Headsup: Disney's Hulu - mafia tool?! First warning already sent to the Knox series production team about the hoaxes and mafia connections. The Daily Beast's badly duped Grace Harrington calls it "the true story of Knox’s wrongful conviction of the murder of her roommate". Harrington should google "rocco sollecito" for why Italians hesitate to talk freely.

Category: Trials 2008 & 2009

Thursday, October 29, 2009

Prediction: Guede’s Appeal Will Totally Fail - His Intentions Ugly And Likely To Anger

Posted by Peter Quennell

[click for larger image]

Rudy Guede opted for the fast-track trial in front of Judge Micheli last October. His side of things went approximately as follows at the time.

• Guede was legitimately at the house on the night to have consensual intimate relations with Meredith.
• He was on the toilet when a bizarre murderous intrusion took place that seemed to involve Sollecito and Knox

That was about it. Judge Micheli didn’t believe a word of it. In his 106-page report he described the voluminous evidence for this being a three-perpetrator crime. And he found it totally unlikely that Meredith would have had consensual relations with Guede that night.

Nothing at all known about Meredith’s intentions that night (she had an urgent assignment to complete) or her chaste moral behavior supports Guede’s claim, and his trashing of the poor victim seemed to anger Judge Micheli.

And so the judge handed Guede the maximum sentence available, thirty years, for murder and a sex crime, and wrote up the case against him in a pretty ironclad way.

Now Andrea Vogt is reporting from Perugia that in effect Rudy Guede will testify to the following at his appeal.

• Guede was legitimately at the house on the night to have consensual intimate relations with Meredith.
• He was on the toilet when a bizarre murderous intrusion took place that seemed to involve Sollecito and Knox

Huh? The ONLY way forward now in the opinion of our legal watchers which could get Guede years off his sentence is at this point to tell the truth.

Which seems to our legal watchers and us to be that Guede might have been somewhat accidentally there at the house, and might have been somehow roped in by the other two to a planned taunting and humiliation of Meredith.

That might have then led to her cruel death.

Truth and real penitence and great sorrow and sadness shown to the Kercher family, and a real respect for Meredith’s memory, might win him some points in his appeal.

But this above? If Guede proceeds with those intentions, his thirty years in the sex-offenders wing will be confirmed for sure, and he will face a lifetime of contempt. 

Grow a brain, Rudy. Try to do yourself some good. And maybe get yourself some new lawyers.

The quality of your legal advice seems atrocious.

Below: Guede’s lawyers Biscotti and Gentile with the Kerchers’ lawyer Maresca

Monday, October 12, 2009

Case For The Prosecution: #5 Defendants’ Claims Shown As Mass Of Contradictions

Posted by The Machine

[Above: Perugia’s central police station]

Preamble

This series is a summary of the prosecution’s case in about ten parts, with a commentary on matters of key significance.

The material has been reordered so that evidence presented at several points in the trial can be described in one post here. Sources used are the many published reports, some transcripts made of the testimony and the mobile phone records of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

The first four posts were on the DNA evidence, the luminol-enhanced footprint evidence, and Raffaele Sollecito’s and Amanda Knox’s various conflicting alibis.

Now we look at the many contradictory statements of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito brought out by the prosecution.

The prosecution showed that not only are they contradicted by one another. They are contradicted by telephone and computer records, by closed-circuit TV footage, and by the corroborated testimony of several witnesses.

One question that Judge Massei and Judge Cristiana and the six members of the jury will now be asking themselves is: if Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent and had nothing to hide, why did they lie so repeatedly?

Knox’s and Sollecito’s lawyers have had the unenviable task of trying to explain all their contradictions away.

Sollecito’s lawyers have argued that he lied out of confusion and fear. Knox’s lawyers have argued that she dramatically changed her version of events because she was hit and mistreated by the police on 5 November 2007.  Neither of these claims stood up to close scrutiny.

And the prosecution made it overwhelmingly apparent to the judges and the jury that Knox and Sollecito each lied deliberately and repeatedly to various people even before they were suspects and even before Knox was questioned on 5 November.

It was made intensely obvious that Knox and Sollecito’s versions of what they did on 1 November had very little in common with each other, especially in that part of the evening when they both claim they couldn’t remember very much because they were suffering from cannabis-induced amnesia.

There is no convincing scientific evidence that shows that cannabis can cause such dramatic amnesia. Skunk cannabis can cause extreme psychotic episodes and murders have occurred as a result. Long term use of cannabis can affect short-term memory and users might have difficulty recalling a telephone number. But wipe out whole chunks of an evening from anyone’s memory banks? The proof simply isn’t there.

1-A) The afternoon of 1 November 2007 according to Raffaele Sollecito

Sollecito told investigators that Knox and he had left the cottage on Via della Pergola at 6.00pm and that they went for a walk downtown. They passed through Piazza Grimana, Piazza Morlacchi and the main fountain in Corso Vannucci.

1-B) The afternoon of 1 November 2007 according to Amanda Knox

Knox told investigators it was an hour earlier at 5.00pm and that they went straight to Sollecito’s apartment.

2-A) The evening of 1 November 2007 according to Raffaele Sollecito

Raffaele Sollecito first claimed in an interview with Kate Mansey from the Sunday Mirror that he and Amanda Knox were at a friend’s party on the night of the murder.

Sollecito said that he downloaded and watched the film Amelie during the night. However, computer expert Mr Trotta said that the film had actually been watched at around 6.30 pm.

On 5 November Sollecito told police that Knox went to meet friends at Le Chic at around 9pm and that she didn’t return until about 1am:

“At 9pm I went home alone and Amanda said that she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends. We said goodbye. I went home, I rolled myself a spliff and made some dinner.”

Sollecito claimed that he had spoken to his father at 11pm. Phone records show that there was no telephone conversation at this time. Sollecito’s father had called him a couple of hours earlier at 8.40pm.

Sollecito claimed that he was alone and surfing the Internet from 11pm to 1am. No technical evidence of this was introduced. computer specialists have testified that his computer was not used for an eight-hour period on the night of Meredith’s murder

The Kercher’s lawyer, Franco Maresca, pointed out that credible witnesses had really shattered all of Sollecito’s alibi for the night of the murder.

2-B) The evening of 1 November according to Amanda Knox

Amanda Knox told the police that she hadn’t replied to Diya Lumumba’s text message. The police knew full well that this wasn’t true because they already had her mobile phone records that proved that she had texted him.

“After that [finding out she wasn’t required at Le Chic] I believe we relaxed in his room together, perhaps I checked my email.” But no internet activity at all was proven at Sollecito’s apartment beyond the early evening.

“One thing I do remember is that I took a shower with Raffaele and this might explain how we passed the time. In truth, I do not remember exactly what day it was, but I do remember that we had a shower and we washed ourselves for a long time. He cleaned my ears, he dried and combed my hair.”

But Sollecito made no mention of taking a shower with Amanda Knox on the night of the murder.

In Amanda Knox’s handwritten note to the police she claimed that she and Sollecito ate around 11.00pm:

“One of the things I am sure that definitely happened the night on which Meredith was murdered was that Raffaele and I ate fairly late, I think around 11 in the evening”

But Knox testified at the trial that she and Sollecito ate around 9.30pm.  “After we ate Raffaele washed the dishes but the pipes under his sink broke and water flooded the floor.”

3) The early hours of 2 November

Both Knox and Sollecito claim that they woke up late on 2 November. However, their mobile phone records show the mobiles were turned on at approximately 6.02am. Sollecito also used his computer at 5.32am. The Italian Supreme Court remarked that his night must have been “sleepless” to say the least.

4) The afternoon of 2 November

At 1208pm, Amanda Knox called Filomena and said she was worried about the front door being open and blood stains in the small bathroom. Knox claims that she made this call from Sollecito’s apartment.

However, in his prison diary, Raffaele describes the same conversation as taking place at the cottage.

Knox claimed that when she called Meredith’s Italian phone it “just kept ringing, no answer”.

Her mobile phone records show this call lasted just three seconds, and the call to the UK phone lasted just four seconds. (Meredith’s WeAnswer Call service, which prides itself on how quickly it answers its customers’ calls, boasts that their average speed-of-answer is 5.5 seconds. There were no messages left.)

At 12.34pm Amanda and Filomena again spoke on their phones. Filomena said, “We spoke to each other for the third time and she told me that the window in my room was broken and that my room was in a mess. At this point I asked her to call the police and she told me that she already had.”

The prosecution introduced records to show that Knox and Sollecito didn’t actually call the police until 12.51pm.

In her email to friends in Seattle on 4 November, Amanda Knox says she called Meredith’s phones after speaking to Filomena. Knox’s mobile phone records prove that this was untrue.

In the email, Amanda also claims that she called Filomena back three quarters of an hour later ““ after Raffaele finished calling the police at 12:55pm. But cellphone records show that Knox never ever called Filomena back at all.

Sollecito and Knox both claimed they had called the police before the postal police had turned up at the cottage and were waiting for them. Sollecito later admitted that this was not true, and that he had lied because he had believed Amanda Knox’s version of what had happened.

He said he went outside “to see if I could climb up to Meredith’s window” but could not. “I tried to force the door but couldn’t, and at that point I decided to call my sister for advice because she is a Carabinieri officer. She told me to dial 112 (the Italian emergency number) but at that moment the postal police arrived.

He added: “In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.” (The Times, 7 November, 2007).

The CCTV cameras in the car park record the arrival of the postal police at 12.25pm which corroborates Sollecito’s admission that he had spoken rubbish.

Knox’s email to friends in Seattle describes the decision to call the police as something implemented by herself and Sollecito, after she had tried to see through Meredith’s window, and after Raffaele had tried to break down Meredith’s door.

Knox’s mobile phone records show that she called her mother at 12:47pm, but she makes no mention of this call in her email. (This call was very extensively analysed by fellow poster Finn MacCool and he showed a fascinating progression in both Amanda’s and her mother’s recollection of that call.) 

Edda Mellas claims that she told Amanda to hang up and call the police ““ but Amanda made no mention of this advice from her mother in describing their decision to call the police.

Amanda Knox testified that she couldn’t even remember phoning her mother, which will be very difficult for the court to believe. Phoning her mother when it is well after midnight in Seattle to tell her mother that she thought somebody had broken into her home and that her housemate was missing seems an unlikely thing to forget.

Amanda Knox told the postal police that Meredith always kept her door locked. Filomena strongly disagreed with her, and told the postal police the opposite was true.

The prosecution also made it obvious to the court that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, like Rudy Guede, changed their stories to fit new facts as they became known:

When Sollecito was confronted with the mobile phone records on 5 November, he immediately admitted that they hadn’t called 112 before the postal police arrived.

After initially denying it, Knox readily admitted that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed when she found out that Sollecito had stopped providing her with an alibi.

Despite this changing of their stories to take into account the latest known facts, Knox’s and Sollecito’s versions still contained numerous contradictions. Sollecito’s final alibi contains several apparent lies, and Amanda Knox accused Diya Lumumba of killing Meredith while making no mention of Rudy Guede. 

In Conclusion

The reasons Amanda Knox’s and Raffaele Sollecito’s lawyers have given for them lying - namely false memories, confusion and fear ““ seem very unlikely to fly with the court.

Repeated evidence was introduced to show that Meredith’s other flatmates and friends all behaved radically differently, and told what were obvious truths that matched up repeatedly and resulted in not a single major contradiction. All were checked out in this careful fashion and then allowed to go on their way.

Only the defendants’ claims failed to coincide or match with everything else.

Again, and again, and again.

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Trial: Further Expert Examinations Denied: The Report From Andrea Vogt

Posted by Peter Quennell

Excerpts from the report of Andrea Vogt (above) in the Seattle P-I.

An Italian jury rejected Amanda Knox’s multiple requests for an independent review of contested evidence Friday, bringing the end in sight to the Seattle student’s contentious murder trial….

Lawyers for Knox and Sollecito, asked the court to approve an independent review of several contested pieces of forensic evidence, most notably the kitchen knife with Knox’s DNA on the handle and what prosecutor’s argue is the Kercher’s on the blade, and a bra clasp with Sollecito’s DNA.

Knox’s lawyers also asked for a review of the luminol-enhanced footprints, the mark on the pillowcase that the prosecution argued was a woman’s shoeprint, but which the defense argues is simply a bloody crease, and several other traces of DNA found in the flat Knox and Kercher shared….

The Kercher family’s attorney, Francesco Maresca of Florence, argued, however, that the court already had plenty of material to review. “We all know that in all trials of this nature there are different analyses of forensic evidence made by the various expert witnesses,” he said. “The court must now consider the seriousness and integrity of the experts’ testimony.”

Prosecutor Manuela Comodi went a step farther, saying while she did not believe a review was necessary, she would she would “almost be pleased” to see the results with regard to the prosecution’s footprint expert analysis.

The eight-member jury, which includes two professional judges, flatly rejected all defense requests at 9:30 p.m. after deliberating just under two hours.

Immediately after the judge’s announcement, Sollecito bowed his head and briefly wept, as lawyers began haggling over court dates for closing arguments.

Knox glanced worriedly at her lawyers, who patted her on the back and insisted confidently after the hearing that the outcome was not unexpected, nor necessarily negative for their client…

“This doesn’t change anything,” said Knox’s Perugian attorney, Luciano Ghirga. “We wanted to clarify the evidence, but obviously the judge doesn’t feel he needs additional information. We are ready to argue.”

The judge was careful to note that the jury’s decision did not indicate a presumption of guilt and left open the possibility that the court could call for additional review of evidence after closing arguments and before a verdict.

Nonetheless many court observers expressed surprise at the fact that the jury chose to not review even a single element of the controversial forensic evidence. For Knox, however, the complete rejection of a third-party review could have a silver lining—effectively positioning her better for an eventual appeal.

Our legal watchers doubt the validity of that last remark - that somehow the judges and the jury have messed up here, and that this is a get-out-of-jail-free card for Knox’s and Sollecito’s appeals.

They note that Italy has a “smart jury” system which is encouraged to take a very broad birds-eye view of the case. The multi-alibis testimony and the mobile-phone testimony and the eye-witness testimony and the various mixed-blood traces and the various bloody footprints are considered almost impossible to account for if the defendants are in fact not guilty. The DNA on the knife and the bra-clasp are not make-or-break issues in this case and never were.

The sleeper in this trial of course as in the Rudy Guede trial is the huge and very detailed report that the judges must prepare and release within three months of their verdict. The astounding level of profesionalism of those reports - unique in the law world - leaves American lawyers in real awe.  In the case of Guede, the report by Judge Micheli was absolutely damning.

If the verdict here also is guilty, those unconvinced by that report will probably all fit neatly into one Volkswagen.

Trial: Further Expert Examinations Denied - The Report From Nick Pisa

Posted by Peter Quennell

Excerpts from Nick Pisa’s report in the UK’s Daily Mail.

A judge last night rejected defence requests for an independent review of evidence in the Meredith Kercher murder case.

The decision means that a verdict in the trial will come by early December as an independent review could have taken up to a month delaying the decision….

Yesterday lawyers for Knox and Sollecito argued that the review should be held because of errors in the police investigation and the way evidence was collected.

Key to the case is a 30cm black handled kitchen knife on which DNA from Knox was found on the handle and that of Meredith on the blade.

Prosecutors say the knife, which was found in the kitchen of Sollecito’s flat, is compatible with the murder weapon - which has never been found.

Knox’s lawyer Carlo Della Vedova said that too many discrepancies had emerged in the examination of the knife by forensic scientists….

Sollecito’s lawyers had also asked for a review of a bloodied bra clasp found at the scene which had his DNA on it.

They pointed out that the clasp had been found during an initial police search in one point and then ‘lost’ for six weeks before being found else where in the room….

Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini had argued that: ‘There is no need for a review as the evidence was gathered in a very professional way by qualified persons.’

In his ruling judge Massei said: ‘The court has heard from several consultants who have brought several elements and which rule out the need for any further proof.’...

As the judge read out his decision Knox, who earlier had been laughing and joking with guards, closed her eyes and looked upwards.

Sollecito rubbed his eyes and was in tears as the decision would seem to indicate the court has already made up its mind over their guilt.

Friday, October 09, 2009

Trial: The Agenda For Today’s Evidence Hearing In The Court

Posted by Peter Quennell

Click above for La Nazione’s report in Italian. The translation, with thanks to PMF’s Tiziano

[Today’s] sitting of the trial of RS and AK for the murder of MK before the Court of the Assizes of Perugia , the examination of the witnesses having been completed, will be dedicated to final investigative requests which will be presented by the parties.

This sitting is being prepared for by the prosecution and the defence with the greatest discretion.

However it is taken as given that the lawyers for the accused will ask for an impartial expert report on the DNA traces at the centre of the investigation. The court will begin to examine these requests tomorrow from 3.30 PM. The time to arrive at a verdict will then depend upon the decision, which could arrive on Saturday. The trial could lengthen if in fact expert reports or eventual other witnesses should be be permitted. If this is not so, however, the final phase with closing arguments and addresses will ensue.

The defences for Sollecito and Knox have already announced that they intend to ask for an expert report on the DNA traces found on the bra clasp of the victim, attributed to the young man from Puglia, and on the traces on the blade of the knife, considered to be the weapon used in the crime, which belong to the American and to MK. The lawyers have in fact challenged the means by which the items were collected and the way that they were analysed, advancing the hypothesis of accidental contamination.

Thus [today] a formal request for the expert report should be made, but the possibility of a surprise request is not ruled out. On the other hand, it does not appear that the PMs Manuela Comodi and Giuliano Mignini will be making any particular requests. They have spoken of a “solid prosecution picture” emerging from the witnesses. The lawyers for the civil complainants, the Kercher family, Francesco Maresca and Serena Perna, seem to be following the same line, having highlighted the “quality” of the work done by the investigators.

The court’s decision should be announced tomorrow Saturday.  It can of course turn these requests for more tests down. If that happens, we would see the closing arguments (summations) from the prosecution and defenses and a verdict all happening in the next several weeks.

With the court only in session from mid-afternoon today, we guess if there is any report it will be a late one. The report tomorrow will be the biggie.

Thursday, October 08, 2009

Newsweek’s Barbie Nadeau Has A Really Vital Piece On How The Evidence Stacks Up

Posted by Peter Quennell

And,  in short, it is ominous.

Click above for the full report. This really IS vital reading. A few key excerpts as follows.

Evidence: Rudy Guede

Who it hurts: Knox and Sollecito

Rudy Guede is the 24-year-old Ivory Coast native convicted in a fast-track trial last October for his role in Kercher’s murder. He is serving a 30-year sentence (his appeal begins on Nov. 19). Guede, who refused to testify in the Knox trial, has admitted that he was in the house when Kercher was killed. He says Kercher invited him there and that the two were making out when a stomach cramp from a bad kebab sent him to the bathroom. He was on the toilet with his iPod headphones on through four songs and, when he came out, Kercher was dying. He says he tried to save Kercher by using a towel to sop up the blood on her neck wounds, but he was scared after a man he says looked like Sollecito told him that “they’ll pin this on the black guy.” Guede fled to Germany, where he was later arrested for skipping a train fare. His feces (found in a toilet), along with his DNA and fingerprints from Kercher’s bedroom, link him to the crime scene. The sentencing judge who convicted him, though, did not see him as a lone assailant. Instead, the judge wrote in his sentencing report that he believed Guede acted with Knox and Sollecito.

Evidence: Murder dynamic

Who it hurts: Knox and Sollecito

One of the most complicated aspects of Kercher’s tragic death is how the murder itself played out. The prosecution believes that Knox, Sollecito, and Guede taunted Kercher in a sex game that quickly escalated to violence and ended in murder. Countless forensic experts, including those who performed the autopsies on Kercher’s body, have testified that more than one person killed her based on the size and location of her injuries and the fact that she didn’t fight back””no hair or skin was found under her fingernails. The defense has confused matters more: Knox’s forensic specialist testified that Kercher had been killed by only one person from the front, but Sollecito’s expert testified that Kercher had been killed by one person from behind.

Evidence: Knox’s confession

Who it hurts: Knox

On Nov. 5, 2007, Sollecito was called to the Perugia police station for questioning about Kercher’s murder. Knox testified last June that she did not want to be alone, so she accompanied him. During his interrogation, Sollecito admitted to police that he did not know for sure if Knox actually spent the night of the murder at his house, as she had told police earlier. Since Knox was at the police station, the head of the murder squad decided to ask her a few questions. Her interrogation started at about 11 p.m., and, by 5:45 a.m., Knox had told police that she was in the house when Kercher died””and that Patrick Lumumba, the owner of the nightclub where she worked, was the assailant. She even described Kercher’s screams. She, Sollecito, and Lumumba were arrested. The next day, Knox wrote a five-page memorandum reiterating everything she said the night before. But since there was no lawyer present during her interrogation””and so far no one has produced an audiotape of the interrogation””Knox’s attorneys were able to have her verbal confession thrown out of evidence. The five-page memorandum still holds….

Evidence: Conflicting alibis

Who it hurts: Unknown

Knox maintains that she spent the night of Nov. 1, 2007, at Sollecito’s house. Sollecito did not take the stand during this trial, and his lawyer told NEWSWEEK that it was, at least in part, because he could not corroborate Knox’s alibi….

So Sollecito did not take the stand in part because he could not corroborate Knox’s alibi. Wow. That has to hurt.

Very much more in Barbie Nadeau’s original piece.  We recommend that you read it all.

Saturday, September 26, 2009

Trial: Italian-Language Reporting Faster, More Objective Than Worsening Average English-Language

Posted by Peter Quennell

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

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

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

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

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

1) From TGCOM

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

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

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

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

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

2) From the Italian AP

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

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

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

Friday, September 25, 2009

Trial: Today And Tomorrow Are To Be The Final Two Days Of Defense Testimony

Posted by Peter Quennell

Click above for La Nazione’s story in Italian. In brief:

The court timetable for today and tomorrow provides for the testimony of the last four witnesses listed by the defense. They are to be another coroner, a neuropathologist, a geneticist, and a computer expert.

There will be court hearings on 2 and 3 October for more expert examination of the prosecution’s evidence. It is virtually certain at this stage that the defenses will ask for a new report on the traces of DNA on the knife considered as the possible murder weapon.

It should then be clearer when the verdict can be expected. It could be several months away, which pushes the date past the date (November 18) set for the start of Rudy Guede’s appeal.

A comment here. As we have observed several times previously, requests for more time for more examination of evidence is really a high-risk strategy by the defenses. If Guede decides to sing and actually tells the truth, all of that would get ported straight over to the Knox and Sollecito trial.

This is posted at mid-afternoon Perugia time and there is still no English-language report out for today and only two brief Italian-language reports. In the circumstances, we will have to wait a few hours, possibly though to tomorrow, to post a wrap-up report for today.

Added: The Associated Press now has this report out on the morning’s testimony.

The woman accused of murdering British student Meredith Kercher in Italy may have have been confused about what really happened because of stress, a doctor has told her trial.

American Amanda Knox gave conflicting statements to police in the wake of 21-year-old Miss Kercher’s death in Perugia, Italy. Neurologist Carlo Caltagirone was giving evidence on behalf of Knox, who is on trial with her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito….

Dr Caltagirone told the court that Knox was under stress after long police questioning, which might have led to her confusion. “To be questioned for long hours in a foreign country without fully realising the situation one is in… can lead to a lot of stress,” he said.

Knox initially accused Diya Lumumba, a Congolese man who owns a pub in Perugia where she worked, of being the killer…. Knox, 22, of Seattle, Washington, has since maintained that she spent the night of the murder at Sollecito’s house.

Saturday, September 19, 2009

Trial: Defense Returns To Weapon While Most Of Prosecution Case Still Not Contended

Posted by Peter Quennell

Journalists were asked to leave the courtroom today during a weak repeat of the contention that the large knife was not THE weapon.

But the prosecution had already indicated months ago that they believed at least one other knife was involved.

Click above for Nick Squires on one report from the press room outside the court.

The black-handled knife, with a 6.5 inch long stainless steel blade, was shown for the first time to the court in Perugia where the 22-year-old American student and her Italian ex-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, 26, are accused of sexual assault and murder.

A court official brought out the knife in a shallow white cardboard box marked “Evidence ““ handle with care” and showed it to the judge and eight jurors.

Miss Knox, of Seattle, who was wearing blue jeans and a red sweatshirt with a Beatles design, appeared impassive as the purported murder weapon was shown during the testimony of a forensic expert, Prof Giancarlo Umani-Ronchi.

She looked away when police photographs of Miss Kercher’s bloodied body were projected onto a giant screen in the courtroom.

Mr Sollecito, in a white jacket and rimless glasses, bit his fingernails as the alleged use of the knife in the killing was discussed by experts and lawyers.

A forensic consultant, Mariano Cingolani, said that of the three wounds on Miss Kercher’s neck, at least one was not compatible with the size and dimensions of the knife.

“Many other knives in general are more compatible with that kind of wound,” said Prof Cingolani. The wound was too narrow to match the knife, he said.

He added, however, that no firm conclusion could be drawn without knowing the exact angle of Miss Kercher’s neck, or the elasticity of her muscle tissue…

The former lovers, who could be sentenced to life in prison if found guilty, looked tired and nervous.

So there is a question mark over the role of the large knife but again, nothing definitive. No defense attempt to prove that no other knife was used.

Meanwhile, whole other universes of very damning prosecution evidence against Sollecito and Knox remain uncontested, like a herd of elephants in the room.

For example the very damning mobile calls.  And also the highly confused alibis.

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

New York’s The Daily Beast Reports Knox’s Lawyers Preparing Her For A Guilty Verdict

Posted by Peter Quennell

[click above for a larger image]

Barbie Nadeau reports on the fallouts from yesterday.

On a mistrial for the withholding of some of the DNA evidence.

Denied their request for a mistrial due to mishandled evidence, Amanda Knox’s lawyers promise “bombshells” in the murder trial””but prep her for a guilty verdict….

The defense requested that the indictments against Knox and her co-defendant, Raffaele Sollecito, be thrown out””essentially asking for a mistrial…..  But the request proved futile.

After more than an hour of deliberation, the judge ruled that the trial should go on as scheduled, dealing a crushing blow to the defendants. Even though the defense’s gambit was a legal long shot, the lawyers hoped that, at very least, it might have triggered a mistrial….

Although the defense’s request was denied, they risked nothing by making the request. In fact, the judge’s denial could set the stage for an appeal if the two are convicted. In Italy, an appeal is an automatic part of criminal trials.

And on the down-to-the-wire situation triggered by Guede’s appeal dates.

Rudy Guede, who was convicted for his part in Kercher’s murder, is appealing his guilty verdict, and the race is on now to finish the Knox trial before his appeal begins November 18.

Because his appeal is pending, Guede chose not to testify in this trial, but anything he says at his own appeal hearing can be considered as evidence in the Knox-Sollecito case””and Guede has indicated several times that he was in the house when Kercher died but that he did not kill her.

He has said through his lawyer that Knox and Sollecito were also there that night.

Guede has several times hinted that in his appeal that he will finally tell all. Presumably a self-serving version, but we suspect any confession might be much-hoped-for by Meredith’s family and her Perugia friends.

We have heard conjecture that Guede offered to tell it like it really was at the present trial of Knox and Sollecito but the prosecutors rejected a deal. Perhaps feeling that his proffered version then did not add very much to what they felt was an already-strong case. And seeing no reason why Guede should not serve his full 30 years.

If Rudy Guede does now finally tell all, we sure hope that he does know the meaning of “all”.