showing slides of famous footprint on bathroom rug in Meredith Kercher blood.
1. Sollecito lawyer now summing up in Florence, then rebuttals. Verdict expected Jan 30.
1. Tweets by reporter for La Nazione
46. Lawyer Colotti (Sollecito) : “In a process based on circumstantial evidence motive is the glue of the whole thing.”
45. Lawyer Colotti (Sollecito defense) begins.
44. Sollecito defense : “The Meredith’s bra clasp was contaminated as evidence “
43. Sollecito defense : “It was Rudy Guede who entered through the window after breaking the glass “
42. Sollecito defense : “There was no misdirection in statements of Sollecito “
41. Now it’s up to the defense again, Sollecito team begin their final responses
40. Lawyer Maresca (Kerchers) : “On the blade there are traces of the victim “”
39. Lawyer Maresca (Kerchers) : “Hellmann appeal, the acquittal was a pre-cooked judgment”
38. Lawyer Francesco Maresca (Kercher family) begins
37. Lawyer Perna (Kerchers) “Wounds on the body victim compatible with the knife found at Sollecito’s house “
36. Lawyer Perna (Kercher family) begins
35. Lawyer Vieri Fabiani , one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, the Kercher family
34. Lawyer Pacelli (Lumumba) : “Judges, sentence the liar Amanda , the devilish slanderer “
33. Lawyer Pacelli (Lumumba) : “Meredith could not stand Amanda”
32. Lawyer Pacelli (Lumumba) : “Amanda is on Lumumba’s mind constantly “
31. Lawyer Pacelli (Lumumba) : “Amanda hoped Lumumba slander would not be discovered “
30. Lawyer Pacelli (Lumumba) : “the defense of Amanda was rancorous and non-existent “
29. Lawyer Carlo Pacelli (for the plaintiff Lumumba) begins.
28. Crini: “If Sollecito and Knox are condemned then precautionary measures should be decided to ensure execution of the sentence”
27. Crini: “There were tensions in the house for reasons of hygiene ”
26. Crini: “The absence of sure motive is not a defensive threshold “
25. Crini : “At the scene there was no contamination “
24. Crini : the prosecutor carries on his indictment reaffirming the validity of the clues
23. Crini : the prosecutor continues rebuttal, the Tuscany Attorney General Dr Tindari Baglione enters the court
22. Crini : “Slander of Lumumba in itself is an important element “
21. Crini : the Prosecutor General starts his rebuttal
20. Sollecito’s father::”That’s understandable , too much stress”
19. Sollecito :”I do not know if I’ll be in the courtroom on the day of judgment
18. This ends the argument of Maori (defense of Sollecito )
17. Maori: “The only possible verdict is an acquittal”# meredithnazione
16. Maori: “In the various processes motive , time, and the murder weapon changed ontinuously”
15. Maori: “The witnesses who say that Raffaele and Rudy knew each other, said things false”
14. Maori:”The witness Quintavalle for many days after the murder of Amanda did not speak”
13. Maori: “The witness Quintavalle speaks thirteen months after the fact”
12. Maori: “The witness Curatolo is unreliable , wrong date and report things that are false”
11. Maori: “Some witnesses have had access to financial sinecures”
10. Maori: “The witnesses are characters created by the mass media”
9. Maori: “At 21.26 Sollecito opened from his PC the cartooon Naruto”
8. Maori: “At 21.10 there was interaction Sollecito with his pc”
7. Maori: “Analysis of the computer shows that Sollecito ‘s alibi is true”
6. Maori: “No simulation , glass window broken by a stone from the outside. No glass outside”
5. Maori:”No simulation of theft. Blinds on window with broken glass were not closed”
4. Maori: “The bloody footprint on the bath mat is not Sollecito’s foot”
3. Maori: “Meredith was killed at 21”
2. Maori: “The kitchen knife is the murder weapon . Wounds are not compatible”
1. The hearing begins : now it’s up to the lawyer Maori
[Below: previous image of Attorney General Dr Tindari Baglione who is in court to hear Dr Crini]
Saturday, January 18, 2014
False Claims In Bongiorno’s Summation: That The Wound “Proved” Sollecito’s Big Knife Was Not The One
Posted by Our Main Posters
In defense summation on 9 January, nobody who really knows the case (such as Judge Nencini) would have bought many of Giulia Bongiorno’s outlandish arguments.
The post below this one illustrates how Bongiorno in about half her arguments tried to demonize and mischaracterize all of Perugia, as if somehow Perugia itself had become the real villain in forcing a rush to judgment and wrong conclusion. In fact Perugia took a huge hit from Meredith’s murder but has acted gracefully and competently ever since.
This post by several of us after discussion in Comments is the first of two on Bongiorno’s claims about the large knife. The second one will follow next week by Ergon.
There is no question in our minds but that this IS the murder weapon. It was proved convincingly by way of the DNA tests done by the Scientific Police and Carabinieri. Here we prove it by way of human physiology and the autopsy.
Waving two knives with a manic expression, Bongiorno claimed that the the large knife in evidence was far too large for the wound in question - and anyway, anyone intent on murder would have easily pushed the large knife right through so there was no intent of murder anyway. Bongiorno dismissed the possibility that hyoid bone could have somehow stopped the blade, prevented it from penetrating, as the bone is not resistant enough.
The surface location of the hyoid Bone is shown in the Illustration above; its front is only a few millimeters below the skin: The hyoid bone is loop-shaped like a C, open at the back; this Hyoid loop encloses part of the airway:
The hyoid bone curves around the upper airway at the base of the tongue, and is also called the tongue-bone or the lingual-bone. It is located between the mouth and the larynx; therefore during inhalation air passes through the hyoid loop before it passes through the larynx, and during exhalation air passes through the larynx before it passes through the hyoid loop.
The hyoid is an integral factor in the swallowing, breathing, and phonation mechanisms. If transected in such a way as to connect its part of the airway directly to the atmosphere, as it was in this case, swallowing, breathing, and phonation will be seriously impaired, as they were in this case.
The coexistent bleeding from the also-transected Right Superior Thyroid Artery accelerated Meredith’s death, more by the drowning-effect of inhalation of the blood into her lungs, than by the loss of circulating-blood alone.
Both the hyoid bone and the jawbone are mobile, which is why we can chew, swallow, talk, smile laugh, and sing, the way that we do, each of us in our own unique way.
The Massei Prosecution Reconstruction depicted the killers making cuts obliquely from behind.
The fatal cut started on the Left, but crossed the midline to the Right.
Both the Right Superior Thyroid Artery, and the nearby Hyoid Bone, were severed but from Massei, it is not precisely clear where the hyoid loop was severed, and it seems that the cut did not include the midline skin; The Florence Appellate Court will have access to the relevant records.
Here is why the hyoid could not have damaged any knife:
It is an old rule of materials-physics that a softer substance cannot even scratch a harder substance.
[To some people this may be counter to their intuition, so I have passed it by an eminent MIT physicist, and he agrees with me that the knife blade would not show signs of damage caused by the stabbing in this case.]
As pointed-out recently on TJMK, some confusion has arisen, caused by a quotation in the Massei Report, where on p371is written: “”¦a single blow was apparently halted by the jawbone”¦”
The statement that a blow could be “apparently halted” by Meredith’s jawbone is at best a figure of speech, and the quotes of Prof Cingolani on page 152 of the Massei Translation clearly indicate that any cause and effect inference from the phrase “apparently halted by” did not mean it was stopped-by the jawbone:
Prof Cingolani “did not, however, have elements of certainty to establish that the blade which had caused the wound 4 centimetres deep had stopped at the said depth because [it was] stopped by the jawbone.”
Maybe there is a Judicial, translational, or typographical glitch and “by” the jawbone should have been “at” the jawbone.
Skin is soft and bone is harder but there is no way that the knife striking the jawbone would halt the knife in this case, the jaw would just roll with the strike, depending on the angle of attack. [The force was not even enough to mark the jawbone itself!]
Furthermore, contact between the knife and jawbone or hyoid bone would not mark the knife because living-bone is softer than the knife.
When your pet gnaws on a non-living cow-bone, neither the bone nor your pet’s teeth can bend; both your pet’s teeth and the bone can be broken or dislocated, and the bone gets scratches on it because it is still softer than the teeth, but your pet’s teeth do not get scratches on them, because they are harder even than the non-living bone.
If someone is stabbed in the back with a kitchen carving knife, penetrating ribs on its way to the heart, the knife may have no scratches at all, nor show any signs of damage caused by that action.
[Look at your own kitchen carving knife. It probably has no marks caused by striking chicken thigh bones. It will have fine parallel scratches created in the manufacturing process.]
Any implication-in, or inference-from the statement quoted above that stabbing Meredith’s neck with enough force to penetrate the layers of her neck and then strike bone would have the effect of signs of damage to the knife-blade is a figment of an uninformed imagination.
The kitchen-knife, found in Sollecito’s apartment, with Meredith’s DNA on the blade and Knox’s DNA on the handle, is the weapon that killed Meredith.
Wednesday, January 15, 2014
Mignini And Giuttari Win Final Round In Spurious 2010 Conviction By Rogue Prosecutor And Judge
Posted by Peter Quennell
Poison pill sown in 2006
The entire edifice of the Knox PR campaign was always built on a foundation of sand.
Years ago, the wannabe real-crime-reporter Doug Preston was shaken to the core when Dr Mignini and others figured out with the help of court-authorized wire-taps that he and Mario Spezi were planting evidence and using fake IDs to frame someone they had wrongly concluded was the “real” murderer in the Monster of Florence case.
In uncalled-for retaliation (he got off very lightly and could have faced a prison term) Preston went back to the US and, safe there, wrote a nasty and largely fictional book. He repeatedly claims it was really the cops and specifically Dr Mignini not Preston & Spezi who were dumb and blundering in not sufficiently investigating and charging the “real” murderer.
Fast-forward to 2008
Almost nobody in Italy supports Preston’s and Spezi’s “solution” to the MOF crime which they seemed to hope would bring them big bucks and whole new careers. That solution is widely regarded as a joke and there is voluminous evidence against it.
Nevertheless, Preston’s MOF book is published in the US, demonizing Mignini in great detail.
Knox PR aide David Marriot and his media pet poodles and online thugs, including the wild-eyed Paul Ciolino of CBS and the bizarro Frank Sforza of Perugia, were all over the notion that it was Mignini and not Preston & Spezi who had done something seriously wrong.
The mafia always has an interest in taking Italian justice down a peg, and opportunities were increasingly seen here. The mafia’s various useful idiots in the US (John Douglas, Saul Kassin, Dempsey, Burleigh, Steve Moore, Michele Moore, Heavey, Fischer, Doug Bremner, Hampikian, Halkidis, and some others) who have plagued a correct understanding of the MOF and Perugia cases all helpfully all piled on.
Fast-forward to January 2010
Dr Mignini and the former head of Florence detectives Michele Giuttari were convicted in Florence on spurious grounds. See our posts back then by Commissario Montalbano and TomM.
The purpose of the Florentine investigation against Mignini and Giuttari was obviously a pretext, a ploy aimed at blocking the seemingly very threatening Narducci arm of the MOF investigation. In fact it was a pretext for the rogue Florence prosecutor seizing the Narducci case file back from Dr Mignini in Perugia and burying it out of sight.
Nevertheless, the demonization of Mignini became even more shrill, multiplied globally by the gullible Joel Simon of the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists in foolishly protecting the proven liar Frank Sforza who is now facing THREE trials.,
Fast-forward to November 2011
The Florence appeal court reverses the 2010 convictions because the case was brought by the SAME rogue Florence prosecutor who was caught on tape meddling in the Narducci investigation and who was one of those (there were others) trying to slow it down or destroy it.
Fast-forward to January 2013
The Supreme Court scathingly endorses that reversal. The attempt from within the Florentine court to de-legitimize the Narducci arm of the MOF investigation was from now on definitively at a dead end.
The investigations and trials of those who had for mysterious reasons been hampering the Narducci investigation were also put back on track by Cassation. Most threatened is Doug Preston’s mate Mario Spezi. He seems headed for a prison sentence for sure, leaving Preston (a major meddler in Meredith’s case) also legally very exposed..
Fast forward to April 2013
Dr Mignini is promoted, gaining very high marks in a competitive process. From this point on he will handle only appeals, and when Dr Galati retires (expected soon) Dr Mignini is expected to be the #1 prosecutor of the Region of Umbria.
Fast forward to summer 2013
The Turin prosecution office finally obtains the investigation file on Mignini and Giuttari from Florence as the Florence appeal judge and Cassation had instructed.
The investigation file should have been sent in November 2011 for action leading to full closure on the substance, but the Florence prosecutors illegally sat on it, presumably fearful of what could happen to him.
The Turin prosecution office had little interest in re-opening what seemed a dead-end and frivolous case. If this was what Mignini and Giuttari had wanted, the charges could have been dropped, but without any court finding of “not guilty”.
However, Dr Giuttari and Dr Mignini explained that they wanted a court finding of “not guilty” on the merits of the case. They WANTED the Turin court to read the evidence and to make a final ruling.
Fast forward to today
The Turin court did meet. Andrea Vogt posted this report.
For those keeping track of the various “sideshows” in the Amanda Knox case, a Turin court Wednesday definitively acquitted Perugia prosecutor Giuliano Mignini of three charges against him in connection to his investigations into the Monster of Florence case. The court shelved another three charges because the statute of limitations had expired. One abuse of office charge involving the wiretapping of a La Stampa journalist will be heard in court on March 18, but its statute of limitations appears to expire just days before, so it is unclear if the case will go forward. None of the matters relate directly to the Amanda Knox case, but they were often referenced by the prosecutor’s detractors.
And what next
The Italian justice system protects its senior judges and prosecutors from criminal defamations intended to obstruct justice with some powerful measures. They were originally intended to keep the mafia in its place as defamation of police, prosecutors and judges is one of its mainstays.
All of the false claims about Dr Mignini are still out there. Preston’s book is still on sale. So is Burleigh’s, Dempsey’s, Fischer’s, and John Douglas’s. Joel Simon’s seriously wrong claims are still online. Not one has recanted or wound back.
Knox and Sollecito each repeated the baseless claims at length in their books, and even embellished them. Michael Heavey parrots them to the State Department. They are the main crutch of Bruce Fischer, Steve Moore, Michele Moore, Doug Bremner, and so on.
However, the required pushback by Florence prosecutors and others has begun, and with today’s ruling will accelerate. Frank Sforza is already on trial for calunnia and the Italian justice system is quietly zeroing in on many others, all the book publishers included.
On March 14 the magazine Oggi which published many of Amanda Knox’s baseless claims in Italian must appear in court in Bergamo. Knox and Sollecito themselves may find a heap of new legal troubles after the appeal verdict is announced on 30 January.
*****
Numerous posts by Kermit and Yummi still need to be linked to.
Friday, January 10, 2014
Amanda Knox Confirms She Faked A Break-In in Seattle Long A Sore Point To Previous Victims
Posted by Peter Quennell
[Knox’s off-campus house shared with others near the University of Washington]
It was an open secret in November 2007 among those who had known Knox in Seattle that her charge for murder did not exactly surprise everybody.
“That figures” was in effect their take.
We got to hear about boozing and drug-use. Also (see here and here) about deep anger issues in the Knox-Mellas family, and also about Knox writings (scroll down here to “Baby Blue”) in which violence and cruelty appeared front and center.
We got to hear the hard facts about the rock-throwing abuse of neighbors and passing cars in the course of a drug-fueled party in which Knox was probably lucky to be charged only with a misdemeanour.
And we got to hear rumors, but no hard confirmation, about a faked break-in near the University of Washington campus, in which Knox apparently exulted while those hoaxed were left pretty shaken.
Nobody else ever reported that they found it at all funny, but Knox herself has now off-handedly laughed it off on her increasingly bizarre and telling website. Steven Wentworth has an excellent commentary on TEKJournalismUK. It is all worth reading. These are key excerpts:
She admitted that the hazing prank, played on her flat-mates at the University of Washington, involved messing up the flat and hiding things to make it appear as if items had been stolen. Knox used “mutual friends” of her other housemates to help fake the burglary in her own premises. She acknowledges that it caused “distress” to her housemates and she and her accomplices had to apologise for the act…
Rumours of the hazing prank have been around for years, after a former acquaintance of Knox’s let the story slip, just a month after her arrest. On being pressed for details, the informant clammed up, and the incident has subsequently been vociferously denied by members of Knox’s family and her supporters. Meanwhile her defence have made repeated references to Rudy Guede’s past actions as character evidence against him.
Yesterday’s revelations will come as no surprise to case-watchers. Her decision to stay away from the appeal hearing in Florence was widely seen as an “˜own goal’, and her emailed plea to the court clearly irritated the judge. In it, she suggested that the court would be unable to remain neutral in deciding her fate ““ a move not designed to curry favour with the judiciary. Whether her latest admission makes an impact on the current hearing remains to be seen.
And then according to her own words based on a huge lie to her parents and others in her circle in Seattle, this loose cannon headed for Europe, with little structure, little money, and little intention to do any serious study. In reality she was taking a year off.
Everybody she came in contact with there was well-meaning, hard-working and acting responsibility. By all accounts except her own, she then in sharp contrast evolved into a grating unhygienic nuisance who made few friends, and soon lost all but that oddball Sollecito. Even he she described as soon shrugging off.
Knox is already being remarked upon in Italy as “too cowardly” to turn up at what is in fact HER appeal and have to face all of those she has been smearing. Her ill-advised blog is being observed and could result in yet another obstruction of justice charge as it rarely strays too close to the truth.
Way to go to ensure a stiff sentence? Probably this time with zero mitigating factors.
Thursday, January 09, 2014
Appeal Session #8: Sollecito Attorneys Today Try To Show Where Police And Prosecution Went Wrong
Posted by Our Main Posters
[Giulia Bongiorno today; previously she collapsed in court after a guilty verdict in PM Andreotti’s case]
4. Tweets by Main Poster Machiavelli
148. Bongiorno relies on her “personal belief” as last argument. Bye bye!
147. Bongiorno offers the known arguments to maintain an early time of death. But (now) it’s late for me.
146. She had opened her arguments by quoting Sardinian judge and author Salvatore Satta, to me the choice suggest setting a desperate defence
145. Bongiorno built and waded through a complex building of argument employing extreme rhetoric devices, seemed to be in difficulty to me.
144. I had the impression Nencini was skeptical because not interested in the photos and videos, did not look at them attentively.
143. Details the “plausibility” of an intrusion through the window. Glass shards etc. arguments already seen.
142. “Cogne” is a famous Supreme Court ruling saying guilt can be found “by logical exclusion” on sheer “a contrario” arguments.
141. After brandishing two knifes before the court, talking about footprint, makes an emphatic comment “We are not in Cogne”
140. Bongiorno has ended the ninja-knife-rotating phase.
139. Now Bongiorno speaks about the bathmat bloody print. Says Sollecito’s big toes do not balance on the dystal phalanx. (old argument)
138. Bongiorno shows a picture with an envisioned “knife” (pocket knife belonging to Guede?) together with the print on the bed sheet
137. Nobody brings a “small blow with a big knife”.
136. Says: to paint a large wall you need a “great” (big) brush (paraphrase of a pun from old advertisement) but you don’t use half of a big knife
135. Bongiorno handles a big knife!
134. My opinion: just behind the hyoid bone base there is the cervical vertebra, very resistant, it was the vertebra that offered resistence.
133. When there is a will to kill, the blade penetrates entirely.
132. Bongiorno dismisses the possibility that hyoid bone could have somehow stopped the blade, prevent from penetrating, it’s not resistant enough
131. cites the report by Dr. Umani Ronchi, saying the knife is compatible, but the blade was not used entirely.
130. Last point about the knife is the kind of blade: 17 cm long, while the wound is 8 cm deep. It’s too big, not the murder weapon.
129. Says there isn’t a note indicating a quantifying was done.
128. B: alleges “many mysteries” about Stefanoni’s report. Says there is no DNA amount.
127. In Stefanoni’s report it looks like as if for all knife DNA traces RealTime had been used; and it’s not true. SAL say Fluorimeter used
126. Another point: Fluorimeter. Stefanoni said the PCR method would have been better.
125. Question how he could deduce the knife was compatible. Bongiorno’s points seem extremely weak.
124. Bongiorno attacks on Finzi’s word: quotes testimony when says “It’s the first knife I noticed” and “seemed compatible with wounds”.
123. Question is: possible that Sollecito kills and then puts the knife back in the drawer again? and that he uses a knife from his own kitchen?
122. How is it possible to touch the clasp, but not the rest of the bra? Then Bongiorno says, now let’s deal with the knife.
121. B: There are two questions: 1. why no traces of Knox and Sollecito (except the clasp); 2. why Sollecito’s DNA on clasp but not on bra?
120. No trace of Knox, how could they clean only their own traces…. etc
119. Attributes to Guede the “rest of the whole bra” plus the purse and sweater traces.
118. Emphasizes that other objects in the room instead are “stuffed with” traces of Guede
117. Also, there is the Y chromosome sequence but says it is not reliable for the same reasons.
116. Mentions further reasons for criticism: 1 low template DNA 2 no second amplification (maybe confuses with knife) 3 unknown biological origin
115. Talks about the expert claiming the DNA profile could be compatible with herself (actually wrong, the expert was a female had no Y profile)
114. Says they “found Sollecito’s profile among a 4- individuals mixed trace”.
113. Says Stefanoni applied a suspect-cantered interpretation method on a mixed trace with multiple possibilities. Old argument, weak.
112. The profiles mixed in the trace are more than two, thus DNA not usable. This point of arguments perceived as weak in room.
111. Says the bra clasp trace is a mixed trace.
110. Says mixed DNA profiles are like overlapping of spider webs. High probability of mistake which thread belongs to which one
109. Bongiorno bashes “inconsistence” of Stefanoni and maintains she mistook stutters for alleles.
108. Says if we apply Stefanoni’s criteria to her own findings, the clasp X trace is not attributable to Sollecito
107. Points out the C&V report where they object how Stefanoni considered the peaks departing from guidelines. Say C&V analyzed each peak.
106. Asks, rhetorically, about the way how Stefanoni read the DNA profiles.
105. Mentions the presence of other DNA contributors on the bra clasp.
104. The usual magnified photo showing the dirt on police glove.
103. Calls these “touchings within a contaminated environment”.
102. Says clasp fabric was touched 14 times with one glove, then touched by other gloves.
101. Says the clasp was moved, found under the carpet, originally was under the pillow.
100. B. shows pictures about the object moved around in the room, carpet under table, cloths on bed etc.
99. Complains about the searches made by Napoleoni’s team on Nov 6 & 7 and objects Prosecutor Crini is wrong when says there was only one collection.
98. Says the bra clasp has a “materialization” on the night of Nov. 3 but was not collected because they forgot to place a tag letter.
97. Emphasizes that the forgotten bra clasp has become the pivotal piece of evidence against Sollecito.
96. Says about 20 people have manipulated objects on the crime scene.
95. Emphatically lists the names of all officers who entered the house.
94. Calls the DNA collection “mother of all mistakes” in this case.
93. Items should be touched only once. Stefanoni told the police to not move the items.
92. Disposable gloves must be used, new ones for each item. Quotes Intini saying impossible avoid contamination of crime scene.
91. Says the collection of DNA is fundamental. The collection must be early.
90. Says Cassazione didn’t read the C&V report carefully. Says not all DNA is usable. Stutter peaks should not be considered.
89. Now Bongiorno is talking about DNA.
88. Basically Bongiorno defined evidence against Sollecito as only three points: (1) late call to police (2) knife with Meredith DNA (3) shoe/foot print
87. When B was describing Donnino as a psychic there were people laughing in the room. Her arguments became more effective after the first hour
86. Bongiorno’s series of “half pieces of evidence” seemed like empty rhetoric. The use of video seemed somehow better.
85. The late clock theory is to maintain that Sollecito did not call the 112 after police arrival.
84. The defence theory is the clock was slow, not fast.
83. Bongiorno showed video of alleged Police arrival recorded by parking CCTV, explains defence theory.
82. One thing the SC and PG doesn’t know is about what she calls the “real” timing of Sollecito phone call to 112, as “proven” by defence.
81. One mistake at the Guede trial was about the shoe print attribution.
80. Explains that the subsequent trials of Guede got many facts wrong because they ignored subsequent development.
79. Said Cassazione did not assess the DNA judge appointed report and that testimonies and defence reports were missing.
78. Bongiorno explained the “reverse funnel effect” by which superior court is unaware about additional findings.
77. Sollecito - said B.- would not intervene to help a guy he didn’t know, and not even to protect Knox whom he had been knowing 9 days
76. If cleaning issues were a casus belli among the girls, why would Sollecito enter a raw to defend Rudy?
75. But B. objected this is still only half a motive, because Sollecito had nothing to do with it.
74. Apparently B. acknowledged Laura Masotho testified about problems with Knox cleaning habits. PG thinks means problems living together
73. Talked about the “second motive” calling it “improper use of toilet”
72. Said Guede was a drop-out, the opposite pro-black prejudice is also unacceptable.
71. Urged the court to not assume as individual is a weak and discriminated subject just because a black man
70. The sex theme party is “surreal” Bongiorno said.
69. Said Knox-Sollecito was a tender relation, they enjoyed romantic kisses, were not bored 50y old seeking hot emotions
68. The motive (sex) for the “festino” (little party) was smartly dropped by the PG
67. The motive “accepted” (by courts) was a sex party, but the PG does not believe it.
66. Said motive was considered almost as an optional; said prosecutor general changed the motive because had no choice.
65. Said that Kokomani was offered 10k euros for his testimony.
64. Bongiorno criticized media trials and said witnesses must be “virgins”, otherwise the Aladdin lamp taints the trial
63. Said the Aladdin lamp effect is generated by media trial, in which a “monster” is chased by public opinion
62. Bongiorno talked about “Aladdin lamp effect”: detectives wishes which materialize.
61. Said Mr. Kokomani “materialized” when investigators had desperate need to prove Sollecito and Guede knew each other
60. Bongiorno talked at length to substantiate a scenario of Rudy as a burglar who was used to knives.
59. Rudi would physically approach girls and try to kiss them when he was drunk, B. Said
58. Said Guede harassed girls and Sollecito did not know him.
57. Said when the investigators found Rudi, they could not abandon the first suspects, because it’s difficult like leaving your first love mate
56. Said there is no evidence the three people hung out together.
55. Spoke about Guede’s alleged lifestyle.
54. Said that was the nightmare of Perugia, the intruder nightmare.
53. Said the room is flooded with evidence of Guede all over the place.
52. Bongiorno criticized factual points addressed by Cassazione, mentions wrong early experts reports.
51. She described Knox as almost unconscious, buckled because she trusted Sollecito, thinks the police and Raff say so, must be true.
50. When Knox learns about bring accused by Sollecito she had a collapse while the “psychic” was saying “remember!”
49. Amanda, B. says, did not understand why Raffaele accused her.
48. Bongiorno urged judges to get out from codes and get into the hearts of the two young accused.
47. Said if you believe to the Memoriale, where does it mention Raffaele?
46. The recording of Knox’s conversation with her mother “proves she was still in delusional state”
45. Bongiorno said even if you believe her confession, she doesn’t mention Sollecito.
44. Said Amanda was “induced into raving” by “psychic” Donnino.
43. Explained the three types of false confessions.
42. Said Knox did not commit a crime but convinced herself she did. B. mentions the internalized false confession type.
41. Talked about police mistake on the “see you later” message
40. Said trial was determined by the fact Donnino fid not understand English well, thus sidetracked Knox
39. But, said, if we look at Knox, it’s not her sidetracking investigation, but rather investigators sidetracking her.
38. Said the Cassazione suggests Raffaele lied about timings of call to carabinieri, accused him of sidetracking because he lied.
37. One of the elements against Sollecito is the accusation of having sidetracked investigation. Said it was false.
36. Called Donnino a “medium” ( means .“psychic”)
35. Said Donnino acted as mediator not interpreter
34. Said Donnino altered Knox’s statements.
33. Bongiorno criticized interpreter Anna Donnino.
32. Sollecito’s aunts wiretapped as if they were the most dangerous murderers.
31. Talking about insults [to Sollecito’s family members], Bongiorno cries.
30. Says they also insulted Knox
29. Amanda was caught by anxious urge to answer. She became uncomfortable because police asked too much, altering her serenity
28. Bongiorno says if the court doesn’t want to read the whole interrogation (of Dec 17) they should at least read the memoriale
27. Nencini interrupts Bongiorno: how could I read all interrogations entirely, when Supreme Court prevents me from doing so?
26. Calunnia doesn’t mean there is evidence of murder.
25. Only half of the house of murder investigated. An interrogation considered evidence of Knox’s calunnia.
24. Says Raffaele was “halfed”, against him only half pieces of circum evidence: half shoeprint’ knife compatible only if you consider half of blade
23. [My] Impression that Bongiorno’s start of defence speech was rather weak. Too much over the top, reveals weakness.
22. shoeprint attributed in advance because boyfriend of Amanda. Speaks about “admission” by Rinaldi-Boemis
21. She is tired of Raffaele reduced by “half”, a half character seen as a reflection of Amanda
20. Says Knox was the main character, she was so before the trial.
19. Speaks about “creativity” before the trial. Speaks at length about the bloody shoeprint.
18. Bongiorno: Raf thinks he was put in jail because of wrong print. But not true: it’s because he was Amanda’s boyfriend.
17. Shows pictures of Vinci’s analysis of pillowcase prints.
16. Bongiorno also said other reason for suspicion was that Knox had the keys. The motive chosen was “ideal” not real.
15. Most active and free women are seen as more suspicious.
14. Bongiorno: women are suspected because of today women’s empowerment movements.
13. Started from a sex party gone awry theory. They asked themselves: who could take part to such party? A 20y American sexy girl.
12. Investigators followed Lombrosian criteria (inspired by Cesar Lombroso theories)
11. Says: it was Perugia population who chose the less disquieting scenario, and the investigation was based on “less alarming motive” choice
10. Bongiorno: authority had to chose between a “tranquillizing” student motive and a dangerous serial killer “worrying” scenario.
9. Why did they accuse and put them in jail so early? They didn’t even have the knife.
8. Complains Sollecito doesn’t find a job because has a murderer’s face
7. Bongiorno focuses on the “early bias” against accused, since four days after finding of body.
6. Bongiorno speech hinges around the persecution of defendants. Describes her fear, fleeing from Perugia. Says people didn’t know trial papers
5. Bongiorno was shocked by the angry mob before Perugia courtroom [after Hellmann verdict]
4. Bongiorno: a bloodthirsty mob chasing defendants
3. Reads book snippet about French revolution, describe a horde of sanculots and armed citizens
2. Bongiorno quotes Italian author Satta. Talks about “chase” of the two accused
1. Sollecito is in courtroom
3. Tweets By Freelance Andrea Vogt
15. Leaving court, raffaele sollecito and father expressed satisfaction w/closing args. Perugia attorny Maori to close at next hearing, Jan.20.
14. Bongiorno closing finish: Turn amanda off. Acquit them both, but judge Raffaele Sollecito for who he is, not for half-truths against him.
13. A loud emergency evacuation request was just broadcast in Florence court, but the presiding judge says hearing will continue.
12. Once you’ve seen Bongiorno wave two knives in front of an Italian jury, most other court reporting one has done seems rather dull.
11. Bongiorno holds up butcher knife like the one in evidence to jury: “This knife is too big. It is not the murder weapon.”
10. New amanda knox court schedule: [prosecution] rebuttals Jan 20, with verdict on Jan 30.
9. Florence amanda knox appeal: court breaks until 14:15. Unclear if sollecito defense will finish today or spill over.
8. Bongiorno: Sollecito is not a puppy dog. He may have brushed her hair, cleaned her ears, but he would not kill for love of amanda knox.
7. Bongiorno and judge exchange laughs over “unca nunca” the eskimo kiss. “I’m over 50,” he said “I need an explainer.”
6. Bongiorno on witnesses found by local journos: “This trial had an Aladdin’s Lamp. Every time cops needed a witness, one materialized.”
5. Bongiorno defending Amanda Knox, while at the same time clearly separating Sollecito’s position from that of Knox.
4. Bongiorno reading amanda’s statement: “If you believe this is a confession, where’s Raffaele? He is never, never, never mentioned.”
3. Bongiorno just read wiretapped comms of Perugia cops Napoleoni and Zugarini insulting Sollecito’s family.
2. Bongiorno: “Amanda amanda amanda amanda amanda . . . And raffaele? Basta with sollecito always being considered Knox’s other half.”
1. Bongiorno: Perugia declared “case closed” 4 days after Kercher murder, w/no murder weapon and a motive intended to calm public fear.
2. Tweets by La Nazione Court Reporter
66. Bongiorno: “In conclusion Amanda and Raffaele are innocent “
65. Bongiorno: “I am convinced that the murderess is Rudy who has already been convicted “
64. Bongiorno “The attack on Meredith takes place at 21.10 when Raffaele ‘s at home “
63. Bongiorno: “Guede had already entered into three more apartments in the holiday periods “
62. Warning to evacuate the court. But it is only a test
61. Bongiorno: “Is it possible that the glass has been broken from the outside “
60. Bongiorno: “The absence of traces of mud on the wall is because in those days it was not raining”
59. Bongiorno: “Plausible hypothesis that someone has entered the window “
58. Bongiorno: “You can not get to a liability via just exclusion . We are not in Cogne “
57. Bongiorno: “Against Sollecito, no real clue “
56. Bongiorno: “The footprint on the rug is not Sollecito, his foot does not match “
55. Bongiorno: “The murder weapon is a boxcutter knife with 8 inches “
54. Bongiorno: “The knife found at Sollecito’s house is not the murder weapon “
53. Bongiorno: “Depth wounds on the victim is not compatible with the size knife “
52. Bongiorno addresses the issue of the knife
51. Bongiorno: “Absurd to think that Amanda and Raffaele have deleted only their tracks
50. Bongiorno: “How can you think that there is only a trace of Sollecito on the clasp ? “
49. Bongiorno: “On the scene of the crime no trace of Amanda, but only Rudy Guede “
48. Bongiorno: “On the hook there are traces of four profiles of DNA “
47. Bongiorno: “That hook looks like it was taken from a landfill “
46. Bongiorno: “The hook was crushed during the inspections “
45. Bongiorno: “The bra clasp was moved “
44. Bongiorno: “The hook of the bra is not at the first inspection reperted “
43. Bongiorno: “About 20 people came to the house between the two surveys
42. Bongiorno: “The finding attributed to Sollecito jumps out only in the second survey “
41. Bongiorno: “It is not true that no one came on the scene between the two surveys “
40. Bongiorno addresses the issue of DNA on the bra clasp of the victim
39. After the break the summation of lawyer Giulia Bongiorno starts again.
38. The hearing is adjourned for an hour
37. Bongiorno ( Sollecito defense ) : ” Rudy Guede did not want to respond to our defense [at Hellmann appeal] “
36. Bongiorno ( Sollecito defense ) : “No survey has ever spoken of the presence of more subjects [than one]”
35. Bongiorno ( Sollecito’s defense ) : “It was Raffaele who raised the alarm”
34. Bongiorno ( Sollecito’s defense ) : “And we demonstrated that Sollicito called 112 before the police arrived “33. Bongiorno ( Sollecito’s defense ) : ” If the motive are disputes on the hygiene of the house, where was Raffaele ? “
32. Bongiorno ( Sollecito’s defense ) : ” The indictment identifies the changes to driving and excessive use of water”
31. Bongiorno ( Sollecito’s defense ) : “the relationship of Amanda with Raffaele was tender, kissed like Eskimos “
30. Bongiorno ( Sollecito’s defense ) : ” Guede unwelcome, if there had been a party he would not have asked “
29. Bongiorno ( Sollecito’s defense ) : ” In this process, the motive is considered an option, but it is not “
28. Bongiorno ( Sollecito’s defense ) : ” Absurd to think that Sollecito and Guede became known that night “
27. Bongiorno ( Sollecito’s defense ) : ” The witness who spoke of the friendship between Raffaele and Rudy Guede was denied “
26. Bongiorno ( Sollecito’s defense ) : ” Amanda Raffaele prosecuted even when they told [the truth?] “
25. Bongiorno ( Sollecito ) : ” Absurd Amanda putting herself at the scene of the crime”
24. Bongiorno ( Sollecito’s defense ) : ” Amanda never pulled into the dance Raffaele “
23. Bongiorno ( Sollecito’s defense ) : ” Amanda wassidetracked , it is she who is derailed “
22. According to the lawyer Bongiorno interpreter on night of interrogation of Amanda did not just translate
21. Bongiorno ( Sollecito’s defense ) : ” The interpreter admiited to having helped in the court”
20. Bongiorno ( Sollecito ) : ” The interpreter confirms that she has done so in trial court as mediums in the interrogation “
19. Bongiorno ( Sollecito ) : ” Amanda says that the interpreter invited her to remember”
18. Bongiorno ( Sollecito ) : “There are black pages in this investigation “
17. Bongiorno ( Sollecito ) : ” According to the documents offenses of aunts of Sollecito by those who listened to the wiretaps “
16. Bongiorno ( Sollecito ) : ” Amanda and nighttime interrogations without a lawyer “
15. Bongiorno ( Sollecito ) : ” The identikit identfication of the killer as Amanda proceded and generates slander “
14. Bongiorno ( Sollecito ) : “On the footprints attributed to Sollecito there was a big mistake “
13, Bongiorno ( Sollecito ) shows some slides in the court on the footprints at the crime scene
12. Bongiorno ( Sollecito ) : ” Raffaele is not the only other half of Amanda . Just a quick passion “
11. Bongiorno ( Sollecito ) : ” Amanda was the stronger of the pair with Sollecito “
10. Bongiorno ( Sollecito ) : ” Amanda was leading [the two] before becoming involved in the legal process”
9. Bongiorno : ” Starting from the motive of the game , Amanda seemed like the perfect one guilty “
8. Bongiorno ( Sollecito ) : ” They have chosen an ideal motive and then followed the criteria Lombroso “
7. Bongiorno ( Sollecito ) : ” A creation was the motive to reduce fear in Perugia , a party gone wrong “
6. Bongiorno ( Sollecito’s defense ) : ” In record time, the case was declared closed almost immediately , after four days ‘
5. Bongiorno ( Sollecito ) : “Against Amanda and Raffaele horde of red herrings”
4. Bongiorno ( Sollecito ) : “Sollecito was branded a murderess when there was no evidence “
3. Bongiorno ( Sollecito ) : ” Raffaele and Amanda have become the symbol of depravity ‘
2. Start of the argument of the lawyer Giulia Bongiorno , Sollecito’s defense
1. Start of the hearing. Today it’s up to the lawyers Raffaele Sollecito
1. Overview post Wednesday by Andrea Vogt
Website of Andrea Vogt
Defense lawyers Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori will give closing arguments on behalf of Raffaele Sollecito Thursday in Florence, starting at 10 a.m.While Amanda Knox has been the main focus of attention for most of the U.S. media covering this case, Sollecito has increasingly become the object of gossip in the Italian press, with tabloid magazines like Oggi regularly publishing snaps of him on vacation this winter in Santo Domingo.
More recently several local newspapers in Veneto published speculation about a new woman friend and fellow University of Verona student with whom he had been hanging out with over the holidays in a small town near Treviso. Amore or amica? He’s not about to tell.
At his last spontaneous declaration before the court Sollecito complained about his lack of privacy and pleaded with the jury to give him his life back. Tomorrow his lawyers will make the case for his innocence formally to the judge and jury. Expect fireworks from Bongiorno, famous for her captivating oratory and no stranger to high-profile cases “” having cut her teeth as defense lawyer for former Italian prime minister Giulio Andreotti.
ol
Monday, January 06, 2014
Curious Parallels Between Scott Peterson And Amanda “I Am Not A Psychopath” Knox
Posted by giustizia
[Above: Laci Peterson and Meredith Kercher, the victims in the two cruel crimes]
1. The Violent Deaths Of Laci Peterson and Meredith Kercher
Laci Peterson was soon to give birth in California in December of 2002. On Christmas Eve, her husband Scott reported her missing. In April of the following year, her body and the body of her unborn son Connor were discovered in the San Francisco Bay.
Five years later, in Italy, on 2 November 2007, foreign study student Amanda Knox was at her rental home with her Italian lover Raffaele Sollecito in Perugia, Italy, when the postal police arrived early one morning to return some cell phones traced to her flatmates; the phones had been found dumped in a nearby garden.
Shortly after, the shocking discovery was made that her flat mate Meredith Kercher had been murdered.
2. Parallels Between Knox and Peterson In Their Personalities, Crimes And Court Cases
There is a number of striking parallels between the behaviors of Amanda Knox and Scott Peterson and their alleged crimes and convictions.
The horrific murders of two beautiful young women (one almost at the end of the full-term pregnancy of her first child) unleashed in each case a maelstrom of publicity rarely seen in search of the murderer.
When arrests were made, there also came the stunning revelation in each case that the accused was well-known to the victim ““ in Laci’s case, it was her husband, Scott Peterson; in Meredith’s case, it was her roommate, Amanda Knox.
Ultimately, three people were arrested for the murder of Meredith (as we know, the fourth person arrested, Patrick Lumumba, falsely accused by Knox as Meredith’s murderer, was released when his solid alibi was proven). Of the three people arrested for the murder of Meredith Kercher, evidence suggested to prosecutors that Amanda Knox was the instigator of the crime.
In each trial, the defendant presented a seemingly normal and middle-class appearance. Neither defendant had a significant history of violence or widely-obvious mental illness. Their families insist on their innocence.
Yet both were convicted of brutal murders (and both now fight their convictions on appeal).
Knox and Peterson were each described by casual acquaintances, neighbors and friends as nice, regular people.
Ann Bird, Peterson’s half-sister, described him as being “charismatic, charming, courteous, polite.” On Dateline NBC television, a friend of Amanda Knox described her as being “generous, kind, genuine, optimistic, bubbly. Pretty much all the good words that you can find in a dictionary, she was.”
But they proved superficial assessments that in fact really only scratched the surface.
3. Reckless Odd Behavior And Lies By Amanda Knox
Amanda Knox had been cited and she had received a fine (a sentence which could have been more severe) for disturbing the peace and throwing rocks at a party in Seattle shortly before her departure to Italy.
Knox abruptly and without clear reason dropped a much-sought-after internship in Berlin, Germany, before arriving in Italy.
She posted a vignette on Facebook about a sexual liaison she had with a stranger, a middle-aged man, while on a train in Italy.
Her roommate Meredith had become increasingly disenchanted with the American flatmate who brought home different men without warning. “So she’s [Meredith] waking up in the morning and there’s someone making tea. And it’s, who are you again?” commented Meredith’s friend Brittany Murphy on the subject of Meredith’s unease at the strangers Knox brought to their rented Italian home.
Richard Owen, the Italy correspondent of the London Times in Italy, who has written multiple stories on the case, stated that Knox brought home “people who Meredith Kercher distrusted. Didn’t like the look of. It got to the point where she actually confronted Amanda about this.”
And Amanda Knox’s behavior after the Meredith’s murdered body was found in their rental home was more than atypical for someone who had their flatmate killed in such a horrific fashion in such close proximity.
- “As she put them on she swiveled her hips, pulled a face and said ‘hop la’ - I thought it was very unusual behavior and my suspicions against her were raised.” (Edgardo Giobbi, a police forensic scientist, testifying in court, describing Knox’s behavior just hours after the murder, after he handed Knox a pair of shoe-covers to prevent contaminating the evidence during a search of the house. Sky News, UK, May 30, 2009.)
- “While I was [at the police station] I found Amanda’s behavior very strange. She had no emotion while everyone else was upset. I remember one thing that really upset me. [Meredith’s friend] Natalie said, ‘I hope she wasn’t in too much pain.’ Amanda said, ‘What do you think? She fucking bled to death.’ At that point no one had told us how Meredith died.” (Robyn Butterworth, a friend of Kercher’s, testifying in court. London Evening Standard, Feb. 13, 2009.)
- “Their behavior at the police station seemed to me really inappropriate ... They sat opposite each other, Amanda put her feet up on Raffaele’s legs and made faces at him. Everyone cried except Amanda and Raffaele. I never saw them crying. They were kissing each other.” (Amy Frost, a friend of Meredith’s and a student at the University for Foreigners in Perugia at the time, testifying in court. The Independent, London, Feb. 14, 2009.)
- “My daughter was a Leeds student with Meredith in Perugia. They went out together on Halloween. When Amanda Knox was asked how she felt on 2 November, she said: “Shit happens”, which contrasts rather sharply with the contrived way she addressed the Italian court about “my friend Meredith”. (Marc Rivalland, in a letter to the editor of the Observer commenting on the Knox case. The Guardian, UK, 12/13/2009.)
- “They came into the shop at about 7 p.m. and were there for about 20 minutes. She bought a camisole and G-string. I heard her tell him that “˜Afterwards I’m going to take you home and put this on so we can have wild sex together.” (Store owner Carlo Maria Scotto di Rinaldi’s testimony in court about Knox and Sollecito’s behavior in his store, taped on closed-circuit TV.)
- “Knox and Sollecito were seen laughing as they hold up various G-strings. In one still shot taken from the footage, Raffaele is standing behind Amanda with his hands on her hips and his groin pressed into her. It was the same day as the candle light vigil memorial for Meredith, a few days after her murder.” (Excerpt from the book Angel Face by Barbie Nadeau.)
Perhaps the most controversial claim in the Knox trial was Knox’s accusation of Patrick Lumumba as the murderer of Meredith Kercher. Lumumba was placed under arrest and jailed for two weeks, until his solid alibi set him free.
Knox, who said nothing to help him during the two weeks Lumumba was incarcerated, changed her story after he was freed. She then claimed she was coerced by the police into making confusing statements. Knox’s entourage have made charges of human rights violations and anti-Americanism against the Italian justice system, though to date the U.S. government has refused to become involved.
- “He’s bad. He did it. He killed her”¦It was him, it was him, he was crazy, he killed her.” (Amanda Knox’s statements, according to police at the police station, accusing Patrick Lumumba of murdering Meredith Kercher. The Daily Telegraph, UK, March 6, March 21, 2009)
- “She was angry I was firing her and wanted revenge. By the end, she hated me. But I don’t even think she’s evil. To be evil you have to have a soul. Amanda doesn’t. She’s empty, dead inside. She’s the ultimate actress, able to switch her emotions on and off in an instant. I don’t believe a word she says. Everything that comes out of her mouth is a lie. But those lies have stained me forever.” (Patrick Lumumba, bar owner in Perugia and Knox’s boss. Daily Mail, UK, November 25, 2007)
4. Reckless Odd Behavior And Lies By Scott Petersen
Scott Peterson had all the appearances of an upwardly mobile middle-class white-collar worker. He was a salesman with a pretty wife and a baby on the way, and they owned a nice home in Modesto, California.
His friends and family described him as charismatic and friendly. But under the surface was a lifestyle filled with lies and mistresses.
Scott Peterson had hooked up with a mistress, Amber Frey, in November of 2002, leaving his pregnant wife home alone during the holiday season to see Amber Frey, with excuses of business meetings.
Peterson told Amber Frey that he was a widow, and also that he was traveling in France when he was actually in California - two of many false claims Peterson made to her.
- “I’m near the Eiffel Tower. The New Year’s celebration is unreal. The crowd is huge.” (Scott Peterson, from a taped telephone conversation to his mistress Amber Frey, telling her he is in Paris, when he is really in Modesto, California, about to attend a candle-light vigil for his missing wife. Dateline, NBC, 1/4/2005)
Shortly after Laci Peterson was reported missing, that candle light vigil was held for Laci. It was on New Year’s Eve.
- ”˜Three witnesses testified that Peterson’s behavior at the candle-light vigil seemed inappropriate for a worried husband. One woman said that he showed no emotion during the service and was grinning as he “socialized” with friends afterwards.’ (From The Murder of Laci Peterson, TrueTV.com)
The jurors were shown a photo of the grinning Peterson at the vigil at the trial as evidence. He called his mistress before and after the vigil ceremony, while Laci’s distraught family members tried to cope with the situation of their missing relative.
- “Scott came in with a great big smile on his face, laughing, it was just another day in paradise for Scott, another day that he had to go through the motions,” said one juror, Mike Belmessieri. “Scott had no emotion on his face. Scott was being Scott.” (Juror of the Scott Peterson Trial, commenting on his unusually cool demeanor in court. New York Times, March 17. 2005)
Shades of Amanda…
- “The cartwheels? This is Amanda just being Amanda. As her friends would say, it’s an Amanda thing.” (Edda Mellas, commenting on Knox turning cartwheels at the police station. The Guardian, UK, June 27. 2009)
- “I couldn’t help but think how cool and calm Amanda was. Meredith’s other friends were devastated and I was upset, but Amanda was as cool as anything and completely emotionless. Her eyes didn’t seem to show any sadness, and I remember wondering if she could have been involved.” (Giacomo Silenzi, Meredith’s Italian boyfriend who lived in the apartment downstairs from the murder. Metro.co.uk, November 18, 2007)
5. Parallels In Forensic Evidence
In both cases, there were no eye witnesses or “smoking gun.”
In Scott Peterson’s case, the ONLY piece of hard evidence was a single strand of Laci’s hair, found on pliers in Scott’s boat, which the defense charged as being contaminated evidence.
This and all rest of the evidence at his trial was circumstantial. Nobody witnessed any deed.
Both the circumstantial and forensic evidence in the Knox trial were more considerable. Key items of hard evidence included the knife found in Sollecito’s apartment that had Meredith’s DNA on the tip and Knox’s DNA on the handle, and it was accepted at trial as one of the murder weapons.
A bloody footprint, the size of Knox’s foot, was found on a pillow underneath Meredith’s body. Mixed DNA material of both Knox and Meredith were found in several spots in the house where the murder occurred.
6. Parallels In Strange Coincidences
Laci and Connor’s bodies were found in the water in the bay area of San Francisco. Scott Peterson happened to own a boat and liked to fish ““ in fact, he said he went fishing on Christmas Eve, the day Laci disappeared, at a location where later the bodies turned up only about 3 miles away.
Meredith was sexually molested, strangled, and ultimately killed by knife stabs. Raffaele Sollecito has a fascination with knives and he owns a large collection. Amanda Knox created and posted a fictitious story about a violent rape on the Internet.
Sollecito posted a photo of himself on the Internet swathed in bandages and holding a large meat cleaver and a jug of a chemical-looking liquid. Knox and Sollecito were the only ones at the house on the day when the police showed up and later discovered Meredith’s body.
The juries in both trials concluded that these factors were more than mere coincidences, and represented incriminating evidence of guilt of the crime.
7. Parallels In How The Families Supported Their Children
Not all convicted murderers have a history of mental disturbance or violence. If there were any red flags regarding Knox’s and Peterson’s behavior, one would not know it from the descriptions provided by their families:
- ”˜Lee Peterson said his son never posed a discipline problem, did not rebel as a teenager and was a perfect baby. He was said even to lose golf games because he did not want to hurt the feelings of his opponents. ‘‘He woke up smiling and went to bed smiling.’’ (Scott Peterson’s father of his son, testifying to the jury after Scott’s guilty verdict but before sentencing. New York Times, December 2, 2004)
- “She was an incredible easy-going kid even from a baby. She was so mellow”¦She loved being read-to, she loved books. As she got a little older she always wanted to be outside - building camps, playing soccer. She never watched a lot of TV - she still doesn’t. She was an excellent student.” (Edda Mellas, commenting on Amanda Knox’s character the week of her guilty verdict. The Sun, UK, December 5, 2009)
8. Parallels In Family And Groupie Websites
Peterson and Knox’s families insist on their innocence. There are family and groupie websites for each convicted murderer. They each proclaim innocence for the guilty, make charges of police incompetence, and make requests for money for the defense cause and legal expenses:
- “Scott Peterson Family Mission Statement: “˜This web-site is a combined effort of our family and our support system. We know Scott is innocent and that he has been unjustly convicted. Our pursuit of justice for Laci, Conner and Scott remains steadfast. We want to keep you informed as to the specifics of the case, the appeal, and related topics. We also want you to know how grateful we are for your prayers and support.’ (From: http://scottpetersonappeal.org/)
- “Amanda Knox - A heartfelt thanks for your support. On behalf of Amanda and her family, we want to thank everyone who has contacted FOA to express their concern and to offer help in the wake of an unjust and unsupportable guilty verdict. We are developing a strategy to raise public awareness of this case and help bring about a reversal of the verdicts against both Amanda and Raffaele. Once it is in place, we will welcome all the help we can get, and we will be in touch with you.” (From http://www.friendsofamanda.org/home_eng.htmleartfelt)
Scott Peterson of course has never managed to get online. Amanda Knox of course runs a jubilant, taunting blog which trashes the memory of the victim and harasses her family - a first in global crime history and a foolish move given the current cold, remorseless rejection of her appeal.. Knox’s blog has a following among others also seemingly unable to succeed in normal ways.
9. Parallels In The Verdicts Jurors Delivered: Guilty As Charged
The jurors in each trial fitted together all the pieces of the puzzle: timelines, witness testimony, cell-phone records, forensic evidence, lack of solid alibis, incriminating lies, and odd behavior of the defendants.
They each concluded after lengthy deliberation that the defendants were guilty of murder.
10. And The NON-Parallels In How The US Media Has Reported Both Cases
Of these two cases, not many people have questioned the jury’s decision in the Scott Peterson trial. He has been sentenced to death via lethal injection, and he is currently incarcerated in San Quentin prison in California.
There are no repeated media interviews of Peterson’s mother in tears, insisting on his innocence and his release from prison. There are no angry declarations from Peterson family that the police, prosecution and legal system abused, railroaded and framed Scott Peterson.
If such media coverage were to exist, it would be widely considered in the US to be extremely upsetting and insulting to Laci’s parents and family and to the memory of the victims Laci and Connor.
Peterson’s media coverage, thankfully, has dissipated. He still pursues an appeals process, possibly to be heard next year by the California Supreme Court.
Amanda Knox’s story plays out very differently. After her arrest, her family hired a public relations team that puts forth a determined effort to change Knox’s image of wild child and murderer and to keep her in the news.
They obviously do not consider their repeated loud public outcries for release of their daughter distressing to Meredith’s parents and family, and they don’t perceive their actions as being disrespectful to the victim, Meredith.
Or of course, as many people suspect, perhaps Knox’s relatives do realize it but they simply don’t care.
11. Parallels In Future Legal Prospects
Imprisoned in Italy, Knox has been sentenced to 26 years in prison. She is now appealing that verdict and sentence for the second time after the first appeal was corrupted. In 2012 Scott Petersen’s lawyers filed the automatic appeal against his death sentence to which he is entitled by California law. He may end up serving life.
Knox’s prospects seemed considerably brighter than Peterson’s when the now-annulled Hellmann appeal of 2011 set her free. Now under the worst scenario she loses her new appeal and may end up serving life.
12. Epilogue ““ Master Manipulators
It is curious that the fervent supporters of Amanda Knox do not crusade for the release of Scott Peterson as well. After all, he was convicted on LESS direct evidence, and also in the midst of a maelstrom of publicity. CNN.com had called the Peterson prosecution case so weak and “unimpressive” that they speculated that he could end up with a “Not Guilty” verdict.
But with the exception of his own family, no one has picked up beating the drum to overturn the jury’s conviction of Peterson. Perhaps it is because Peterson doesn’t fit well the damsel in distress role? More likely, it is because the American public trusted the jury’s assessment of the evidence and trial, as they and the American media usually do, and they feel that the jury delivered a just verdict, and justice to Laci and Connor Peterson.
How is it possible that two “regular” people like Knox and Peterson ended up in jail for horrendous murders? Below is a condensed version from an AP article about the type of personality attributed to Scott Peterson:
It is interesting to note that life transitions are tremendous stresses to a psychopath. Psychopaths also wear “false faces” and are master manipulators. They are the ultimate con artists and they are able to fool even those closest to them.
Peterson’s closest friends “never suspected there was a monster inside Scott’s psyche.
Motive still a question in Peterson case
By the Associated Press
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
REDWOOD CITY, Calif. (AP)””Of all the questions surrounding the Laci Peterson murder case, the one that seemed to be running through practically everyone’s mind was this: If Scott Peterson was so unhappy in his marriage, why didn’t he just get a divorce?Experts on the criminal mind say the answer may lie in what lurked beneath Scott Peterson’s charming veneer “”a psychopathic personality.
“When you say you’re going to get a divorce, everyone knows that it’s a long, tedious process. The psychopath wants the short-term solution,” said San Diego forensic psychologist Reid Meloy.
Peterson, 32, was convicted earlier this month of murdering his eight-months-pregnant wife and the fetus she was carrying, and the jury decided he deserves the death penalty.
Criminal psychologists say Peterson appeared to be a master manipulator who lacked the capacity to feel remorse or consider consequences “”some of the same psychopathic characteristics exhibited by serial killers Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy.
Psychopaths “tend to con people very well and they wear false faces,” said former FBI profiler Robert Ressler. “They tend to be able to fool everyone from their families to their friends to society, schools, their community.”
At Peterson’s trial, prosecutors portrayed him as a callous liar who continued to carry on an extramarital affair even as police searched for his wife. They said he killed her to escape marriage and impending fatherhood for the freewheeling single life.
Whether Laci’s pregnancy was the catalyst for Peterson’s plan may never be known. But experts said pregnancy can lead to seismic changes within a relationship.
Pregnancy “represents commitment, fatherhood, another dependent, a lifelong bond ... and all of those things are strongly despised by the psychopath,” Meloy said”¦ pregnancy represents a life transition, and there are stresses around that transition.”
Peterson’s case was made all the more perplexing by the lack of signs that the couple’s marriage was in trouble. Although Peterson had cheated on Laci at least three times, according to defense attorney Mark Geragos, he appeared to family and friends to be a doting husband and father-to-be after Laci became pregnant.
Those closest to the couple said they never suspected there was a monster inside.
Heather Richardson, the maid of honor at the Petersons’ wedding, is still hoping for a plausible explanation to emerge. Perhaps, she said, Peterson suffers from a disorder that has yet to be revealed.
“It would be at least comforting. Then I would realize that the person I knew and loved dearly was there. He was that person and the other person, too,” Richardson said. “So at least part of him was not a lie.”
Here is Amanda Knox in her own words talking about masks “” while taking the stand for the final time at her trial in Italy (CNN, Dec. 3, 2009): “They say that I am calm. I am not calm ... I fear to lose myself, to have the mask of the assassin forced upon me.”
This is an update of my post of 24 July 2010
Wednesday, December 18, 2013
Demonizations By Knox: Multiple Ways In Which Her Email To Judge Nencini Is Misleading
Posted by FinnMacCool
You can read here the email Amanda Knox sent to Judge Nencini.
It is dated 15 December 2013 and was handed to Dr Nencini by Dr Ghirga, apparently to the disdain of both of them. It contains many statements which, if she were under oath, could be considered perjury.
One telling point is that she claims “I am not present in the courtroom because I am afraid.” Her co-defendant, Raffaele Sollecito, was not at all afraid of being at their own appeal, and he did present himself at an earlier stage of the proceedings.
He made a spontaneous statement and the judge assured him that he should feel free to intervene to make further interventions whenever he wished. So far he hasn’t wished to - he preferred to head back to the Caribbean for his holiday.
But that event and that presence by Sollecito completely undermine the credibility of Knox’s claim that she feels afraid of the court proceedings. As it is her own appeal, there would be nothing to stop her coming and going, at any stage, just as Sollecito did.
I have no doubt that my lawyers have explained and demonstrated the important facts of this case that prove my innocence and discredit the unjustified accusations of the prosecution and civil parties.
That’s what her lawyers were about to try to do. But instead they had to hand this email to the judge, showing their client’s complete contempt for the court process.
I seek not to supplant their work
She doesn’t want to supplant the work of her own lawyers? Most defendants don’t, nor do they feel the need to tell the court that using an archaic seventeenth-century grammatical construction (where modern English would have “I do not mean to…” or “I do not wish to”).
Because I am not present to take part in [my own appeal], I feel compelled to share.
As Judge Nencini said, if anyone wants to talk to a court, come to that court. Knox chose not to be present, which means that the word “because” is not a logical connector for why she feels compelled to share what she thinks. “Even though” would make more sense.
The Court has access to my previous declarations and I trust will review them…
The court has access to thousands of pages. Everybody trusts that courts will review the evidence before passing judgment - that’s how the legal process works.
I must repeat: I am innocent.
In fact, she does not have to repeat that, which is simply a reiteration of her not-guilty plea.
I am not present in the courtroom because I am afraid.
The wording is reminiscent of a previous declaration, “I am very afraid of Patrik, the African boy who…” Also the court may remember the presence of her co-defendant, who made a brief presentation to the court (and was invited to intervene again at any time he saw fit) and who afterwards flew back to his extended vacation in the Dominican Republic. It is difficult to see what the defendants have to be afraid of from the court - except perhaps the truth.
I am afraid that the prosecution’s vehemence will leave an impression on you, that their smoke and mirrors will blind you.
The prosecution’s case has already been made; this was the opportunity for the defense to make their case. It is the court’s duty to consider the evidence without being overly swayed by the vehemence of lawyers from either side - they look at the facts, and pass judgment based on that, and this happens in literally millions of cases every year. (Cassazione alone reviews more than 80 thousand cases each year.)
This is not for lack of faith in your powers of discernment, but because the prosecution has succeeded before in convincing a perfectly sound court of concerned and discerning adults to convict innocent people - Raffaele and me.
The second half of the sentence contradicts the first. The writer is explicitly stating that she doubts that the court has sufficient powers of discernment to be able to see through the prosecution’s arguments. Her justification for saying this is simply that it has happened before, with a previous court.
I’ve attentively followed this process and gleaned the following facts…
This is a delusional statement. The writer is the appellant, the initiator of the process, not an external observer to it. We can compare it with her statements following her arrest, in which she claimed still to be helping the police on an equal basis with them, despite being charged with the murder.
No physical evidence places me in Meredith’s bedroom, the scene of the crime…
The bedroom is where the murder took place, but the crime scene is much wider than that, and certainly encompasses the adjoining room where the burglary was faked, the bathroom where the killers cleaned up, and the corridor that connects those rooms. Knox’s blood, DNA, bare footprints are all found in those places. Within Meredith’s room itself, there is also a woman’s shoeprint that does not match the victim, and which Knox’s own lawyer was obliged to claim was caused by an unfortunate fold in the pillowcase.
Meredith’s murderer left ample evidence in the brutal scenario: handprints, footprints, shoe prints in Meredith’s blood, DNA in her purse, on her clothing, in her body.
The term “brutal scenario” makes no sense here, although she repeats it again a couple of lines later. Perhaps she means “crime scene” or “bedroom”. The only footprints found at the crime scene are those of Knox and Sollecito. A woman’s shoeprint in the room where the murder took place cannot be that of either Guede or the victim, and is most likely that of Knox.
The prosecution has failed to explain how I could have… been the one to fatally wound Meredith ““ without leaving any genetic trace of myself. That is because it is impossible.
Actually it is perfectly possible to do this ““ for example, simply by stabbing someone to death while wearing gloves. However, in this case the prosecution has in fact explained how several traces of Knox’s DNA have been found on the handle of the knife which had the victim’s DNA on the blade. That obviously fits a scenario in which Knox stabbed Meredith Kercher with that knife.
Either I was there, or I wasn’t.
The same thing applies to the appeal court. Either the defendants are there, or they are not. In this case, the defendant is not.
The analysis of the crime scene answers this question: I wasn’t there.
Knox’s footprints, blood and DNA, sometimes mixed with that of the victim, all place her at the crime scene, and so does her DNA on the handle of the murder weapon.
My interrogation was illegal and produced a false “confession” that demonstrated my non-knowledge of the crime.
“Non-knowledge” is a curious word. Knox’s witness interview was perfectly legal ““ it was only the unexpected confession from the witness that changed the status of that interview, so that its contents could no longer be used against her. But there is no question over its legality.
The subsequent memoriali, for which I was wrongfully found guilty of slander…
This is an extraordinary aside. The defendant is here rejecting the legitimacy of the Italian Supreme Court, which has definitively found against her, and is also rejecting the findings of the Hellmann court that provisionally freed her, pending appeal. Every single court has found against her on this count.
. ...did not further accuse but rather recanted that false “confession”.
Let us reread some excerpts from this supposed recantation: “After dinner I noticed there was blood on Raffaele’s hand… I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik… In these flashbacks I’m having, I see Patrik as the murderer…Why did I think of Patrik?... Is there any other evidence condemning Patrik or any other person?” This is not a recantation, and it does in fact contain further accusations of Patrick Lumumba while also seeking to throw suspicion both on Sollecito and an unnamed “other person”.
My behavior after the discovery of the murder indicates my innocence.
As dozens of witnesses have testified in a series of trials and appeals, Knox’s post-murder behavior indicated the exact opposite, which is why suspicion fell on her in the first place.
I did not flee Italy when I had the chance.
On page 71 of her memoir, Knox recounts the following exchange with Officer Ficarra, on the day after the murder was discovered: “My parents want me to go to Germany to stay with relatives for a couple of weeks. Is that okay?” She said, “You can’t leave Perugia. You’re an important part of the investigation.”
I stayed in Perugia and was at the police’s beck and call for over 50 hours in four days.
Chapter Ten of her memoir gives her own account of what she did on Monday, November 5th. She went to a nine o’clock grammar class, at which she refused to discuss the case with her fellow students; she spoke on the phone with her Aunt Dolly, admitting that she had not yet contacted the US embassy; she bumped into Patrick Lumumba where she refused to talk to BBC reporters; she spent the afternoon with Sollecito and then accompanied him to a friend’s house where she played the ukulele. Far from being at the police’s beck and call, she ignored their request that she stay home while they interview Sollecito separately, and turned up to the Questura regardless, although not before they had finished their evening meal.
The police coerced me into signing a false “confession””¦.
Her false accusation of Patrick Lumumba, for which she was convicted and has already served four years in prison, was not a confession and was not coerced.
. “¦one may be coerced into giving a false “confession” because of psychological torture”¦ This is a universal problem.
The US-based Innocence Project reports that there have been 244 exonerations since 2000, which is just over seventeen per year, which in turn means that currently in the USA, roughly 0.1% of cases are eventually overturned. Being wrongfully convicted might be devastating for the person concerned, but it is not a universal problem.
I did not carry around Raffaele’s kitchen knife.
The defendant has not been accused of carrying the knife around, but rather of stabbing Meredith Kercher to death with it. Forensic evidence supports that accusation, too.
I had no contact with Rudy Guede. Like many youth in Perugia, I had once crossed paths with Rudy Guede.
Very typical of Knox’s writing is this kind of self-contradiction, sometimes occurring within the same sentence, or as in this case, in consecutive sentences, seemingly with no self-awareness that any contradiction has even occurred.
If the prosecution truly had a case against me, there would be no need for these theatrics.
The prosecution is present in the court, having made its presentation in the usual way. The defense lawyers are about to do exactly the same thing. The only theatrics happening in the court at that moment is a bizarre email sent by one of the defendants, in lieu of attending her own appeal to her own murder conviction.
But because no evidence exists that proves my guilt, the prosecution would seek to deceive you with these impassioned, but completely inaccurate and unjustified pronouncements.
No further comments.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Appeal Session #7: The Day For Knox And Sollecito Attorneys To Show Where Prosecution Went Wrong
Posted by Our Main Posters
[Above and below: images from previous sessions, here till today’s crop appears]
Long Form Reports
The court hearing reserved for Knox’s appeal defense began with the reading of an email from Amanda, reported here in the Messaggero and then widely picked up in the English-language press, claiming her innocence and explaining why she was afraid to return to Italy. The email was the only “new” aspect introduced Tuesday so made all the headlines, but at the end of the day it occupied just a small fraction of the day’s arguments.
Several Italian court observers considered the email a considerable “own goal,” having witnessed the presiding judge raise his eyebrows in obvious annoyance at having to himself read aloud an email from Knox, who requested an appeal in his courtroom, but is refusing to attend it, for reasons she detailed. “Those who want to speak at the trial should come to the trial,” he said. He also declined to consider the letter a spontaneous declaration because, he said, he could not ascertain if she was the true author of the letter. “I’ve never seen her. I do not know her,” he said.
After the email, Knox’s Perugian lawyer Luciano Ghirga made his closing arguments, followed by Carlo Dalla Vedova of Rome. Most of the discussion focused on two aspects of the case they felt are fundamentally lacking: motive and murder weapon. Below are short quotes/snippets translated quickly during court. To read the Kercher family lawyer’s arguments, scroll down to yesterday’s notes.
[Report continues on The Freelance Desk with good summaries of arguments made by Ghirga and Della Vedova]
3. Tweets from La Nazione
66. Meredith process , the hearing ends. The next hearing will be on January 9 [Sollecito team]
65. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : ” Amanda Knox is shown to have worshipped [Meredith]”
64. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “There is a shortage of proof”
63. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “There is no evidence, with doubts you have to acquit Amanda Knox”
62. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “On the motive the prosecutor did the same as the Costa Concordia at Giglio”
61. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “Room too small for the participation of more people in the crime”
60. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “The victim was attacked from the front, not from behind”
59. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “For Amanda and Raffaele, Rudy Guede was a stranger”
58. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “The bra clasp of Meredith is not a genuine artifact”
57. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “The bra clasp November 2nd was white, but 40 days after gray”
56. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “Amanda knew the cut was throat because she was told by a policeman “
55. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “Absurd that there are missing only traces of Amanda and Raffaele “
54.Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “The alleged footprint of female shoe on the pillow: pillowcase was folded over.”
53. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “The broken glass from the window shows the easiest way to enter the house “
52. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “War between consultants is like “The War of the Roses” where everyone will hate “
51. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “Unable for Amanda and Raffaele to commit the crime in 50 minutes “
50. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “The mother of Meredith says she and Amanda were friends “
49. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “Guede never says that Amanda was in the house, even outside the interrogations”
48. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “Guede never talks about Amanda “
47.Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : ” Guede in his chats after the murder told a friend that Amanda had nothing to do with it”
46. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “There are traces only of Rudy Guede at the crime scene “
45. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “The witness Curatolo either is unreliable or is our alibi. Decide for yourself “
44. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “Do not trust the testimony of the witness Quintavalle “
43. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “Amanda did not call into question Lumumba to sidetrack the investigation “
42. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “The alibi of Amanda is of the same type as her roommates ”
41. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “The alibi of Amanda is accurate and unchanged in her deposition ”
40. Meredith appeal: the argument of Carlo Dalla Vedova, defender of Amanda Knox, resumes.
39. Meredith appeal: Judge orders one-hour lunch break
38. President Nencini asks if there are certificates for the AIDS tests done on Amanda, but there are none
37. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “It was said of Amanda in prison that she had AIDS, but it turned out an error ”
36. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “From the conversations in prison Amanda does not show anything, the sum of zeros ”
35. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “In 30 hours of interviews with parents in prison Amanda never was heard [incriminating herself]”
34. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “It was immediately admited, the mistake by the investigators”
33. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “The footprint of Guede on the pillow right now is the signature of the crime”
32. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “Lumumba was not to be charged, he confirmed his alibi”.
31. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “There has been judicial harassment against [my client]”
30. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “Prosecution and plaintiff leverage statements of Amanda unusable ”
29. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “The declarations of Amanda between 5 and 6 November are unusable ”
28. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “Absurd that Amanda is joining the attack on a friend ”
27. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “Changing motive is constantly an element of weakness of the prosecution ”
26. Lawyer Dalla Vedova: “Add up all the clues , the sum of zero is always zero ”
25. Lawyer Dalla Vedova: “Without connections between clues and evidences the value is zero ”
24. Lawyer Dalla Vedova: “In this process there is no evidence ”
23. Lawyer Dalla Vedova: “A murder without a motive is fallacious ”
22. Lawyer Dalla Vedova: “Absurd that the knife used for the murder was brought home ”
21. Lawyer Dalla Vedova: “Imaginative reconstruction of the prosecution ”
20. Lawyer Dalla Vedova: “This story has been in the headlines for months ”
19. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “Meredith killed in this manner is a defeat for all ”
18. The closing argument of Lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova begins (Knox defense).
17. Meredith appeal: the closing argument of the Lawyer Ghirga (Knox ) ends.
16. Lawyer Ghirga (Knox ) : “Amanda Knox was not present at the crime scene ”
15. Lawyer Ghirga (Knox ): “The judgment of Justice is the acquittal of Amanda
14. Lawyer Ghirga (Knox ): “The witness Curatolo is unreliable ”
13. Lawyer Ghirga (Knox ): “We challenged from the outset the murder weapon ”
12. Lawyer Ghirga (Knox ): “On the blade of the knife there is no blood and no trace of Meredith.”
11. Lawyer Ghirga (Knox ): “The expertise that revealed traces of Meredith on the knife is not trusted “
10. Lawyer Ghirga (Knox ): “The knife found at Sollecito’s house is not the murder weapon “
9. The closing argument of Luciano Ghirga defender Amanda Knox begins.
8. Amanda to the court: ” I am innocent , put an end to this enormous injustice ”
7. Amanda : “I’m not the monster he has been portrayed in recent years ”
6. Amanda: ” I did not know Rudy Guede ”
5. Amanda: “I’m not a killer , the prosecution and the civil parties are wrong , they want a conviction without proof ”
4. Amanda: ” Meredith and I have always been friends , we never quarreled ”
3. Amanda: “I have been subjected to illegal interrogation , I made a false confession extorted”
2. Amanda: “I have not killed , raped , robbed , I was not at the scene of the crime”
1. The email of Amanda : “I’m innocent , but I am not in court because I’m afraid”
2. Tweets from Freelance Andrea Vogt
3. Carlo dalla Vedova to #amandaknox appeal jury: If there is no murder motive, you must acquit.
2. Carlo dalla Vedova: We know #amandaknox is innocent. As time passes we’re even more tranquil.There are many more doubts than certainties.
1. In Florence, amanda knox lawyer holds up large knife to jury: “Starch was on the knife. It was not cleaned. It was in domestic use.”
1. Email from Amanda Knox
Court of Appeals of Florence section II Assise Proc. Pen, 11113
Letter sent to attorneys Carlo Dalla Vedova and Luciano Ghirga via email Seattle, 15 December 2013
Attn: Honorable Court of Appeals of Florence
I have no doubt that my lawyers have explained and demonstrated the important facts of this case that prove my innocence and discredit the unjustified accusations of the prosecution and civil parties. I seek not to supplant their work; rather, because I am not present to take part in this current phase of the judicial process, I feel compelled to share my own perspective as a six—year-long defendant and victim of injustice.
The Court has access to my previous declarations and I trust will review them before coming to a verdict. I must repeat: I am innocent.
I am not a murderer. I am not a rapist. I am not a thief or a plotter or an instigator. I did not kill Meredith or take part in her murder or have any prior or special knowledge of what occurred that night. I was not there and had nothing to do with it.
I am not present in the courtroom because I am afraid. I am afraid that the prosecution’s vehemence will leave an impression on you, that their smoke and mirrors will blind you. I’m afraid of the universal problem of wrongful conviction. This is not for lack of faith in your powers of discernment, but because the prosecution has succeeded before in convincing a perfectly sound court of concerned and discerning adults to convict innocent people-Rafael and me.
My life being on the line and having with others already suffered too much, I’ve attentively followed this process and gleaned the following facts that have emerged from the development of this case that I beg you not to dismiss when making your judgment:
No physical evidence places me in Meredith ‘s bedroom, the scene of the crime, because I was not there and didn’t take part in the crime.
Meredith’s murderer left ample evidence of his presence in the brutal scenario: handprints, footprints, shoe prints in Meredith’s blood; DNA in her purse, on her clothing, in her body.
No evidence places me in the same brutal scenario. The prosecution has failed to explain how I could have participated in the aggression and murder—to have been the one to fatally wound Meredith—without leaving any genetic trace of myself. That is because it is impossible. It is impossible to identify and destroy all genetic traces of myself in a crime
scene and retain all genetic traces of another individual. Either I was there, or I wasn’t. The analysis of the crime scene answers this question: I wasn’t there.
My interrogation was illegal and produced a false “confession” that demonstrated my non-knowledge of the crime- The subsequent memoriali, for which I was wrongfully found guilty of slander, did not further accuse but rather recanted that false “confession.” Just as I testified to the prosecutor in prison and to my family members in prison when our conversations were being recorded without my knowledge.
My behavior after the discovery of the murder indicates my innocence. I did not flee Italy when I had the chance. I stayed in Perugia and was at the police’s beck and call for over 50hours in four days, convinced that I could help them find the murderer. I never thought or imagined that they would have used my openness and trust to fuel their suspicions. I did not hide myself or my feelings: when I needed comfort, Rafael embraced me; when I was sad and scared, I cried; when I was angry, I swore and made insensitive remarks; when I was shocked, I paced or sat in silence; when I was trying to help, I answered questions, consoled Meredith’s friends and tried to keep a positive attitude.
Upon entering the questura I had no understanding of my legal position. Twenty—years old and alone in a foreign country, I was innocent and never expected to be suspected and subjugated to torture. I was interrogated as a suspect, but told I was a witness. I was questioned for a prolonged period in the middle of the night and in Italian, a language I barely knew. I was denied legal counsel- The Court of Cassation deemed the interrogation and the statements produced from it illegal. I was lied to, yelled at, threatened, slapped twice on the back of the head. I was told I had witnessed the murder and was suffering from amnesia. I was told that if I didn’t succeed in remembering what happened to Meredith that night I would never see my family again. I was browbeaten into confusion and despair. When you berate, intimidate, lie to, threaten, confuse, and coerce someone in believing they are wrong, you are not going to find the truth.
The police coerced me into signing a false “confession” that was without sense and should never have been considered a legitimate investigative lead. In this fragmentary and confused statement the police identified Patrick Lumumba as the murderer because we had exchanged text messages, the meaning of which the police wrongfully interpreted (‘Civediamo piu tardi. Buona serata’). The statement lacked a clear sequence of events, corroboration with any physical evidence, and fundamental information like: how and why the murder took place, if anyone else was present or involved, what happened afterward—it supplied partial, contradictory information and as the investigators would discover a little later, when Patrick Lumumba’s defense lawyer produced proof of him incontestable alibi, it was obviously inaccurate and unreliable. I simply didn’t know what they were demanding me to know. After over 50 hours of questioning over four days, I was mentally exhausted and I was confused.
This coerced and illegitimate statement was used by the police to arrest and detain a clearly innocent man with an iron-clad alibi with whom I had a friendly professional relationship. This coerced and illegitimate statement was used to convict me of slander. The prosecution and civil parties would have you believe that this coerced and illegitimate statement is proof of my involvement in the murder. They are accusing and blaming me, a result of their own overreaching.
Experience, case studies, and the law recognize that one may be coerced into giving a false"confession” because of torture.
This is a universal problem. According to the National Registry of Exoneration, in the United States 78% of wrongful murder convictions that are eventually overturned because of exonerating forensic evidence involved false “confessions.” Almost 8 in 10 wrongfully convicted persons were coerced by police into implicating themselves and others in murder. I am not alone. And exonerating forensic evidence is often as simple as no trace of the wrongfully convicted person at the scene of the crime, but rather the genetic and forensic traces of a different guilty party—just like every piece of forensic evidence identifies not me, but Rudy Guide.
In the brief time Meredith and I were roommates and friends we never fought.
Meredith was my friend. She was kind to me, helpful, generous, fun. She never criticized me. She never gave me so much as a dirty look.
But the prosecution claims that a rift was created between Meredith and I because of cleanliness. This is a distortion of the facts. Please refer to the testimonies of my housemaster and Meredith’s British friends. None of them ever witnessed or heard about Meredith and I fighting, arguing, disliking each other. None of them ever claimed Meredith was a confrontational clean-freak, or I a confrontational slob. Laura Masotho testified that both Meredith and I only occasionally cleaned, whereas she and Filomena Romanelli were more concerned with cleanliness. Meredith’s British friends testified that Meredith had once told them that she felt a little uncomfortable about finding the right words to kindly talk tome, her new roommate, about cleanliness in the bathroom we shared. The prosecution would have you believe this is motivation for murder. But this is a terrifying distortion of the facts.
I did not carry around Rafael’s kitchen knife.This claim by the prosecution, crucial to their theory, is uncorroborated by any physical evidence or witness testimony. I didn’t fear the streets of Perugia and didn’t need to carry around with me a large, cumbersome weapon which would have ripped my cloth book bag to shreds. My book bag showed no signs of having carried a bloody weapon. The claim that he would have insisted I carry a large chef’s knife is not just senseless, but a disturbing indication of how willing the prosecution is to defy objectivity and reason in order to sustain a mistaken and disproven theory.
It is yet another piece of invented “evidence”, another circumstance of theory fabricated to order, because having discovered nothing else, the prosecution could only invent.
I had no Contact with Rudy Guide.
Like many youth in Perugia, I had once crossed paths with Rudy Guide. He played basketball with the young men who lived in the apartment below us. Meredith and I had been introduced to him together. Perhaps I had seen him amongst the swarms of students
who crowded the Perugian streets and pubs in the evenings, but that was it. We didn’t have each other’s phone number, we didn’t meet in private, we weren’t acquaintances. I never bought drugs from Rudy Guide or anyone else. The phone records show no connection. There are no witnesses who place us together. The prosecution claims I convinced Rudy Guide to commit rape and murder, completely ignoring the fact that we didn’t even speak the same language. Once again, the prosecution is relying upon a disturbing and unacceptable pattern of distortion of the objective evidence.
I am not a psychopath.
There is no short list to the malicious and unfounded slanders I have suffered over the course of this legal process. In trial I have been called no less than:
“Conniving; manipulating; man—eater; narcissist; enchantress; duplicitous; adulterer; drug addict; an explosive mix of drugs, sex, and alcohol; dirty; witch; murderer; slanderer; demon; depraved; imposter; promiscuous; succubus; evil; dead inside; pervert; dissolute; a wolf in sheep’s clothing; rapist; thief; reeking of sex; Judas; she-devil;
I have never demonstrated anti-social, aggressive, violent, or behavior. I am not addicted to sex or drugs. Upon my arrest I was tested for drugs and the results were negative. I am not a split-personality One does not adopt behavior spontaneously.
This is a fantasy. This is uncorroborated by any objective evidence or testimony. The prosecution and civil parties created and pursued this character assassination because they have nothing else to show you. They have neither proof, nor logic, nor the facts on their side. They only have their slanders against me, their personal opinions about me. They want you to think I’m a monster because it is easy to condemn a monster. It is easy to dismiss a monster’s defense as deception. But the prosecution and civil parties are both severely mistaken and wrong. They have condemned me without proof of guilt, and they seek to convince you to condemn me without proof of guilt.
If the prosecution truly had a case against me, there would be no need for these theatrics. There would be no need for smoke and mirrors to distract you from the lack of physical evidence against me. But because no evidence exists that proves my guilt, the prosecution would seek to deceive you with these impassioned, but completely inaccurate and unjustified pronouncements. Because I am not a murderer, they would seek to mislead you into convicting me by charging your emotions, by painting me not as an innocent until proven guilty, but as a monster.
The prosecution and civil parties are committing injustices against me because they cannot bring themselves to admit, even to themselves, that they’ve made a terrible mistake.
The Court has seen that the prosecution and civil parties will not hear criticism of their mistakes. Not by the experts of the defense, nor by the experts of the Court.
The Court has seen that the prosecution jumped to conclusions at the very start of their investigation: they interrogated and arrested innocent people and claimed “Case Closed"before any evidence could be analyzed, before bothering to check alibis.
The prosecutor and investigators were under tremendous pressure to solve the mystery of what happened to Meredith as soon as possible. The local and International media was breathing down the necks of these detectives. Their reputations and careers were to be made or broken. In their haste, they made mistakes. Under pressure, they admitted to as few mistakes as possible and committed themselves to a theory founded upon mistakes.
Had they not jumped to conclusions based on nothing but their personal and highly subjective feeling, they would have discovered definitive and undeniable evidence of not Patrick Lumumba, not Rafael Sollecito, not Amanda Knox, but of Rudy Guide. We would not be here over six years later debating inconclusive and unreliable “clues.” We would have been spared the cost, anguish and suffering, not only of Raffaele’s and my family, but especially of Meredith’s family as well.
The prosecution’s accusations are unworthy of judicial or public confidence. In over six years they have failed to provide a consistent, evidence-driven, corroborated theory of the crime, but would nevertheless argue that you should take my life away. I beg you to see the facts and reason of what I say. I am innocent. Rafael is innocent. Meredith and her family deserve the truth. Please put an end to this great and prolonged injustice.
in faith,
Amanda Marie Knox