Sunday, May 16, 2010

How Each of The Three Subtly But Surely Pushed The Other Two Closer to The Fire (Part 3 of 4)

Posted by Cesare Beccaria

My previous report on this appeared here.

During the first two months of 2008, the attorneys of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito begin to elaborate their theory of the sole killer that entered the house through the window, and then raped and killed Meredith.

It is interesting that these attorneys at first didn’t mention the name of Rudy Guede though the accusation was more or less explicit.

During his chat conversations from Germany Guede had already mentioned Raffaele’s involvement. When Giacomo asked him if that was Raffaele he had replied several times “I think so”. But as the two previous posts below show, thereafter he began to pull back.

By the time of his three-hour interrogation with the prosecutor on 26 March 2008 Rudy Guede apparently has had enough, and he is done with pulling back any longer. He now formally accuses Knox and Sollecito (“I saw Amanda and Raffaele that night”).

He now shows no doubts about identifying Raffaele Sollecito as the aggressor (“that guy with the knife was Raffaele”).

When asked by the interrogators why he responded “no” to the question of Giacomo as to whether Amanda “did it”, Guede states first that he was mainly concentrated on the male figure with the knife, and second his response to Giacomo’s questions was given in a hurry.

But Rudy did mention Amanda’s name in those previous conversations from Germany, indirectly implying her involvement. Amanda Knox was also mentioned extensively in his diary written at the end of November 2007, and he described her there in harsh words.

During his interrogation by the prosecutor, Guede now adds that he heard Amanda’s voice by the door, and then he saw her silhouette from Filomena’s window (“As Raffaele walked out I heard someone waiting for him outside. Now I can say that it was Amanda Knox”).

Judge Micheli in his January 2009 sentencing report for the Guede trial points out that Guede constantly “adjusted the content of his statements to the parallel and progressive evolution of the investigations”. He conveniently adjusted the time of the murder and other claimed facts as the investigation proceeded.

Guede originally indicated the time of Meredith’s murder as having been around 9:20-9:30PM. This is what he told Giacomo during the Skype conversation. His attorneys would later push the time to 11:30PM, denying that Guede had ever talked about 9:30 and couldn’t have known the time anyway as he hadn’t had a watch on him. 

The Micheli Report states that Guede’s accusation of Amanda and Raffaele formally happened during the interrogation of 26 March 2008. The conversations from Germany were not admitted by the court, and nor was his diary. Only Giacomo’s testimony was considered.

Judge Micheli in his sentencing report considers none of Guede’s declarations as credible.

On December 7in his first interrogation on his arrival back in Italy, Rudy never made references to Amanda. He said that he looked out the window but didn’t see or recognized anyone.

Judge Micheli therefore says that the interrogation of March 26, 2008 cannot be considered a completion of his previous declaration (as his lawyers were asserting), but rather a “radical change of course”.

Why didn’t Guede accuse Amanda and Raffaele during, or right after, the interrogation of December 7?

After all, he had a great opportunity to claim to recognize a person that was arrested and accused of the murder whose name was well known to Rudy. And as Micheli states in the report, “Guede didn’t even have the natural qualms that a witness might have in cases of uncertainty, knowing that he might get an innocent person in trouble”.

So why did he reserve the right to indicate his alleged accomplices at a later time?

On 15 May 2008 Guede asks to make some new spontaneous declarations.

Among other claims, he claims to have seen Raffaele at the scene of the crime, and his new conviction about this derives from the fact that he had seen his pictures in the newspapers. He also confirms the presence of Amanda: “I heard various steps of people leaving. I went to the closest room, I looked outside and I saw the silhouette of Amanda”.

On 19 October 2008 the prosecutor at Guede’s trial in his closing statement observes that “at the beginning Amanda had intentionally covered up for Guede, sidetracking the investigators toward another black person. For his part, Rudy has tried to keep Amanda out while being more explicit in involving Raffaele”.

On 24 October 2008 Francesco Vinci, the forensic consultant for the Sollecito defense, hands over to the Court his analysis report for the DNA on Meredith’s bra hook (Evidence 165B).

He states that “the analysis clearly shows that there are profiles of three other individuals on the clasp”, adding that the genetic profiles of Amanda and Rudy are also on the clasp.

Although Vinci’s presumed intention is to try to remove from trial the evidence against his client (since too many DNA profiles are found on the clasp, making it hard to reach an “unequivocal interpretation”) in reality this intervention comes across like an attempt to involve Guede’ s other two unlucky friends.

Meo Ponte, correspondent of La Repubblica, puts it nicely: “One asks if this is an involuntary false step or if Sollecito’s defense has decided to return to their previous steps when, at the beginning of the investigations, they were looking at every possible way to separate the fate of Raffaele from that of Amanda, trying to reduce charges against Raffaele to those of a lesser crime”.

Interesting here is that four days before the verdict of the first instance against Rudy Guede (and the decision on the formal charging of Knox and Sollecito) all the attorneys for all three can be seen to be fighting a three-way war, trying to save their own clients at the expense of the others.

Mr Mignini couldn’t have asked for more. This tactic almost renders superfluous the presence and arguments of the prosecutor.

Knox’s and Sollecito’s attorneys are indirectly accusing Guede (without mentioning his name) by trying to prove the sole-killer theory. And Guede’s attorneys are definitely implicating Knox and Sollecito, and at the last day of trial explicitly accuse them of the murder.

On 28 October 2008 Rudy Guede receives a 30 years sentence, and Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are formally also charged for Meredith’s murder.

The day after on 29 October 2008 the top-rated national TV program Porta a Porta (in the second of the four shows so far) discusses the trial outcome of the previous day. All the lawyers are present except for those of Amanda Knox.

Whereas during the days before the trial all the attorneys were fighting for their own client, and accusing each other’s clients of murder, during this Porta a Porta program they look fairly friendly.

Mrs. Buongiorno (the lead lawyer for Raffaele Sollecito) says that she is not saying that it was Guede who killed Meredith, she is saying that “procedural elements” conclude that there is such responsibility. “All I want to say is that Raffaele was not in that house.”

Bruno Vespa, the host of the Porta a Porta program,  asks Mr. Biscotti (Rudy Guede’s attorney) if his defense claims that Amanda and Raffaele are the two people identified by Guede on the night of the murder. Biscotti replies that Guede “heard two people”, but he doesn’t confirm that it was Raffaele and Amanda.

Why does Guede’s defense all of a sudden avoid mentioning the names of those whom until the previous day they had accused of the murder?

The magistrate on the show, Simonetta Matone, intervenes and she says: “As part of your defense strategy I remember that you have said that Amanda and Raffaele are the two people responsible for this homicide”.

The attorneys of Guede responded: “well, this is a trial dialectic (dialettica processuale)”. The magistrate then asks them “what are you talking about, trial dialectic? You have claimed that Amanda and Sollecito committed the crime”.

Mr. Biscotti (Guede’s attorney) doesn’t respond, and Mrs. Buongiorno (Sollecito’s attorney) steps in and immediately changes the subject.

Further on in the program, Mr. Biscotti says that Rudy heard Amanda’s voice, but doesn’t say that Guede identified Raffaele.

The Porta a Porta host, Bruno Vespa, asks Biscotti how could it be that Rudy was not able to see the assailant? Biscotti explains that it was dark and the assault was quick.

Bruno Vespa continues to be incredulous and insists that it is impossible for him not to have recognized his attacker.

Why does Biscotti now hide the fact that Guede saw Sollecito, when up to just a few days before he was confirming his identity? In fact, why would both Guede’s attorneys and Sollecito’s attorneys avoid discussing the reciprocal accusations that had gone on for months until just a few days earlier?

Could it be that they are both now preparing for the next trial at the Corte d’Assise, both of them hoping for an acquittal that would be beneficial both to Raffaele and to Rudy?

Right after the first verdict the ceasefire is back in place, and everyone is back out of the gray area.

It’s also interesting that during the program Mrs. Buongiorno insists in defending only Raffaele. She contests the bra clasp but never says anything about the knife. Her only concern is Raffaele.

She says “My trial is as follows: you must prove that three people committed the crime, or you must prove the presence of Raffaele in the house”.

At a certain point in the Porta a Porta program, Alessandro Meluzzi, a well known psychiatrist hired by the Guede team, intervenes during a discussion and says: “”¦ but wasn’t there a footprint found of Raffaele?”.

Mr. Biscotti - Guede’s lawyer - blocks him immediately and says “no, no, no”. Mr Meluzzi looks around in despair and then realizes he has said something outside of the defense line and now keeps quiet instantly. Why was he stopped?

In the first session of the Knox-Sollecito trial in the Corte D’Assise of 16 January 2009 Luca Maori, Sollecito’s second attorney, begins by saying that “Raffaele’s life was destroyed on October 25, the day he met Amanda “¦ this changed his life because of the tragic consequences and at the end [meeting her] has destroyed him”.

In the opening statement Mr. Maori makes it clear and simple: “Justice is already done. Rudy Guede, the only person responsible for the murder, has received a 30 years sentence”.

Asked by journalists about his reaction to these accusations, Walter Biscotti responded as he had done on other occasions: “My client will speak at the appropriate time.”

On 19 January 2009 they are all back again, on the third Porta a Porta show, except (again) for Amanda Knox’s lawyers.

Guede had been sentenced in the first instance to 30 years. His lawyer Biscotti now adds a little more detail to Guede’s story. He explains that Rudy went to the bathroom and heard Amanda discussing with Meredith, put on his earphones and closed the door.

The TV host Bruno Vespa reminds Mr. Biscotti that the attorneys of Sollecito and Amanda have accused Guede, and have said that he was already convicted and therefore he must be the sole killer.

Mr. Biscotti doesn’t appear very happy: “In our opinion this has been a “cowardly procedural move (“vigliaccata processuale”)....  They took advantage of the absence of Rudy in that hearing” of 16 January, he replies.

And then he adds that their strategy would not work since the GUP has denied their clients’ release on house arrest and has issued a definite ruling on the matter.

Guede’s attorney is practically saying here that, even though Rudy was convicted in the first instance, the other two are also charged and will also have to stand trial. “We will be vigilant and we’ll observe every breath of that trial”.

(It’s funny how Biscotti refers to his accusation of the other two a few months earlier as “dialettica processuale” (dialectical) but now calls Maori’s accusation of Guede a “vigliaccata processuale” (cowardly).)

The prosecutors have announced that they will call Rudy Guede to testify at the trial of his presumed accomplices, and the Porta a Porta host Bruno Vespa asks Biscotti if Rudy will finally tell the complete truth in front of the Court of Assise.

Biscotti responds that Rudy has already told the truth and that he will next talk further in front of the judges of appeal, implying that his client will not testify at Knox’s and Sollecito’s trial.

He says that since Judge Micheli didn’t find him credible, just like as he didn’t find the other two credible (they were not even called as witnesses at Rudy’s trial), Guede could exercise his right to silence at Knox’s and Sollecito’s trial.

Giuseppe Castellini, director of the Perugia-based newspaper Giornale dell’Umbria, weighs in at length on this Porta a Porta show about Guede’s changing of his versions.

In the second version, Guede says that as he entered the bathroom he heard the bell ring and heard Amanda’s voice. He then was reassured because he knew it was Amanda. Guede also said in his second version that from Filomena’s room he sees Amanda and another person that he couldn’t identify, running away.

In the third version, Rudy hears the voice of Amanda (“We need to talk. What is the matter?”) and he asks Mignini to have a confrontation with Sollecito.

Mr Biscotti, Guede’s attorney, disputes Mr Castellini’s claim that the description changed and he says that Guede never changed his version, but rather “integrated it with details” and that Guede asked for a confrontation with both Raffaele and Amanda.

Mr. Gentile, the other lawyer for Guede, adds that Guede was interrogated in Germany without attorneys present (implying that what he said back then cannot be considered as a first version).

The Porta a Porta host. Bruno Vespa. notes that every one of the three accused is claiming their innocence and at the same time each accusing the other of the murder.

He then asks Luca Maori, one of Sollecito’s attorneys, if the situation of Raffaele is linked to that of Amanda or if there could be a different scenario (“she was there and he wasn’t”).

Mr. Maori responds that “Raffaele is Raffaele and Amanda is Amanda, although this does not mean that their positions could not be linked….  Raffaele was at his house and probably even Amanda, so both were at his house during the night”.

He adds that Raffaele never changed his version.

The newspaper director Giuseppe Castellini reacts strongly to this claim by Mr Maori.  He illustrates by reading Raffaele’s statements word by word that he did in fact change his version, three times.

On the first version, of November 5 (which is actually the second version if we exclude the statement in which he said he spoke “a lot of rubbish”) Raffaele said he went home alone, while Amanda went to meet her friends. He says he surfed the web all evening and Amanda returned at 1:00AM.

Days later, police hear from Jovana Popovic, who testified that she rang the bell at 8:40PM and Amanda answered the door, and therefore Amanda must have been home at that time.

Mr Castellini observes that now Raffaele changes his version again and notes how he had said “on November 5 I lied because I was under a lot of pressure”. Mr Castellini says that Raffaele had stated that Amanda was with him all that night, but now, in his latest version, he doesn’t remember if she went out that evening and for how long.

Bruno Vespa asks how can it be possible that a person cannot remember, after just a couple of days, if his girlfriend was with him or not, what time she left, and what time she returned?

“Everyone is able to remember where they were when the man landed on the moon. And that was forty years ago….  Raffaele should have been able to describe minute by minute what happened on that evening”.

The answer of Sollecito’s attorney Mr. Maori is as follow: “Someone must have killed poor Meredith. This someone is certainly not Raffaele Sollecito, because there are no evidences that put him inside the house of the murder. Everything else is details”.

It’s interesting to note that Mr. Maori hardly mentions Amanda Knox.

Even when asked if Amanda was with Raffaele he doesn’t give a straightforward answer, he just repeats that his client is not guilty. Throughout the two hours of the Porta a Porta program, he keeps saying that his client was not at the crime scene: “We will prove in court that he wasn’t there, and that he did not commit the crime.”

The CBS correspondent on the TV show, Mrs. Castelfranco, keeps trying to insert Amanda into the discussion (“Amanda wasn’t there either”) but Maori was not confirming this, he was not even listening.

The host Bruno Vespa tells Maori that there was more than one person reported by a witness as leaving the house and therefore “the killers must have been more than one”.

Mr. Maori’s answer is: “We are not alone in saying that the killer is only one. It’s the judge that has sentenced just one person”.

Guede’s attorney replies: “Oh, come on, Maori ! How can you say these things?.

A very important issue is now brought up by the host, Bruno Vespa.

Talking about Amanda, he says that it’s very strange that a person says “I was there” and then days later denies being there.

“Usually people say “˜I was not there, I know nothing, I have seen nothing’ and then eventually they admit that they were there”, says Vespa. “Instead Amanda [at first] says “˜I was there’ and the killer is Lumumba”.

No one in the Porta a Porta studio contests Mr Vespa’s claim that this is strange, including Maori and the CBS correspondent.

And the reason is very simple: while the U.S. media has justified Amanda’s behavior by claiming that she was forced to name Lumumba under brutal police pressure, the Italian media has never reported this because there is zero evidence that it ever happened.

The widely known and believed fact is that Amanda named Lumumba voluntarily, when the police asked her to verify her cell phone activities and was asked who that person was. This is a given and indisputable fact, confirmed by various witnesses.

Even Mrs. Castelfranco, the CBS correspondent, is very careful in not repeating the false claim of the U.S. media. She says instead that Knox was “young and confused”.  The CBS correspondent adds that after all none of them remember well what happened that night.

The host Bruno Vespa interrupts her: “One thing is remembering single details. Another is remembering if she was there or not. Being at the house [of the crime] or sleeping at the house of the boyfriend, are two enormously different things…. It is very striking that her first instinct was that of saying “˜I was at the house of the crime’”.

The CBS correspondent remains silent.

At this point, Mr. Biscotti, Guede’s attorney, says that while Rudy admits to being in the house, the other two each deny their presence although there is evidence that unequivocally confirms both of their presences.

Mr Vespa asks Biscotti if their trial strategy is that of proving Rudy’s innocence, or if it would be convenient to them to also demonstrate the culpability of Amanda and Raffaele.

Guede’s lawyer Biscotti responds: “We don’t want to prove their guiltiness. But since there is no other individual whose evidence in the house is proved, we must make a logical inference”.

The host reminds Biscotti that they have explicitly accused Raffaele and Amanda during Guede’s trial. Biscotti responds: “Well, the logical inference tells us that Amanda and Sollecito are the guilty ones”.

Mr Vespa asks “Therefore the person that ran into Rudy (whom he did not fully identify) would be Sollecito?”.

And Biscotti responds “In our opinion, since we were not there and could not have seen it, by linking all the circumstances that emerged from the investigation of the prosecutor and those that emerged from the preliminary hearing, this leads to the conclusion that whoever killed Meredith could not have been other than the other two defendants”.

Francesco Maresca, the attorney for the Kercher family, makes it plain that in his view all three defendants are without any doubt responsible for Meredith’s murder.

My next report appears here.


I wish there was some way to compel Knox’s supporters to read these superb articles. Unfortunately, even that may do no good. There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Superb article, again.

Peter, I know this is a very common enquiry, but do you have an ETA date for the translated report yet? The danger, as you probably well know, is that Knox groupies are just going to say it’s being “tweaked” to show Knox in as bad a light as possible. Although how a report which states she saw her room-mate being attacked and, instead of helping her, participated in the assault and stabbed her, can possibly be “tweaked” to make her look “worse” is a mystery to me.

Anyway, just asking.

Posted by Janus on 05/16/10 at 09:40 PM | #

The UK Telegraph is reporting that the Knox family is in negotiations for Amanda to give her side of the story…whatever can they mean, “her side”??

Posted by mojo on 05/16/10 at 10:02 PM | #

A simply awe-inspiring analysis. 

The games between the legal teams leave me stunned.

Posted by Nolongeramember on 05/16/10 at 10:16 PM | #

Interesting link, mojo. I would guess the family’s fundraising efforts have not gone well, and this is a chance for them to make some cash from the media. Of course, any media outlet paying a convicted murderer for their story would be in BIG trouble. I believe here in the UK, it is actually banned under the rules of conduct, but I am sure there are ways around it.

Plus, the family hope it will help their fundraising efforts in the US by drawing attention to Knox’s “plight”.

In any case, I am sure the “negotiations” are based around making sure the interviewer bowls soft-ball, pre-agreed questions. Any responsible journalist would tell them to take a hike.

Does anyone know if a prisoner in Italy is ALLOWED to give telephone interviews to the media? I know in the UK it is only allowed under exceptional circumstances, and never to a convicted murderer who is appealing the verdict.

Posted by Janus on 05/16/10 at 10:25 PM | #

I never cease to be amazed by the tireless efforts made by contributors to this site to seek out the truth. These latest posts by Cesare Beccaria have been extraordinary and I would like to offer my thanks and appreciation to him and all you others for the respect you have shown to MK through your endeavours.

Posted by pensky on 05/16/10 at 11:24 PM | #

Hi Janus. There might be threats of the kind you describe, presumably with the hope that corners would be cut and the final quality would fall short of what it should be. If there are, the team is certainly not distracted by them.

As you know the report is much larger than is typical and both we and the Rome-based reporters among others were surprised by the depth of the detail. Right now, it is translated and in the complex and demanding final stages of making the style faithful to that of the judges, getting the legal nuances right, and having it double checked and triple checked by Italian lawyers on our team who were not part of the translation process.

This to our knowledge is still the only bone fide effort to put the report into English. No media outfits seem to have embarked on this, the cost to them for which would be very considerable. (They know full well it is coming.)

There were some claims that others were preparing their own translations. These seem to have seriously dried up. Content too tough? Translation work too tough? Our guess is it is a combination of both.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/17/10 at 12:05 AM | #


The Porta a Porta show with all lawyers present except for Amanda’s is a picture of fear. The media spotlight can make most people cringe and falter. Truth is nearly snuffed out by all the fear, but it will shine out at last.

The photo of Curatolo: Who would have guessed in a million years a man like him would rise to prominence as a witness in an important murder case and be known the world over? Surely fate is inscrutable. I’m glad he got the privilege.

Posted by Hopeful on 05/17/10 at 12:24 AM | #

Hi mojo. Regarding this interview with Knox, we have been hearing for many months from the media that the interview is the last big bargaining chip with the demand apparently being that it invokes Oprah-style sympathy. We doubt that money would change hands directly - Meredith’s family would have first claim if it did - but driving the money machine a few more limp miles is presumably one aim.

The probable choice of ABC in the US is no surprise, as CBS seems to have lost all of its fire lately, and NBC and Fox (except for Geraldo Rivera) have been more neutral and objective. ABC’s 20-20 is the least-respected and lowest-rated of the big investigation shows after CBS’s powerhouse 60 Minutes and NBC’s greatly respected Dateline. (Fox does not have an equivalent show.) ABC’s 20-20 airs only on Friday nights at 10, and its viewership is not regarded as prime territory. 

The UK production company the Telegraph refers to must be Eye Productions in Norwich. The original producer of their previous report effort, aired recently on the TLC channel here, was Garfield Kennedy. He and the other producers implied to us that they had the goodwill of Meredith’s family to get several of us on camera, but this turned out to be untrue.

Garfield Kennedy seems to have swallowed hook line and sinker the notion of a great conspiracy, and in light of the guilty verdict early in December, Eye Productions seem to have tossed him under the bus. To their slight credit, they then edited the version of the report shown in the US for more neutrality within the limits of what they had in the can - it was still about 80 percent Knox sob stuff, to us contemptible for a UK-based production.

The emergence soon in English of the Knox-Sollecito sentencing report is going to create complications for this interview, if actual facts are going to be discussed, which we doubt.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/17/10 at 01:19 AM | #

Another complication for this Knox interview is that if Knox is found guilty next month of having slandered the interrogators when claiming without proof that they hit her, the mainstay of her defense collapses. (She could face up to another six years for this.) 

She will then have to think of a whole other reason for why she implicated Patrick Lumumba, and for why she came out with various versions of an alibi which never ever fully coincided with Sollecito’s and which placed her unequivocally at the scene.


Mr Ghirga does not sound at all thrilled that Marriott is ramming this idiotic interview notion through. No surprise that Ghirga and Della Vedova didnt want to go anywhere near the Porta a Porta studios. Confronted by aggressive questioning by Vespa and Castellini they (and Amanda’s best interests) would have been toast.

When it is all played out, Guede may still boast the shortest sentence, at 16 years, and Amanda Knox just might be looking at close to 40 years. A smart PR campaign? Hard to see how. Ghirga and Della Vedova should have been listened to, and Marriott fired long ago.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/17/10 at 03:39 AM | #

Once again, the Knoox/Mellas family avoids the advice of one of the people who matter most in her defense - her actual Italian lawyer. It’s like picking at an open wound and making it worse.

Posted by mortytoad on 05/17/10 at 04:06 AM | #

I think it is very interesting that Mignini is pursuing a case against Knox for slander. He must be VERY confident he can get a conviction on this point, because an acquittal will be a great boost to Knox’s claims. Of course, just because a jury thinks there is reasonable doubt, it does not mean they would be saying she is telling the truth, but that is how the Knox camp will spin it, and Mignini knows it. So to pursue the slander case, he must be very confident, and of course, a conviction on this point will be hugely damaging to Knox’s chances on appeal.

Posted by Janus on 05/17/10 at 04:58 AM | #

Now the West Seattle Herald quotes Chris Mellas as claiming that Nick Pisa of the Telegraph got those interview details all wrong.

Chris Mellas says that although Knox would indeed like to tell her side of it, and a request for an interview was indeed made, there is no judge presiding over the Knox case right now to give the go-ahead, and the Ministry of Justice simply turned it down. .

Steve Shay’s article should perhaps not be taken too seriously - it is inaccurate in at least three claims.

First, that Nick Pisa reported that the interview was scheduled for 1 June. He didn’t: 1 June is the date on which Knox’s slander trial will start.

Second, that Mr Mignini was in the interrogation room during the claimed hitting. Mignini was called in for the second interview, after Amanda Knox had already fingered Patrick Lumumba.

And third, that the interrogation in question lasted for an extraordinary15 hours. It actually lasted for less than two hours, as did Mignini’s (with a lawyer for Knox present) immediately thereafter.

A hypothesis on the interview that suddenly wasn’t.  Knox lawyer Ghirga might have threatened to walk. We heard he may have done so at least once before, when the sliming of Mignini hit a new peak, a year ago. This case can hardly be doing any defense lawyer much good. There were recent rumors Buongiorno went briefly awol

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/17/10 at 05:44 AM | #

Thanks Peter. My initial astonishment was over the words “her side”, as if Amanda had a side (which to me implies mitigation of some sort) She’s had a chance to give her story which didn’t stand up to forensics.  As for the West Seattle Herald, isn’t it just another indication of the Knox’ camp grasp of “facts”...Either Mellas cannot read and has his own version of events which again does not stand up to scrutiny.

If they ares somehow able to push this interview through, I won’t be surprised to see Amanda’s lawyer walk. One also wonders if it could be the beginning of Sollecito finally coming out and giving “his side”. FOA, you are in a hole…quit digging.

Posted by mojo on 05/17/10 at 07:39 AM | #

Hi mojo. Interesting idea about the pressure on Sollecito. He must sometimes feel he is lashed to a whale. Where is Ted Simon in all of this? Maybe Mellas and Shay were channeling him? All these cooks…

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/17/10 at 07:56 AM | #

A thousand thanks, Cesare, for your insightful articles, helping to clear the way through a maze of questions and statements.

One question, as I’m not sure if it has been asked:  Will the appeals for Knox and Sollecito be done at the same time or separately?  I would hope separately, as I believe that they might break down and begin the process of openly finger pointing to save their own skins, rather than covering for one another.

Posted by Mo-in-Mass.,USA on 05/17/10 at 01:26 PM | #


Marie Pace homophones:

Ma Repays
More He Pays
My Ebays
Merry Pace
My Reap Ace
Marry Base

Posted by Hopeful on 05/17/10 at 04:17 PM | #

Bruno Vespa noticed that it was strange that fist Amanda admitted being in the house, then denied it.

She and Raffaele were certain that Rudy had left Italy and would not come back. She accused Lumumba to give him time to disappear: Lumumba was also a black man in case police would find indication that a black man was involved, and at first it would make sense.

Posted by Patou on 05/17/10 at 10:39 PM | #

I think you’re right, Patou. I think Knox let herself believe that the police had evidence against Patrick and that implicating him would save everyone. The fact that Knox was willing to implicate an innocent man (a man who had helped her, given her a job)and see him go to jail to save her own skin is proof of the quality of her character, or lack of it.

Posted by Janus on 05/18/10 at 03:35 AM | #


Re: “I think Knox let herself believe that the police had evidence against Patrick and that implicating him would save everyone.”

I don’t think Knox let herself believe anything.  Rather, the police asked who Patrick was, as they saw the text message on her cell phone, so she saw it as an opportunity to throw them off track, hoping the police would believe that he was the black man involved, in case any neighbors came forward and reported that they had seen a black man near the premises that night. 

Also, she had not been happy with Patrick due to his grievances about her not doing her job properly, so she also saw it as an opportunity to cause him some trouble. This action on her part would also support that he had terminated her employment at the bar, as she would not have wanted to cause trouble for him if she were planning on still working for him.

Posted by Mo-in-Mass.,USA on 05/18/10 at 01:24 PM | #

News from Seattle (as usual from me):
Amanda Knox’s father: Rumors of paid interview deal are false
So the fact of the interview is right but they wouldn’t get paid for it? Or they didn’t want to do any interview with Amanda? From this article it is not clear…

Posted by Hungarian on 05/20/10 at 10:31 PM | #

Hi Hungarian. Comments posted under that Guardian article seem, to say the least, disbelieving that no money offer was in the air.

I posted a comment above (05/16/10 at 10:44 PM) that if money were to change hands publicly then Meredith’s family would have first rights to it if all the appeals sustain the verdict.

We guess SOMETHING was being hawked around and SOMEONE didnt like it and seem to have got what they wanted and a seeming Knox-Mellas retreat by going public.

We doubt that Knox could do a compelling interview without digging herself in deeper and/or showing obvious signs to millions of veiwers that her mind is psychologically on the blink.

That was the effect on some neutral people in the court when Knox offered her two days of testimony.  She just isn’t her own best friend.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 05/21/10 at 12:03 AM | #

Hi Giselle1403,

I think that maybe I wasn’t clear in my comment, so caused some confusion. My comment was not as to why the police would think of Patrick, but rather why Janus used the phrase “Knox let herself believe that the police had evidence against Patrick”.....The police had no evidence against Patrick and Knox knew that as she knew that Rudy was the black man involved and that the text message and black man’s hair were Rudy’s and not Patrick’s.  Perhaps I misread Janus’s commentary and further confused things. Sorry.

Posted by Mo-in-Mass.,USA on 05/23/10 at 03:05 PM | #

Hi Giselle1403,

No problem.  Sometimes I have to re-read posts,too, as I sometimes read too quickly and miss something.

Posted by Mo-in-Mass.,USA on 05/24/10 at 04:58 AM | #

Post A Comment


Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry How Each of The Three Subtly But Surely Pushed The Other Two Closer to The Fire (Part 4 of 4)

Or to previous entry How Each of The Three Subtly But Surely Pushed The Other Two Closer to The Fire (Part 2 of 4)