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: John Douglas
Monday, October 28, 2013
Some Hard Truths Sollecito PR Puppet Sharlene Martin Omits In Her Misleading Invite To The Congress
Posted by Our Main Posters
Dear Sharlene Martin:
Please dont say we didnt warn you before. In this notice of a Congressional “briefing” (read: paid highly misleading PR) you once again gloss over a number of hard truths.
You might well be advised to head to higher ground. The US Congress and the Administration will soon be left in no doubt about the correct facts of the case against Sollecito and Knox, as Italian law enforcement start to reach out to their counterparts in the FBI, and as they charge mischief-makers with obstruction of justice in the case, and as more and more reporters in the US and UK media wisen up.
Against your client, this was always a very strong case. And this alone has your client cooked. Here are some other corrections and correct background to the false claims you have just made.
- 1) Senator Cantwell was already burned by associating too closely with your radioactive group. She spoke out daffily for Amanda Knox several years ago - and then, duly warned, she went quiet again. Ask her congressional staff for the story to that. And read our past heads-ups for Senator Maria Cantwell here and here.
2) Your client Raffaele Sollecito wrote the most defamatory and misleading book about an Italian case in many years. Key claims have been repudiated by his own father on Italian TV. As his case is ongoing Sollecito is meant to fight it in the (very fair) Italian courts, not poison public opinion to lean on those courts. Sollecito is being considered for charges of obstruction of justice for the book and much else in the media, and you and the publishers may be charged too.
3) This is NOT a third trial. It is a re-run of a first appeal. If the very well-run and highly decisive Massei trial of 2009 had been run in the US or UK it is hard to see what grounds if any, any appeal judge would accept for appeal. Your client would be near the end of his sixth year in prison. And it is known that the Hellmann Appeal and the DNA consultancy were both bent by Sollecito’s and Knox’s own teams (corrective measures have been taken with more to come) so the 6-year process is essentially your own team’s fault.
4) John Douglas’s highly self-serving chapters on the case are among the silliest ever written in a crowded field. The very vain Douglas starts with the totally false premise that Knox was forced to confess after many many hours, and from there on out it is all downhill. He takes a faux position essentially identical to that of Saul Kassin. Read about Kassin’s own spurious and highly self-serving take on Knox’s “forced confession” here and here and here.
5) Steve Moore lacks the correct expertise to analyse this case and he was never the ace crime scene investigator you claim. A dozen or more posts here show how unreliable and rambling he is. Among other things he appeared on a disastrous panel (with a team almost identical to yours - and an audience that peaked at 35) at Seattle University a couple of years ago. Read what two very astute lawyers thought of his man-in-a-bubble performance here and here.
6) The hapless Michael Heavey was officially reprimanded for his bizarre intervention in the case. He was also on the disaster of a panel at Seattle University. He has got the basic facts wrong again and again and again. Here he is getting the facts wrong five years ago. Here is his association with Frank Sforza, a key mis-stater of the key facts of the case and serial defamer of the Italian officials involved, who he was financially supporting - and who now faces three separate trials of his own.
7) And the hapless John Q Kelly? This is a tough field in which to come out ahead but John Q was perhaps the silliest talking head for Knox and Sollecito on TV. He babbled on in the media about a railroading that never took place. Read how even his own colleagues considered him to have been duped here and here.
A Congressional briefing panel that is not made in heaven, that is for sure. Stay tuned. There is more to come.
Monday, September 30, 2013
Appeal Session #1 (A) Judges And Lay Judges Address The Biz Of Procedures And Enquiry Scope
Posted by Our Main Posters
Reporters Andrea Vogt and Barbie Nadeau are live-tweeting from court and our main poster Mason2 is periodically reporting
Update #10
Finally for now a commentary on Mason2’s interview with Dr Mignini in the Update #9 just below and how he saw the attack happening.
That as we understand it has always been his humane bedrock position on why the attack on Meredith happened and became so vicious. A hazing with sexual humiliation that at the end of 15 minutes resulted in someone (probably Knox as the other two so clearly resent her) pushing in the knife.
Dr Mignini seems to believe one or other came so close to their confessing something like the above, in exchange for a manslaughter or limited responsibility charge. It is something Meredith’s family might have understood, not the rabid hatred of Meredith explanation that they so feared.
But then early in 2008 the families and lawyers and wannabees started their demonizing of Dr Mignini and falsely claiming that he had called the attack “satanic” which he never did. Not once. Five years after Guede’s trial in late 2008, where they too could have gone for the short form trial and reduced sentences, here we all still are.
Millions of dollars and hundreds of defamed people and some soured international relations later. And the perps maybe looking at a total of 30 years and other trials to come.
The “profiler” John Douglas in his wildly inaccurate but influential account wrongly used the term “satanic” a dozen times. Nina Burleigh in her silly book was another who babbled on about religion as a root cause of the prosecution.
But as Knox and Sollecito themselves have both written, the reason the attack was initiated was possibly quite simple. An argument over noise, or drugs in the house, or Meredith missing her rent money, or Meredith replacing Amanda at Le Chic.
Add to the mix drugs (maybe the deadly skunk marijuana), and/or mental illness, and/or group dynamics. And poor Meredith died. How right the prosecution at trial was.
Update #9
This is Mason2 reporting again from the courtroom.
First day over and the tweets tell it all. This new Judge Nencini is determined to keep things in check. The defence had a whole lot of requests this morning. Giulia Buongiorno has to impress Dr Sollecito to earn her fee to pay for her pant suit.
I did feel a bit sorry for him today, he looks a refined man and is a very polite person.
The new DNA found on the knife during the 1st Appeal will be tested, and the Court will hear from Aviello on Friday.
I will be there and with my own wi fi. Many journalists are not going to attend this friday and will probably wait until or if Raffaele arrives or just come for the finale.
Am very pleased to say i had the first interview with Patrick Lumbumba and his lawyer Carlo Pacelli. Patrick is sweet and has a gorgeous face and smile.
I shook his hand and said, Patrick i wish you the very best, but i have only one question and it is DID AMANDA PAY YOU THE MONEY SHE WAS ORDERED TO PAY and he said no i did not receive a cent.
He was later interviewed by the media outside, and they asked, what would you say to Amanda right now, and he replied IF YOU ARE INNOCENT YOU WOULD GET ON A PLANE AND BE PRESENT HERE.
Then i saw my opportunity to speak to Dr Mignini the Prosecutor from the original trial in 2009. He was gracious enough to give me about 10 minutes of his time, and he was hoping for the testing of the new dna on the knife.
He is also convinced that these young people probably would never commit a crime like this on their own. Certainly Rudy and even Raff. But the combination of the drugs and the promise of sex with Amanda and a cocktail of drugs and alcohol…
In these circumstances, he believes people are capable of anything.
Speaking with Giulio Gori from Il Fiorentino, he wanted to know my opinion of guilty or not guilty, and i said you first, and he said he had doubts. He meant like many of the young ones here they wonder why they would do it.
Even Dr Mignini told me his 2 female assistants, who also worked on the Supreme Court matter and support him, privately have their doubts,
I will be back in Court on friday. Meanwhile i am going to act like a tourist and eat at Il Latini and look at the sights here.
Update #8
Court is back is session and Judge Nencini announces the scope of the appeal, with a proviso that he may add more items later.
Judge Nencini rejects most of what the defenses requested earlier, and there seems little to bring them comfort. He agrees to the prosecution’s requests to have Aviello testify again (see update #4; so that was not Dalla Vedova, who must surely not like this) and to re-examine the large knife.
Having Aviello testify again (already scheduled for this Friday) was probably unavoidable, as the cutting-off of his testimony by Judge Hellmann in 2011 was a real red flag to Cassation that something nefarious may have been going on. They sharply commented on it.
Remember Aviello was Sollecito’s witness intended to prove that the 2 or 3 accepted by Cassation as having committed the attack on Meredith were actually his missing brother and one other. After he was released from prison near Genoa he moved to Ferrara, where he is safely back in prison for killing a dog as an extortion threat.
The Knox and Sollecito teams sure set themselves a trap. They seem to have a real knack for not doing their due diligence. Bongiorno threatened to sue him for claiming bribes were offered by the Sollecitos, but never did. Oddly, Raffaele in his book said he sent Aviello an embroidered handkerchief. Seems doubtful that that would buy Aviello’s silence.
This is huge for the prosecution. On Friday we could see more proof emerge that in 2011 something nefarious WAS going on.
Update #7
So far no joy for the absent Amanda Knox. Judge Nencini at the start of the proceedings remarked in sharp language on her absence and that of Sollecito from the court. If he prefers them to be present (the presence of Sollecito is promised by his father for end-October) then arrest warrants could be issued.
Under the US and UK systems they would have been required to appear personally, and locked up again if they remained on the lam. Patrick Lumumba’s fiery lawyer protested their absence, arguing that this is a clear indicator of guilt.
Amanda Knox has yet another contempt of court problem. She is a deadbeat. She has not paid the E24,000 in damages awarded to Patrick and due since last March, when Cassation confirmed it. And yet she says publicly that she has been paying many other bills out of her blood-money.
Update #6
Lawyer TomM, a main poster here, makes a skeptical observation on PMF about a request from Sollecito lawyer Giulia Bongiorno.
Re “@BLNadeau: Back to bongiorno, rebuttal round.. Says she wants to take knife apart for further tests”. Is she nuts? There is no upside for the defense in this request; the possibilities range from finding nothing to finding a sufficient quantity of material to do multiple tests to both identify it as blood and have clear DNA profiles. In the latter case, I see no credible way of the defense explaining this as resulting from contamination.
Update #5
The judges and lay judges move into private session to decide on the requests made for scope.
Remember Italian lay judges must all have diplomas or degrees (one of these lay judges is in fact a judge by profession) and they will have read a great deal already, including the Micheli and Massei Reports and the recent report of the Supreme Court which annulled Hellmann (who is now also under investigation).
Through the lead judge they can ask questions and are expected to pursue lines of enquiry. As Alan Dershowitz and other American lawyers have noted, Italian juries leave in the dust many or most American juries.
Update #4
Showing how they are clutching at straws, a Knox lawyer today asked to hear more from witness Aviello. Really?! Aviello was the colorful mafioso witness that at the Hellmann appeal in 2011 claimed that the Sollecito family offered bribes to inmates in his prison for false testimony.
Aviello is already on trial for perjury in the same courthouse in Florence (busy place; Frank Sforza will go on trial there too) and Aviello could inflict real damage on the Sollecto lawyers, especially Bongiorno, if bribes are again asserted.
Maybe this signals the long-anticipated Knox-Sollecito separation. Sollecito before and at the 2009 trial undercut Knox in many small ways, and to try to stop this, Knox wrote him love-letters, and finally made a public appeal (denied) to talk privately with him.
Update #3
Barbie Nadeau reports that Judge Nencini is tough as nails on the lawyers, and has a deep baritone voice like a singer. You can see his image and a brief history in this post.
The foolishly dishonest and disrespectful Knox & Sollecito media campaigns seem to have assurred them one of the toughest judges and one of the toughest prosecutors in Italy. Both have special protected status, as they each conduct trials against the mafia.
And pouring gasoline on the bonfire, the tin-eared media campaigns have organized for wednesday in the US Congress this catastrophe. No wonder Amanda Knox is too chilled to appear in Florence, and Sollecito is sitting in a known mafia hideout in the Caribbean.
Update #2
Nothing seems encouraging here for the defenses. As the Supreme Court instructed, the appeal’s scope will be similar to that of a US or UK appeal. No fishing expedition, no CSI Effect. The only difference will be in the presence of lay judges, in effect a jury, of 6 women and 2 men.
Andrea Vogt reports that Prosecutor Crini is requesting that additional DNA testing be done on the large knife using newer, more sensitive instrumentation. The first test of that same sample by Dr Stefanoni showed a strong correlation with the DNA of Meredith. The DNA consultancy at the annulled Hellmann appeal which tried to discredit that is considered by the Supreme Court to have been deliberately flawed and today the prosecutor confirmed that.
Andrea Vogt also reports that Prosecutor Crini cautioned against re-hearing any evidence just because there are controversial interpretations of trial facts. He emphasized that the Supreme Court did not discredit any of the evidence, the Hellmann annullment happened because of poor jurisprudence and very flawed logic.
Update #1
The first report from the court by our main poster Mason2:
Hello, I am writing during the break as no wifi for my computer. I will fix this by end of the week.
The Court opened with the President reading the case overview. All the events of the night of the murder of Meredith, and then the reasoning of the Supreme Court.
The media is there, i spoke to the Fox news reporter and The Daily Telegraph London.
The most gracious and kind to me were the two reporters from Porta a Porta. Dr Vittoriana Abate and her colleague. I noticed her file was marked in very large letters in pink MEREDITH.
First a letter was read by Avv Maresca from the Kercher family.
The reading of the case file took a long time.
Who is present is Dr Sollecito who has said Raff will attend later probably 23 - 24 October dates. He is very polite to the media.
Patrick Lamumba and his lawyer Carlo Pacelli arrived about 11.30am and took their place behind Avv, Maresca for the Kercher family.
The arguments commence with Bongiorno in an extremely forceful and very strong voice at times almost shouting at the Judges her argument.
First point was the little bra clasp. She said she believed that the Supreme Court was mistaken and fell down on this point.
She asked for a fresh examination of the clasp as she says there is other dna on it and she spent a lot of time going over what she described as the failure of the Scientific Police to examine the crime scene and preserve it.
She spent a lot of time arguing about the 46 days it was lying in the room. It was not collected from its original place as photos proved. She is trying to create reasonable doubt.
Avv Maori also addressed the court.
Then spoke Avv Della Vedova who argued very strongly but not like Bongiorno i heard him start with the long long process and referred to poor Amanda. He was conveying what this process is doing to her.
He hopes and prays that this time she will be acquitted once again and that will be the end of it.
Ghiriga was speaking just before lunch break and reiterating their argument for Amanda to be found not guilty.
I counted 5 lady judges on the panel.
It was possible to tweet this morning @kgadalof
Dear Ms Bongiorno, the only reason it took 46 days was because Dr Stefanoni and her people were waiting for the defenses to arrange to come along. They delayed and delayed - and now you complain about her?!!
Dear Dr Dalla Vedova: the only reason the process is taking so long is because defense lawyers played dirty tricks to get the terrific Judge Chiari replaced by the incompetent Judge Hellmann who bent the annulled appeal.
First post today
We will have our own more detailed reports from the court later in the day. More images to come also.
First tweets from Andrea Vogt (read from the bottom up):
* #amandaknox trial suspended for 30 minutes, prosecution to make arguments at 13:15.
* #amandaknox atty CDV: That this trial could go on “infinitely” goes against constitutional rights. Can a person be on trial for life?
* Atty Maori: Sollecito defense wants forensic tests done on Kercher’s pillow and rock used to break window. #amandaknox
* Bongiorno: Crime scene conditions prohibited proper evidence gathering. Bra clasp should be thrown out. #amandaknox
* Atty Bongiorno for Sollecito defense: the reliable evidence points to Rudy Guede: “The assassin always leaves a trace.”
* Court rules Lumumba may stay and be a part of #amandaknox appeal trial.
* Patrick Lumumba speaking to press: #amandaknox should be here, but she is afraid, because she knows she has a responsibility.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Understanding Micheli #4: The Faked Crime Scene - Who Returned To Move Meredith?
Posted by Brian S
Here now is the full 2011 Micheli Report kindly translated by Catnip for the Wiki and TJMK.
1. Where We Stand
Just to recap. Judge Micheli presided over Rudy Guede’s trial and sentencing and the final hearing that committed Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox to trial.
Late January he made public the 106-page report that explains the thinking behind both actions. These posts are examining key areas of the report so that we too may decide on the rationales.
2. The Final Position Of The Body
Why this matters so much is that if the evidence holds firm, all by itself it will prove that there was a major rearrangement of the crime scene, to try to throw investigators off the trail.
This is as near to an 80,000 pound gorilla in the room as we are likely to see in this trial. And it may even be on the trial agenda for this coming Friday and Saturday.
Reports by the crime-scene investigators and Dr Lalli are summarised in Judge Micheli’s report. They describe the detail of the scene discovered in Meredith’s room. The investigators measured and photographed the position and state of everything, including blood, as it was in the room before anything was moved.
Amongst the items noted was a white bra. Some parts were soaked in blood, particularly the right shoulder strap and the outside of the left cup. They also noted that a portion of the backstrap with its clasp fixings was missing. Meredith herself was lying on her back midway between the wardrobe and the bed, without her jeans, a pillow under her buttocks and her top rolled up to reveal her chest.
Following this survey, Meredith’s body was then turned and moved by the investigators. This revealed the other items on which her body had lain. A tennis shoe, a white sheet from the bed and a blue zipped top, all with blood stains. Also a green bath towel and an ivory bath towel, both soaked in blood, and underneath the pillow was the missing clasp section of the bra back-strap.
Judge Micheli notes that Amanda’s defence claimed that “the small round spots of blood” apparent on Meredith’s chest indicated that she was not wearing her bra when she was killed. He agreed that it was likely that these spots fell from Meredith’s gasps for breath as she lay on her back after she had been stabbed. However, he could not agree with their conclusion that her bra had been removed before this time, as similar small round spots were also found on Meredith’s bra.
Micheli reasoned that this indicated that Meredith was still wearing her bra as she gasped for breath, but that her top was rolled up and the bra moved also. Thus indicating the sexual nature of the original attack, but also allowing the small round spots to fall on both chest and bra. Furthermore, other blood evidence involving the bra indicated that it wasn’t removed until some time after Meredith had died.
He said that Meredith’s bra was found by investigators away from other possible blood contamination on the floor, near to her feet. Photographs of Meredith’s body show clear white areas where the bra prevented blood from falling onto Merediths body. These white areas corresponded to those areas where blood was found on her bra. This was particularly true in the area of the right shoulder strap which was soaked from the wound to Meredith’s neck.
Micheli said that evidence showed that Meredith had lain on one shoulder near the wardrobe. She lay in that position long enough for the imprint of her shoulder and bra strap to remain fixed in the pool of blood after she was moved to the position in which her body was finally found. Photographs of blood on her shoulder matched the imprint by the wardrobe and her shoulder itself also showed signs that she had remained in that position for some time.
Based on all this, Judge Micheli concluded that there could be no doubt that Meredith’s body was moved away from the wardrobe and her bra removed quite some time after her death.
Neighbor Nara Capezzali had testified that people fled from the cottage within a minute of Meredith’s final scream. There was no time for any alteration of the crime scene in those very few moments.
Judge Micheli asks in his report, who could have returned later and faked the scene which was found? Who later moved Meredith’s body and cut off her bra? He reasons it could only be someone who had an interest in changing what would become a crime scene found at the cottage. Who else but someone who lived there, and who wanted to mislead the coming investigation?
It couldn’t have been Laura, she was in Rome. It couldn’t have been Filomena, she was staying with her boyfriend. It was very unlikely that it was Rudy Guede, all proofs of his presence were left untouched.
The culprits ran from the cottage in different directions and there is no reason to believe they met up again before some or one of them returned. Judge Micheli stated that, in his opinion, this just left Knox who would seem to have an interest in arranging the scene the police would find.
Bloody footprints made visible with luminol in Filomena’s room contain Meredith’s DNA. This indicated to Judge Micheli that the scene in Filomena’s room was also faked after Meredith was killed.
In Micheli’s opinion the scene in Meredith’s room was probably faked to point the finger at Rudy Guede. All evidence related to him was left untouched, and the pillow with a partial palm print was found under Meredith’s repositioned body.
But whoever later arranged that scene in Meredith’s room also unwittingly indicated their own presence at the original sexual assault. Who else could have known that by staging an obvious rape scene, they would inevitably point the investigators towards Rudy’s DNA which they knew could be found in Meredith?
Micheli asks: Seemingly, who else could it have been but Amanda Knox? And this in part is why she was committed to trial, for her defense to contend this evidence.