![](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.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Raffaele Sollecito… Trapped, In His Own Words
Posted by The Machine
When the prosecutors present the forensic evidence, the defence lawyers will do their level best to try and muddy the waters, by claiming that much of the damning forensic evidence is due to contamination.
Well, good luck with that one. There is a FAR greater danger for them lurking…
We have already described in among other places here and here how Amanda Knox has boxed herself in with her own words.
Raffaele Sollecito has done precisely the same. Sollecito has also said things that are demonstrably untrue, and they now seriously haunt him and his team.
There is no question that Raffaele Sollecito has deliberately and repeatedly lied. He even himself admitted that he told the police “un sacco di cazzate” (a load of rubbish), and the judges at the Italian Supreme Court noted that he had lied and was reluctant to cooperate.
False claim one. 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.
It would have been obviously a tad difficult for Sollecito to find any witnesses who had attended an imaginary party to provide him and Knox with an alibi. This alibi was predictably abandoned very quickly.
False claim two. Sollecito then claimed that he was his apartment with Amanda Knox.
This alibi is flatly contradicted by a silent witness: forensic evidence. According to the scientific police, there are six separate pieces of forensic evidence, including an abundant amount of his DNA on Meredith’s bra clasp, that place him in the cottage on Via della Pergola on the night of the murder.
False claim three. Sollecito then came up with a third alibi. He claimed that he was alone at his apartment and that Knox had gone out from 9pm to 1am.
Phone records and computer records dont support him being at home at that time. Nor does the eye-witness who claims to have seen him in the park. Nor do the forensics in the house.
Both Sollecito and Knox gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they doing on the night of the murder. These weren’t small inconsistencies but huge whopping lies.
False claims four and five. Sollecito and Knox told the postal police that he had called the police before the postal police had turned up at the cottage and were waiting for them.
Sollecito himself 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).
False claim six. Knox and Sollecito said they couldn’t remember most of what happened on the night of the murder, because they had smoked cannabis.
It is medically impossible for cannabis to cause such dramatic amnesia and there are no studies that have ever demonstrated that this is possible.
Long term use of cannabis may affect short-term memory, which means that users might have difficulty recalling a telephone number. But it won’t wipe out whole chunks of an evening from their memory banks.
False claim seven. 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.
False claim eight. Sollecito claimed that he was surfing the Internet from 11pm to 1am.
The Kercher’s lawyer, Franco Maresca, pointed out that credible witnesses had shattered Sollecito’s alibi for the night of the murder. Sollecito still maintained he was home that night, working on his computer.
But computer specialists have testified that his computer was not used for an eight-hour period on the night of Meredith’s murder
False claim nine. Sollecito claimed that he had slept until 10pm the next day.
However, he used his computer at 5.32am and turned on his mobile phone at 6.02am. The Italian Supreme Court remarked that his night was “sleepless” to say the least.
False claim ten. When Sollecito heard that the scientific police had found Meredith’s DNA on the double DNA knife in his apartment, he told a cock and bull story about accidentally pricking Meredith’s hand whilst cooking at his apartment.
“The fact that Meredith’s DNA is on my kitchen knife is because once, when we were all cooking together, I accidentally pricked her hand.’‘
But Meredith had never ever been to Sollecito’s apartment. Sollecito could not have accidentally pricked her hand whilst cooking.
It’s highly telling that Sollecito wasn’t surprised that the forensic police had found Meredith’s DNA on the double DNA knife in his apartment. He obviously knew Meredith’s DNA was on the blade, which is why he made up the cock and bull story.
He was attempting to explain the presence of Meredith’s DNA on the blade, but in doing so, he further incriminated himself and Amanda Knox.
Manuela Comodi, the deputy prosecutor, explained during the hearings that the prosecution had not called either Knox or Sollecito as witnesses “because there is no point. Every time they were questioned during the pre-trial investigation they lied or tried to derail the inquiry.”
Judge Paolo Micheli, who presided over Rudy Guede’s fast-track trial and sent Knox and Sollecito to trial, didn’t believe many of their claims. He noted that they had given multiple alibis and had lied in attempt to cover for each other.
Sollecito’s lawyers claim that he lied out of confusion and fear. However, Sollecito lied from the very first time he spoke to the police long before he and Knox were suspects. His lies cannot be attributed to confusion and fear.
Like Amanda, he has boxed himself in.
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Trial: Another Objective Report From ABC News
Posted by Peter Quennell
[Images above and below: the lay judges and lawyers tour the crime scene]
Rome-based Ann Wise reports.
1) More on the issue of the second knife.
With journalists unable to attend the hearing, information on what Dr. Bacci said in court today came from lawyers as they emerged from the courthouse and, as always, interpretations differed.
Francesco Maresca, who represents the family of Meredith Kercher, is a firm believer in the prosecution’s theory that the murder was the result of a sex game gone wrong between all three defendants—Knox, Sollecito and Guede. He told journalists outside the courthouse that Dr. Bacci told the court that whoever attacked Kercher first tried to strangle her, and then stabbed her in the throat, possibly with two different knives.
Bacci said that the knife the prosecutors believe is the murder weapon is compatible with the largest and deepest cut in Kercher’s throat but is not compatible with another, smaller wound. This is the first time a witness for the prosecution has mentioned the possibility that more than one knife might have been used…
Maresca also told reporters that according to Dr. Bacci “injuries suggest” that Kercher had probably participated in a nonconsensual sexual act before she died.
Luca Maori, one of Sollecito’s lawyers, told journalists that based on Dr. Bacci’s conclusions, the knife prosecutors believe is the murder weapon is “only abstractly compatible” with the wounds found.
2) And more on the visit by the judges, jury and lawyers to the house - sadly, extremely disarrayed, it seems..
The afternoon was the occasion for the court in its entirety—minus the two defendants, who chose not to attend—to visit the scene of the crime. A small crowd, comprised of the two judges, six jurors and their substitutes, the prosecutors and a bevy of lawyers, gathered outside the charming cottage-with-a-view on the edge of old-town Perugia. On the road just above, another crowd of journalists and photographers and some hangers-on watched as policemen activated a generator (the electricity in the house has been cut off) and opened the door to the house.
“The court looked closely at the inside and the outside of the house,” [Prosecutor] Comodi said. The court spent a good amount of time in the room where the murder took place and discussed the position of the corpse. Carlo Dalla Vedova, a lawyer for Amanda Knox, told reporters the house “was a mess, and it was important that the jurors see this. Amanda’s clothes were thrown all over the place.”
There have been many press reports of bad forensic work and bad handling of the scene of the crime on the part of investigators, and this is expected to be an important part of the case the defense will make. The house where the crime took place has also been subjected to two break-ins in recent months, adding to the sorry state of the premises. The house is in “terrible condition,” Bongiorno said. “The mess made by the searches was compounded by the two beak-ins.”
Trial: The Lone Wolf Theory Takes Yet ANOTHER Huge Hit
Posted by Peter Quennell
Judge Micheli devoted many pages to eliminating the possibility that just one perpetrator (a lone wolf) could have carried out such a violent and prolonged crime.
He based his analysis both on the overwhelming signs from the autopsy of a group struggle and the overwhelming signs of a clean-up, which he concluded only Knox would have had a motive for.
The independent consultant, Mauro Bacci, has now testified at trial that there were attempts to strangle Meredith, and that TWO knives were used in the attack on her. The large knife found at Sollecito’s house with DNA on it is compatible with the final, irrevocable blow.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Our Best Shot At Making Amanda Knox’s Timeline Alibi Mesh With 4 November Email
Posted by FinnMacCool
1. Circumstance Of The Knox Email
Amanda Knox’s first encounters with police and other witnesses the day after go to the very heart of her credibility.
On Sunday 4 November 2007 Amanda Knox wrote an email to a student welfare officer at the University of Washington in Seattle.
Knox related what she said had happened at the house on Friday the 2nd before the communication police arrived to establish why Meredith’s two mobile phones were tossed into a garden a kilometer away.
This email was written while Amanda was alone and under no pressure.
Copies went to various relatives and friends. For many of her supporters, it represents the essential truth of what happened, before Amanda was interrogated by the police and began changing her story.
This analysis covers the period from noon to a quarter past one on the Friday, the day that Meredith Kercher’s murder was discovered.
It compares the claims in the email with cellphone records for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for the period.
2. Contents Of The Email
According to the email, Amanda and Raffaele were initially at Raffaele’s apartment at noon on November 2nd.
The email describes how Amanda spoke with Filomena Romanelli and then tried to reach Meredith Kercher by phone.
It then explains that Amanda and Raffaele returned to the cottage, where they found evidence of a break-in, alongside some bloodstains which Amanda had already noticed.
They also observed that Meredith’s door was locked. After they tried and failed to break down this door, they phoned the police.
After that, Amanda claims she called Filomena once again, who said she would return to the cottage.
Problem: cellphone records do not support this story, and nor do the police.
Two police officers arrived at the cottage to investigate Meredith’s two phones, which had been found in a neighbor’s garden. The police claim they arrived at 12:25, and video evidence appears to support this.
Amanda and Raffaele dispute the video evidence. They claim that the police arrived much later, after the call to the emergency services which Raffaele made at 12:55.
Below, we look first at the scenario described by Amanda, followed by the scenario described by the police, with a view to determining what really happened in that crucial hour between noon and one.
3. First scenario: Knox a/c essentially true, police a/c essentially inaccurate
If we assume that the police are basically incorrect, and that Amanda Knox’s email is basically correct, in their respective rememberings of what happened on November 2 between noon and 1315, that leaves us with several puzzling questions. Here are some of them:
1. Where was Amanda at 1208?
At 1208, Amanda calls Filomena. Amanda claims that she made this call from Raffaele’s house.
However, in his prison diary, Raffaele describes the same conversation as taking place at the cottage.
Filomena says that Amanda explained, in that conversation, that she was at the cottage, and was on her way to fetch Raffaele.
2. Why didn’t Amanda call Raffaele?
Even though Amanda claims to have walked alone to the cottage, and to have been concerned enough about the bloodstains to want to bring Raffaele to have a look at them, she never attempted to phone Raffaele at all during the whole of that morning.
3. Why did Amanda stop calling Meredith’s phones?
Amanda first tried calling Meredith’s Italian phone at 12:07. At 12:08 she calls Filomena, who advises her to try Meredith’s phones. She doesn’t tell Filomena that she tried the UK phone just a minute ago (nor does she mention this in her email).
In the email, Amanda says she called Meredith’s phones after speaking to Filomena ““ cellphone records support this claim. But she also says that the Italian phone “just kept ringing, no answer”.
Her cellphone records show this call lasted just three seconds, and the call to the UK phone lasted just four seconds. (The 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.)
Next, Amanda claims that she returns to the cottage with Raffaele.
But why doesn’t she try Meredith’s phones again? If the Italian phone was going to continually ring again ““ even for just three seconds ““ she’d now be able to hear it through the bedroom door (assuming Meredith had it with her).
But this doesn’t seem to have occurred to either Amanda or Raffaele.
4. Why didn’t Amanda call Filomena back?
In the 12:08 call, Amanda told Filomena she would try Meredith’s phones and then call her back.
In the email, Amanda claims that she called Filomena back three quarters of an hour later ““ after Raffaele’s finished calling the police at 12:55.
But cellphone records show that Amanda never called Filomena back at all.
On the other hand, Filomena DOES call Amanda back ““ at 12:12 and 12:20. It’s not clear whether Filomena receives an answer to these calls, or simply leaves a message ““ certainly, Amanda’s email makes no mention of having received these calls.
Then Filomena tries a third time, at 12:34, which is when Amanda tells her that Filomena’s own room has been broken into.
5. Why doesn’t Amanda mention that she called her mother in Seattle?
Her cellphone records also show that Amanda called her mother at 12:47 ““ but she makes no mention of this call in her email.
Edda Mellas claims that she told Amanda to hang up and call the police ““ but Amanda makes no mention of this advice in describing their decision to call the police.
The email describes the decision to call the police as something between herself and Raffaele, after she had tried to see through Meredith’s window, and after Raffaele had tried to break down Meredith’s door.
But in the ten minutes before Raffaele calls his sister (an officer in the carabinieri), Raffaele has received a call from his father (at 12:40:03) and Amanda has made a call to her mother (at 12:47:23) ““ neither of which calls is mentioned in the email.
Raffaele’s sister gives him the same advice that Edda Mellas gave Amanda: hang up and call the cops.
6. How can the tour of the cottage and the arrivals of first Marco and Luca, and then of Filomena and Paola, all take place between 12:55 and 13:00?
Raffaele makes the successful emergency call (lasting nearly a minute) at 12:54:39.
Meredith’s UK phone is activated at Police HQ at 13:00 ““ as part of a conversation which the postal police at the cottage are having about that phone with staff at HQ.
This conversation mentions Filomena’s arrival, and the information she’s given them about it being a UK phone.
This means that we need to fit the following activities into those five minutes, if Amanda’s email is to be believed:
- The postal police arrive later than 12:55
- Amanda and Raffaele give them a tour of the cottage, including the suspected break-in and the bloodstains in the bathroom
- Amanda writes down Meredith’s phone numbers for them, on a post-it note which Luca Altieri notices on the kitchen table when he arrives
- Marco and Luca arrive (and they see the post-it note) and have a conversation with the police about the ownership of the phones
- A few minutes later, Filomena and Paola Grande arrive. Filomena explains to the police about Meredith’s phones (one lent by Filomena, and the other a UK phone)
- The postal police make contact with their HQ
- During this call, Meredith’s phone is activated (at 13:00)
In addition, at some point, Paola sees Raffaele and Amanda emerging from Amanda’s bedroom ““ but it’s not clear whether this happened before or after 13:00. It could have been after.
But even if we move this emergence from the bedroom to after 1300, there simply isn’t enough time for all those other activities to take place in a period of less than five minutes.
4. Second scenario: police a/c basically accurate, Amanda Knox a/cs essentially untrue
Let us take the opposite scenario, and assume that the police are basically correct, and that Amanda Knox’s email is basically incorrect.
This then provides us with answers to those puzzles above, and also fills in some of the gaps that were otherwise missing from the timeline.
We also find that this new timeline is supported by evidence from other witnesses.
1. Where was Amanda at 12:08?
Amanda was at the cottage, and so was Raffaele.
Amanda was not telling the truth when she said she was going to fetch Raffaele ““ since Raffaele was in the room with her when she made the call.
This matches with the versions of both Filomena and Raffaele, who both believed that the call was made from the cottage.
2. Why didn’t Amanda call Raffaele?
Amanda never called Raffaele that morning because they were with each other the whole time ““ just as they continued to be with each other every moment until their arrest (except when separated for interrogations).
3. Why did Amanda stop calling Meredith’s phones?
Amanda called from the cottage in the first place, so there is no longer a question of why she called Meredith only from Raffaele’s apartment.
Also, she allowed the phone to ring only for three or four seconds because she knew that Meredith would not (and could not) pick up ““ she knew Meredith was dead.
The purpose of making these calls was simply for them to appear on her own cellphone record, to help construct an attempted alibi.
4. Why didn’t Amanda call Filomena back?
This question can be answered if we accept the hypothesis that Amanda’s intention was for Meredith’s body to be discovered by Filomena and/or Filomena’s friends.
When the police found the couple outside the property “waiting”, they were really waiting for the one living person that they had called that morning ““ Filomena.
Amanda ignores the calls at 12:12 and 12:20 because she wants Filomena to arrive at the cottage and to be the one who makes the “discoveries” of the break-in, and the locked bedroom.
So that when Filomena arrived at the cottage, Amanda and Raffaele (at the front of the house) could have said, “Oh, we decided to wait for you. Let’s go in together.”
However, Amanda answers Filomena’s 12:34 call because the police are already at the cottage and have already discovered the alleged break-in.
So now Amanda needs Filomena to arrive as quickly as possible ““ and at this point she tells Filomena about the break-in and the locked door.
Unfortunately for Amanda, however, Filomena decides to call Marco and get himself and Luca to go there first ““ knowing that they will be able to reach the cottage much more quickly.
Amanda tries to delay the breaking open of the room by telling the police, and by telling Luca, that it’s normal for Meredith to lock her own door.
She does this because, when it comes to the breaking down of the door, they want the others to be the first ones on the scene - and we can see that when the door is broken down for real, Amanda and Raffaele withdraw to the kitchen.
Unfortunately for Amanda, however, she can’t resist boasting later to Meredith’s English friends that she herself was the first on the scene.
5. Why doesn’t Amanda mention that she called her mother in Seattle?
Amanda’s email is essentially fictional.
The police arrived around 12:30, which is when they said, and this is corroborated by the CCTV evidence from the car park (timed at 12:25).
So the police have been in the cottage for about a quarter of an hour when Amanda calls her mother.
Amanda is first called away from the police to answer Filomena’s 12:34 call, just as Raffaele is called away a few minutes later to answer a call from his father at 12:40.
However, it is not until the arrival of Marco and Luca that they are able to escape to the privacy of Amanda’s bedroom, where they make the phone calls first to Amanda’s mother, then to Raffaele’s sister, and then the two calls to the police.
Notice that Edda and Raffaele’s sister both give the same advice: Hang up and call the police. And that’s exactly what they do, in fact.
However, in trying to create a fictional backdrop for making the emergency calls, Amanda forgets that she’s already called her mother.
Now she tries to explain that she and Raffaele called the police because of their panic over the locked room ““ panic which seems not to exist when Amanda is telling Luca that Meredith usually locks her door.
(Notice that in this version, we don’t need to believe that nobody can understand what Amanda says.)
After making these calls, Amanda and Raffaele emerge from the bedroom, as described by Paola Grande.
Paola’s memory of arriving at the cottage just before one is supported by the activation of Meredith’s cellphone at 1300.
6. How can the tour of the cottage and the arrivals of first Marco and Luca, and then of Filomena and Paola, all take place between 12:55 and 13:00?
It doesn’t. The tour of the cottage takes a more realistic fifteen minutes (roughly 12:30 to 12:45).
The police spend ten minutes talking to Luca and Marco about the phones, and about the suspected break-in, and so on (roughly 12:46 to 12:55), while they await the arrival of Filomena and Paola.
The girls arrive shortly before one, as the girls said, and as the phone records support, and explain the situation of the phones to the police (roughly 12:56 to 13:00).
There follows another fifteen minute examination of the house, culminating in the breaking down of the door by Luca Altieri at 13:15.
5. The Bottom Line
This second version may or may not be accurate, but at least it is supported by external evidence, not contradicted by it.
It is easy to see why Judge Micheli’s report found that the cellphone records do not support Raffaele Sollecito’s claim to have called the flying squad before the postal police arrived.
It is also easy to see why these timings undermine other stories told by the two defendants ““ such as Amanda’s December 2007 claim that she thought the postal police were in fact the police that Raffaele had just called.
Such a claim is absurd, given that Battistelli contacts HQ with a status report less than five minutes after Raffaele’s 112 call was made.
The bottom line is that this does not look promising for Amanda Knox.
Tuesday, April 07, 2009
Trial: Judges And Jury To Visit House On The 17th - What Can We Expect? EDIT
Posted by Arnold_Layne
Having seen and heard the autopsy evidence, the judges and jury will now see the actual crime scene. What might we expect from this?
I think this will have an emotional and lasting impact on them. Until now, everything has been pictures and talk. Seeing the actual site of the brutal murder right after the autopsy information will cement the enormity of the crime in their minds.
For one thing, they will most likely try to reconstruct the crime in their minds. When might Meredith have eaten mushrooms? With whom? What was the sequence of events in the attack? What was visible from the park? Where did the sexual assault take place? The torturous stabbing? The final thrust to the neck?
The defense will also have to present images that are more consistent with what the jurors have actually seen. It will be much more difficult for them to create a fuzzy mental picture of someone breaking in when they have actually seen the window.
A question still for me is where the actual attack took place.
We know it ended in the bedroom. But why did Knox and Sollecito seemingly spend the entire night cleaning up the common areas? And if Guede was voluntarily with Mez, why did he not use the bathroom adjacent to her room? Why was there so little DNA evidence in Meredith’s room after such an epic struggle?
When the jurors leave this murder scene, they will be very different people. This crime will be much more real to them, and rendering a verdict will no longer be just a civic duty.
When they next meet in court, I have to wonder what their impression will be of a smiling, carefree Amanda Knox.
Saturday, April 04, 2009
Trial: Witness Rudy Guede Appears On The Stand But Choses Not To Talk
Posted by Peter Quennell
[Ruede Guede at a hearing in September 2008]
Rudy Guede chose to remain silent in court today. The Associated Press reports:
Rudy Hermann Guede, from the Ivory Coast, took the stand in Perugia in the trial of US student Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito.
Under Italian law, he had the right not to answer as he has been convicted…
Escorted by prison guards, he appeared tense and did not look at Knox and Sollecito.
Guede has acknowledged being in Kercher’s apartment when she was attacked.
He said he tried to rescue her but got scared and fled.
There had been speculation for months that his lawyers were seeking some sort of a deal for Rudy Guede’s testimony at this trial. The stated grounds for his appeal seem weak and, although Prosecutor Mignini only asked for 25 years last October, in fact he was handed 30.
Guede attempted some poetry in prison and it was thought might be inclining to some repentance or remorse - something that for the sake of the Kercher family we would seriously like to see.
Brian posted on Judge Micheli’s very careful assessment of the evidence against Guede and the improbability of the lone wolf theory.
Judge Micheli started from what was found in Meredith’s room, settled on a minimalist motive, and concluded that this was a cruel and depraved murder that had definitely involved Rudy Guede and two others.
At this trial Guede really needed to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, or face the kind of slander charges that Amanda Knox has been attracting and a possible six further years in his cell.
He also needed to come out of it looking in some way better. So he passed.
Friday, April 03, 2009
Trial: Knox & Sollecito See Graphic Photos And Video Footage Of The Autopsy
Posted by Peter Quennell
Click above for a report by Richard Owen of The Times (may be behind paywall). This was the description of the defendants
Lawyers at the session, which was held in camera, said that Ms Knox, 21, Ms Kercher’s American flatmate, had refused to look at the footage, keeping her head down and at times burying it in her folded arms on the table in front of her.
Mr Sollecito, 25, Ms Knox’s former Italian boyfriend, occasionally glanced at the screen in the courtroom.
Many other media reports including Nick Pisa’s on Sky News [mostly scrolled away] described this also.
Trial: Andrea Vogt On Forensic Evidence In Closed Court, Knox Calunnia Against Lumumba
Posted by Peter Quennell
Court Session Overview
Andrea Vogt provides another fine report on the trial, on the Seattle PI website.
See below for her report late today on (1) the wound pattern, (2) Knox & Sollecito reactions to the images, (3) gleeful purchase of underwear, and (4) what Patrick Lumumba told the court of his experiences.
Lumumba was the one fingered by Knox as the perp, and it took two weeks to get that charge refuted. Knox is being prosecuted by the Republic of Italy, not by Lumumba, on a calunnia charge.
1. The Wound Pattern
The first hard forensic evidence to emerge in the Meredith Kercher murder trial—testimony of the coroner who autopsied the slain young Briton—was debated behind closed doors here Friday.
Lawyers emerged to say a forensic expert believes that more than one person may have attacked the British college student.
The decision to close the courtroom—prohibiting the public and press from both viewing video or hearing audio of the crucial testimony—came as a large international conference of journalism was being held just a few blocks away.
The Kercher family’s attorneys requested closure to protect the victim’s dignity, as jurors were shown gruesome photos of the autopsy examination….
Lawyers emerging from the closed session reported a pivotal moment toward the end of arguments when the presiding judge asked the then-coroner, Dr. Luca Lalli, if, after looking at all of the facts before him, he believed Kercher’s wounds were inflicted by more than one person.
He responded affirmatively.
Under cross-examination, defense attorneys asked if he could exclude the possibility that she was killed by a single attacker, and he said he could not.
“Looking comprehensively at all the elements, Dr. Lalli deduced, from a logical point of view, that there were multiple aggressors,” said Francescso Maresca, attorney for the Kerchers.
Specifically, Maresca said Lalli pointed to the nature of the multiple wounds afflicted—more than 23 to her cheeks, neck, legs and palms of her hands—consistent with strangulation, bruising and stab wounds.
Lawyers from both sides seized on parts of Lalli’s testimony that best reflected their case. The prosecution focused on Lalli’s statements that he believed there had been non-consensual sex. Defense attorneys pointed to Lalli’s inability to determine conclusively whether or not Kercher had been raped.
“There is not certainty that there was sexual violence, at least not biological traces to prove that, and a lone aggressor was not ruled out,” said Marco Brusco, attorney for Raffaele Sollecito, outside the courthouse.
2. Reactions Of Knox & Sollecito
Knox and Sollecito were both present during the coroner’s testimony, though Knox turned her head away from the photos and sometimes covered her face with her hands, while Sollecito occasionally looked up.
“She was upset and couldn’t look,” said Knox’s mother Edda Mellas, who spent the day in an adjacent witness waiting area getting occasional updates from English-speaking lawyer on the two-man defense team.
Mellas cannot speak about the case or be in the courtroom because she will be called later as a defense witness. She will return to her teaching job in Seattle on Monday. “I am always torn,” Mellas said. “I want to stay here with Amanda, but I have to go back to work.”
3. Gleeful Purchase Of Underwear
The court was re-opened to the press and public around 4 p.m. to hear the testimony of a Perugia shop-owner who witnessed Sollecito and Knox buy a g-string together in the days immediately after the killing and talk about “going home to have hot sex.”
4. Patrick Lumumba On Criminal False Accusation Of Crime
The last witness, Diya “Patrick” Lumumba, told jurors the harrowing tale of his false arrest in early morning hours as he was warming up milk for his infant son.
“They said ‘Police! Police! Open the door.’ They were agitated,” recalled Lumumba. “They took me in front of my son, handcuffed me and wouldn’t tell me anything, they just said ‘You know what you did.’ I was not beaten, but it was a hard situation.”
Lumumba said that he was later stripped of his clothes at a certain point and left nude facing a wall in police headquarters. The window was open, he said, and it was cold.
Lumumba was arrested after Knox pinned the blame on him during the all-night police interrogation that led to her arrest. He spent 14 days in jail before being cleared of any involvement in the crime. Knox now faces slander charges for falsely accusing him.
On the stand Friday, he told jurors that he and Knox had a good personal relationship, though she was not the best employee. He hired her for 5 euros an hour to work as a waitress, but eventually limited her role to handing out fliers and doing publicity.
The night of the killing he sent her a text message telling her she didn’t need to come to work, to which she replied in Italian, “We’ll see you later. Good night.”
Lumumba said the two did not have an appointment to see one another, but rather, he interpreted the message as the American salutation “see you later,” which can also mean"bye.”
After he was cleared, the pub’s business never picked back up, however, and his financial trouble worsened.
“Everything fell apart. When the pub was sequestered for three months. When it re-opened, well, who would go to a pub run by someone who had been arrested for murder? Of course they go somewhere else. I lost everything.”
Lumumba said the episode also re-awoke terrible childhood memories about the night his politically active father was kidnapped back in Congo (and never seen again). He wakes up in the night worrying about the safety of his toddler son, said Lumumba, who an Italian court recently awarded 8,000 euros for false imprisonment.
Trial: Agenda Is Closed Court For The Autopsy Report, And Maybe Testimony From Guede
Posted by Nicki
What We May Expect In Court
Part of the Friday court hearing will be closed for the autopsy evidence.
A just decision on the part of the Italian Court, and a due act of respect for Meredith and her grieving family.
The murderers didn’t “simply” stab her. She was sadistically tortured before she was left to die, in a locked-up room, without her mobile phones, and thus robbed of even the slightest chance to call for help.
The medical findings that I have actually been able to get through in Judge Micheli’s report (itself toned down from the autopsy report) are truly shocking.
Multiple bruises were found on the face and jaw-line - at least eight - in a clear attempt to muffle her screams. There were more bruises on her elbow and arm, all ranging from 1 to over 4 cm diameter (up to a bit less than two inches).
The genital area was also bruised, as well as her leg and her hip. Multiple bruises and scratches were found on her neck, plus four cuts on her hand. Someone DESPERATELY fighting not to be raped - and then for her life.
I can only pray that the medical examiner evidence on Friday will not reveal additional horrific details that we are not aware of from the Micheli report.
All of the above is very far from suggesting a “consensual” intercourse, as the Guede defence tries to claim.
And by the same logic, the medical findings unequivocally indicate that the murder was committed by multiple aggressors.
So, unless Rudy Guede is a four-armed God Vhisnu, and therefore able to silence Meredith’s screams with one hand, wave a knife to stab her neck with the other, and at the same time try to rape her, the logical conclusion is that the attack was carried out by more than one aggressor.
Perhaps the other attackers were not Mr Sollecito and Ms Knox, and if they are able to prove that in Court, good for them. But so far, there are two unassailable truths: Meredith had been savagely raped and killed, and Guede sure didn’t do it alone.
The smiling portion of the trial will probably be behind us now, after this demonstration of just how depraved Meredith’s death really was.
The court will be re-opened to the public when Carlo Maria Scotto di Rinaldi, who owns an underwear store where Knox was seen buying lingerie with Sollecito shortly after Meredith was killed, takes the stand.
Point is to describe even more of what was apparently a cold and uncaring demeanor on the part of the defendants.
Thursday, April 02, 2009
Sollecito Family Charges Likely For Callous Disrespecting By PR Of Meredith EDIT
Posted by Jools
[above: the Telenorba reporter who may soon be among those facing charges]
1. Alleged Crime In Summary
Raffaele Sollecito comes from Bari in south-east Italy.
Precisely one year ago, the local Bari TV station Telenorba did the almost unthinkable.
It broadcast some crime-scene video of Meredith. They showed her lying half-naked on her back on the floor, with the wounds to her throat clearly visible.
The footage was then picked up by the Italian state broadcaster, RAI, and it was rebroadcast a number of times. Still shots ended up in a number of newspapers. And a video of the broadcast ended up on YouTube where (as of this morning) it still remains.
All of which now appears likely to attract numerous criminal charges.
2. As Reported In London Times
Here is Richard Owen of the London Times describing the broadcast one year ago.
Relatives of Meredith Kercher, the British student murdered in Perugia in November, were said to be shocked and distressed last night after images of her bloodied corpse were broadcast on Italian television…
Telenorba, which showed the footage late at night, warned viewers that it was disturbing and suitable only for adults. It showed police scientists in white protective clothing pulling back the duvet to reveal Ms Kercher’s body and slashed throat, and turning the corpse over to examine her bloodied back.
Her eyes were covered by a mask. RAI did not include this part of the footage in its news broadcasts.
3. As Reported In Daily Mail
Here is the report in the Daily Mail also one year ago.
The Kerchers’ lawyer, Francesco Maresca, said: “This is an example of gross journalistic misconduct, which evidently violates all the rules of how to report a story….
Anna Maria Ferretti, the director of the leading Italian TV programme Antenna Sud, said: “For five minutes of television, the ultimate taboo has been broken without any shame.”
Italy’s Order of Journalists has asked for the video to be confiscated so that it is not shown again and a repeat of the programme that had been due to air on Tuesday night was cancelled…
Enzo Magistra, the editor of the programme, defended the show and insisted it had not meant to cause offence.
He said: “When I decided to transmit the images of Meredith’s corpse, I did not have the least intention of violating anyone’s dignity, but merely to do my job with respect to an important event.”
4. Findings Of Investigation
Sparked by a complaint from Mr Maresca for the Kerchers, the Perugia prosecutor initiated a one-year investigation.
And yesterday the outcome was announced. This is a translation of the report in La Nazione.
The prosecutor of Perugia has served notice of the completion of four investigations into Raffaele Sollecito’s family members and two journalists of the TV station Telenorba on the transmission of a forensic video in which the body of Meredith Kercher wa shown…
The report on the investigations (usually a prelude to a request for trial) indicates crimes were committed of defamation, invasion of privacy, publication of arbitrary acts of investigation and publication of gruesome acts.
According to the reconstruction by the Perugia prosecutor, the father and sister of Raphael Sollecito had legitimately obtained the scientific survey of the police, and had then illegally provided it to Telemundo.
The report also cites a journalist and the editor of Panorama for the publication of an article in which they reported that blood samples from Meredith had revealed an alcohol concentration above the legal norm - implying she was drunk when she was killed. This claim was proved a lie in the course of the forensic tests.
And this is a translation from the AGI news-service website.
Eight “notices of termination of the investigations” have been reported by the public prosecutor of Perugia… Four Sollecito family members, the TV journalist on Telenorba and the director of the station, are accused of the crimes of defamation, invasion of privacy, publication of documents during the investigation, and publication of gruesome acts….
According to the reconstruction, the Sollecito family members delivered to Telenorba the video and photos of the crime scene survey carried out by the forensic team on November 2 of 2007 in Meredith’s house. Telenorba then put the material on the air.
Other investigations are on-going.
5. Graphic Evidence On YouTube
The YouTube video of the Telenoirba broadcast as of this morning had had over 9,000 looks.
It is in an area for adults only, and it requires registration to get in.
Notwithstanding, these are typical of the angry comments in Italian that appear right under the video.
This video is a disgrace to every individual. There’s a girl who is no more, a family suffering for this, and now has to suffer public humiliation ... Let us never forget that the right to dignity and decency of the victims, especially if already dead.
*********
The video should be removed. The right to record is in conflict with the respect and devotion of the deceased. The publication of such images add nothing to the journalistic chronicle
6. Good Battling By Dr Maresca
Dr Maresca is in legal practice in Florence. He appears to us to have fought hard for the rights of Meredith and the Kerchers.
He put the case for a closed trial (which the Knox and Sollecito forces bitterly fought) and he won the court’s agreement that the most disturbing segments at least would be closed to the journalists and the public.
Here is the Times report on his battle then with the defendants’ families.
Mr Maresca said Italian law provided for trials in cases of sexual violence to be closed to the public, at the discretion of the judge. He said that showing graphic photographs and video footage of Ms Kercher’s body and the murder scene in open court could do injury to her memory.
Mr Maresca said that 280 journalists had been accredited for the pre-trial hearings, which were held in camera. This led to reporters and photographers trying to snatch pictures of the accused as they arrived and left the court, with defence lawyers and prosecutors besieged by the media outside the courtroom.
And to counteract the massive and pervasive spin being put on every development in the trial, Mr Maresca has been sharp and outspoken on what the growing body of evidence implies.
Other apparent attempts by the Sollecito family to interfere with the course of justice, as suggested in telephone intercepts, are still being investigated by the Perugia prosecutor. Mr Mignini is famous in Italy for fighting for victims’ rights to the maximum.
Mr Maresca is clearly doing a fine job in protecting Meredith’s dignity and the peace of mind of her poor family. And this throws a major shot across the bows of the families of the defendants, if they incline to further disparaging of Meredith.