Saturday, September 28, 2019

Explaining to “No Physical Evidence” Gladwell Just How MUCH There Was #4 Staged Break-In

Posted by The Machine



Jury in 2009: “How did huge rock fit through tiny crack?”

Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments.


1. Series Overview

This is the fourth in my series de-hoaxing the Gladwell claim of “no evidence”.

The zombie “there is no evidence” hoax that Gladwell bizarrely revives was never attempted in Italy. News of it caused giggles and irritation in Italy as this post on the pricey and ineffective Knox-Mellas family lawyer (who soon exited, no surprise there) attests. 

It was a claim very frequently made (and then shot down) by the self-serving hoaxers listed in Part 4(3) of this post.

2. How Guede As Stager Was Ruled Out

Malcolm Gladwell ignores yet another of the myriad incriminating area of physical evidence against Amanda Knox: the break-in hoax.

That the providing of even the slightest proof that the break-in via Filomena’s window was real, and not staged from within, was one of the worst failures by the defenses.

All courts up to the Italian Supreme Court (several times) determined that the break-in was staged, and it was not staged by Guede as Gladwell presumably thinks

These determinations are judicial facts, not subject to appeal. In the Supreme Court report concluding Guede’s legal process in 2010 with his guilt reaffirmed, Judge Giordano wrote:

And it should also be noted, as the judges of the lower courts have correctly held, that following the murder an activity occurred intended to simulate an attempted theft, which the judges of lower courts and the defence of the same appellant agree was an operation done by others and not by the defendant.” (Judge Giordano’s Supreme Court report).

In 2013 the Italian Supreme Court criticised Judge Hellmann (in the course of their annulment of his bent 2011 “not guilty” outcome of Knox’s and Sollecito’s first appeal) for ignoring these judical facts because they are held to be indisputable.

...to the reconstruction made in the context of Rudy Guede’s murder trials, the outcome of which became definitive with the judgment handed down by this Court on 16 December 2010, during which the simulation was held to be undisputed and certainly attributable to individuals other than Guede.

Judge Chieffi explained why it’s an indisputable fact that the break-in at the cottage was staged in that Supreme Court report.

The conclusion that the crime had been simulated was based on a series of facts with a high level of probative value constituting a valid inferential basis, on the strength of which the first instance statement of reasons produced a logical dissertation (pages 35‐42) anchored in the facts that:

(1) nothing (not even jewellery or the computer) was missing from Romanelli’s room, which was the focal point;

(2) there was no evidence of climbing on the outside wall of the house over the distance of 3.5 meters from the ground to the window through which the phantom burglar supposedly entered, nor was there any trace of trampling on the grass on the ground underneath the window;

(3) there were no traces of the blood of the climber on the window sill, which he would have had to grip among the glass shards in order to sneak inside the room;

(4) the glass shards were found on the inside but not on the outside of the window, a sign that the rock was thrown with the outside shutters closed, forming a shield that prevented pieces of glass from spraying to the outside;

(5) the shards were found in abundance on top of the clothes and objects ransacked by the alleged intruder, proving that this ransacking had occurred before the window was broken;

(6) the sound of the rock, hypothetically thrown from the ground, had not startled the young English woman so as to make her call for help outside the house before being attacked (given the lapse of time between the throwing the stone and the climbing up the wall). (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, pages 63-64).

Judge Chieffi also noted that the trail of Rudy Guede’s didn’t go into Filomena’s room because his bloody shoeprints led straight from Meredith’s room and out of the cottage.

...asserted that the bloody shoeprints of the aforementioned [Rudy Guede] indicated the path he took from the unfortunate Meredith’s room to the main door of the house without going into Romanelli’s room, given that ‐ as was previously stated ‐ the traces of blood of the victim mark the path taken by Guede without any deviation. (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 64).

This is the core explanation of the Supreme Court for determining why Rudy Guede could not have staged the break-in.

It’s worth repeating and highlighting this fact: there were shards of glass on top of the clothes and objects on the floor of Filomena’s room. This proves the window was broken AFTER the room was ransacked.

Four witnesses, including two police officers, said there were shards of glass on top of the clothes on Filomena’s floor.

Michele Battistelli, the Postal Police inspector, expressed himself on this point in the following way during the prosecution hearing at trial on 6 February 2009:

... it was a little topsy-turvy, in the sense that it was mostly … There was clothing out, thrown around a bit, and scattered pieces of glass. Glass pieces were on the floor and the curious thing, which stood out for me, is that these glass pieces were on top of the clothing.

I noticed this to the point where I started playing with the notion, in the sense that I immediately said that, for me this was a simulation of what I was seeing, basically this…

The things that I noticed, the camera, the computer, if they played into the theory of a hypothetical burglary, I saw that inside the house practically everything was there. There was a laptop, a digital camera, things that can be easily taken, so…”. [Transcript of the 6 February 2009 hearing, Trial Court, Page 65 et al.]

And testimony from Filomena herself:

Picking up the computer I noticed that I lifted some glass, in the sense that the glass was on top of things. I remember very well [the glass] on top of the computer bag because I was careful as it was all covered with glass.

We mentioned this, saying, the burglar was an idiot, he did not take anything… the jewelry is here, the computer is here… and in addition to the fact that he didn’t take anything, the pieces of glass are all on top of the things.(Filomena Romanelli, Amanda Knox’s housemate, at trial).

Pernicious Knox troll Bruce Fischer tried to claim, unsubstantiated as is usual for him, that the break-in wasn’t staged because Filomena’s clothes were already on the floor.

But in her trial testimony, unshaken by the defenses, Filomena made it crystal clear that her room had been ransacked.

I entered my room and I saw the broken window and everything in chaos, the clothing, a big mess, everything was all disheveled, everything ... Everything scattered, there was the open closet, a mess on the desk, everything out of place.

In his 2009 trial report, Judge Massei noted that she was tidy:

As she is usually very orderly… (The Massei report, page 53).

In 2014 at the rerun of the first appeal, Judge Nencini highlighted the fact there were shards of glass on top of the clothes and objects on the floor in his report.

The fact that the glass fragments from the window wound up on top of the strewn clothing and objects… is surely incompatible with a breaking of the glass in a phase preceding the ransacking inside the room of the apartment.

The window glass evidently was broken after entry into the cottage, by someone who was already inside and had already arranged the disorder that was then seen by the witnesses.(The Nencini report).

In 2015 even Judge Marasca of the Supreme Court who illegally mis-stated much evidence drew attention to this fact in his report.

And moreover, the staging of a theft in Romanelli’s room, which she [Knox] is accused of, is also a relevant point within an incriminating picture, considering the elements of strong suspicion (location of glass shards - apparently resulting from the breaking of a glass window pane caused by the throwing of a rock from the outside - on top of the clothes and furniture)...

... a staging which can be linked to someone who as an author of the murder and flatmate with a formal connection to the dwelling - had an interest to steer suspicion away from himself/herself…

... while a third murderer in contrast would be motivated by a very different urge after the killing, that is to leave the dwelling as quickly as possible.” (Judge Marasca’s Supreme Court report).


3. Who Did Stage The Break-in?

Judge Massei determined that Amanda Knox had tracked Meredith’s blood into Filomena’s room, because their DNA was found mixed on the floor.

It was also said of the traces highlighted by Luminol and of how these very traces, because of the certain presence of blood in abundance in the house and because of the lack of indication, beyond the mere hypotheses made, of substances which could actually have been present and present in various areas, indicate that Amanda (with her feet stained with Meredith’s blood from having been present in her room when she was killed) had gone into Romanelli’s room and into her own room…

Leaving traces [which were] highlighted by Luminol, some of which (one in the corridor, the L8, and one, the L2, in Romanelli’s room) were mixed, that is, constituted of a biological trace attributable to [both] Meredith and Amanda, and others with traces attributable only to Amanda (the three found in her own room and indicated as L3, L4 and L5) and only to the victim (one found in Romanelli’s room (the L1). (The Massei report, page 380).

His “from the outside” was of course without proof, and so an illegal finding, but his court went along with the glass shards.

One of the trial prosecutors, Dr Mignini, argued the staged break-in was the key to resolving the mystery. As Barbie Nadeau reported on 20 November 2009:

Dr Mignini’s closing arguments late in 2009 focused not only on Knox’s alleged guilt in the murder, but on her dominance over Sollecito and Guede.

The prosecutor also recounted the other charges against her, including staging a crime scene, which he believes is proof of Knox’s involvement. He described a bedroom in the back of the house the girls shared where a window had been broken with a large rock, as he described, “to create the illusion of a break-in the night of the murder.”

Dr Mignini tried to transport the jurors into the house through visual images and provocative suggestions. “The key to this mystery lies in the bedroom of Filomena Romanelli,” another tenant in the house, he told the jury.

“The window was broken from the inside, not the outside. The glass was on top of the clothes that had been strewn around the room, not under them. The break-in was staged and Knox is the one who did it.” (Barbie Nadeau, The Daily Beast).

In another report Barbie Nadeau stated that the mixed-blood evidence in Filomena’s room seems the most damning piece of evidence against Amanda Knox.

The only forensic evidence against Knox is the presence in her house of five spots where the blood and DNA of the roommates had commingled. Of those five, the most damning is a drop of Kercher’s blood with Knox’s DNA found (with the aid of Luminol, a substance used in crime-scene investigations to find blood that has been cleaned up) in the bedroom of Filomena Romanelli, one of the two Italian women who also lived in the house.

The prosecution alleges that a break-in was staged by Knox and Sollecito in Romanelli’s room: the window was broken with a large rock and the room was ransacked, but nothing was taken—even, though expensive sunglasses and jewelry were in plain sight. Clothes were pulled from Romanelli’s dresser drawers but the glass shards from the broken window were found on top of them, leading police to believe that the window was broken after the ransacking took place, not before.

Barbie Nadeau added that the defence didn’t prove a counter scenario to the staged break-in.

The defense did not contest any of the lab results, or provide a counter scenario to the staged break-in, or offer testimony to explain why Knox may also have been bleeding (except to say that it is common to find mixed DNA from two people who shared a house).

Judge Massei in 2009 and Judge Nencini in early 2014 both convicted Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito of staging the break-in at the cottage.

In 2015 Judge Marasca of the Supreme Court curiously didn’t confirm Knox’s and Sollecito’s convictions for staging the break-in at the cottage, despite noting that it can be linked to someone who had a connection to the cottage.

“And moreover, the staging of a theft in Romanelli’s room, which she is accused of, is also a relevant point within an incriminating picture, considering the elements of strong suspicion (location of glass shards - apparently resulting from the breaking of a glass window pane caused by the throwing of a rock from the outside - on top of the clothes and furniture) a staging…

... which can be linked to someone who as an author of the murder and flatmate with a formal connection to the dwelling - had an interest to steer suspicion away from himself/herself, while a third murderer in contrast would be motivated by a very different urge after the killing, that is to leave the dwelling as quickly as possible.


4. Conclusion On the Staging

Malcolm Gladwell claims withtout his own proof that there’s no evidence linking Amanda Knox to Meredith’s murder and the investigation was botched.

Well, yes there was, as all courts ruled. Please see above.

This renowned intellectual hasn’t even provided a single argument of his own in his book to substantiate his claims - he just provides a short and misleading quotation from Peter Gill.

Providing proof is essential in academia, science and law. It’s one of the most basic skills taught in schools.

This eccentric and unworldy academic reminds me of an insufferably arrogant student who sits an examination and then writes nothing on his paper because he doesn’t need to.

I’ve seen no evidence of his renowned intelligence. He certainly hasn’t displayed any higher-order thinking skills such as hard facts, analysis, and evaluation here.

5. Some Of The Supporting Posts On TJMK

Click for Post:  Ted “There Is No Evidence” Simon’s Tired Mantra Misinforms Americans And Provokes Italian Hard Line

Click for Post:  Amanda Knox Confirms She Staged A Break-In in Seattle Long A Sore Point To Previous Victims

Click for Post:  Understanding Micheli #2: Why Judge Micheli Rejected The Lone-Wolf Theory

Click for Post:  Understanding Micheli #4: The Staged Scene - Who Returned To Move Meredith?

Click for Post:  Powerpoints #8: Forced Entry Via Filomena’s Window Fails The Giggle Test

Click for Post:  This Was Definitely Not A Close Or Indecisive Case - Reasonable Doubt Was In Fact Totally Eliminated

Click for Post:  A Visual Guide To The Staged Break-In Via Filomena’s Window

Click for Post:  How Much Or How Little To Blame Rudy Guede? The Defenses’ Immense Headache Coming Up

Click for Post:  Why Is Appeal Prosecutor Crini So Very, Very Interested In The Precise Position Of Filomena’s Door?

Click for Post:  The New 80,000 Pound Gorilla In The Room Introduced By The Italian Supreme Court

Click for Post:  The Seattle University Panel: Some Of The Ways In Which Steve Moore Got His Analysis Wrong

Click for Post:  Another Prominent US Legal Commentator On The Evidence Points That Simply Won’t Go Away

6. Our Next Post

Click for Post:  There’s This Powerful Evidence Of Knox’s Crimescene Presence - Locked Right Inside Meredith’s Room


Posted by The Machine on 09/28/19 at 06:21 PM in


Comments

The Machine mentions the Knox-Mellas lawyer Ted Simon in his intro who has things in common with Gladwell for sure.

He came with a fine reputation and in one of the first NBC Dateline reports on the case stated that the evidence was really strong.

Then he was hired by the Knox-Melases, became totally two-faced, and a couple of our posts on him were these.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php/tjmk/comments/a_common_view_in_legal_circles

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php/tjmk/comments/the_prosecution_case_is_very_formidable

Ted Simon’s patently ridiculous TV mantra was this:

There was no hair, fiber, footprint, shoe print, handprint, palm print, fingerprint, sweat, saliva, DNA of Amanda Knox in the room where Meredith Kercher was killed. That in and of itself tells you unassailably that she is innocent.

Well, Ted Simon, how about this?

There was no hair, fiber, shoe print, handprint, palm print, fingerprint, sweat, saliva, DNA of Amanda Knox in her own room. That in and of itself tells you unassailably that she did not live in the house.

There were actually several footprints, but invisible to the naked eye. The starkly obvious cleanup missed just those.

We’ll be giving our best shot at the cleanup scenario soon.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/29/19 at 09:56 PM | #

Nick van der Leek at crimerocket.com shreds to pieces Gladwell’s wrong approach to Knox.  Nick writes extensively on Knox, has penned a trilogy or more.

He bemoans Gladwell’s facile “let’s hate Nick Pisa” attitude that was promoted by the Knox tv documentary.

Van der Leek says Gladwell’s usually helpful short and pithy style does not work with the Knox case. It errs in being reductionist. Gladwell’s brief discussion of Knox in the “Strangers” book overlooks many important clues of guilt in an effort to keep things too simple for the reader.

Posted by Hopeful on 09/29/19 at 11:57 PM | #

Ted Simon is a slimy reptile who will say whatever you pay him to say. He sounds like a second-hand car salesman with his rhetoric. It’s also simple-minded and intellectually dishonest to claim that the absence of Knox’s DNA and prints is unassailable proof of her innocence.

Knox has already admitted being in Meredith’s room - which proves that DNA isn’t like wet paint and you won’t always leave traces of yourself in a room.

Judge Marasca claims the lack of biological traces attributable to Knox and Sollecito is proof they weren’t involved in Meredith’s murder. He’s ignoring the fact that Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. He can claim the bra clasp might have been contaminated, but he can’t claim his Sollecito’s DNA wasn’t in Meredith’s room because it was.

Marasca also makes a schoolboy error in assuming DNA evidence is required to convicted someone of murder. It is not and there have been numerous high-profile cases where people have been convicted of murder without any DNA evidence e.g. Ian Huntley, Levi Bellfield and Mark Bridger. There was no DNA evidence belonging to their victims at their homes, but the respective juries found them guilty based on the totality of the evidence.

Professor Peter Gill points out that absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence in his book.

‘‘Sometimes forensic scientists may try to find meaning in the absence of a DNA profile to prove a negative: e.g., Mr X was not in the room because I could not find his DNA. This is a specious argument. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.’’ (Peter Gill, Misleading DNA Evidence: Reasons for Miscarriages of Justice).

A number of DNA experts also disagree with Marasca with regard to the lack of biological traces belonging to Amanda Knox in Meredith’s room. According to Professor Vinci and Professor Garofano, Amanda Knox’s DNA was on Meredith’s bra clasp.

Professor Garafano and the imprint experts from the Scientific Police also claim the woman’s blood shoe print on the pillow is compatible with Amanda Knox’s foot.

There was also a long light brown hair in Meredith’s hand. It clearly didn’t belong to Meredith and it certainly didn’t belong to Rudy Guede. Amanda Knox had long light brown hair at the time of the murder.

Posted by The Machine on 09/30/19 at 06:53 AM | #

We have a ton of posts taking the Marasca report apart, see our right-column links.

Even Dr Mignini’s lawyers found a way to trash Marasca’s reasoning and outcome, and claim he broke the law, very unusual for a brave regional prosecutor to fight a Supreme Court judge.

Marasca was a political appointee from Naples and had a coziness with mafia elements there.

He was kind of an amateur judge (as was Bruno) who should NOT have been there - not even in the Fifth Chambers which normally handles only minor household appeals.

There WAS corrective action. The Council of Magistrates (CSM) which runs justice in Italy made it impossible for political appointees to get so far ever again.

The other amateur murder judge, Hellman, a business judge, was edged out and into retirement, also by the CSM.

Yet ANOTHER disruptive judge, in Florence, who put Dr Mignini on trial (for an action another judge had okayed!) was ALSO edged out.

Every last one of them who thwarted justice paid a price. Yet another proof of the massive ignorance of Gladwell that he did not know this

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/30/19 at 11:27 AM | #

Apologies to the great Pat_Az who has posted some of the finest analysis of the case.

This post is an absolute must-read to understand how the entry through the window was SO OBVIOUSLY faked.

“Explaining The Massei Report: A Visual Guide To The Staged Break-In Via Filomena’s Window”

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php/tjmk/comments/explaining_the_massei_report_a_visual_guide_to_the_staged_break-in_via

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/30/19 at 11:32 AM | #

If you visit the area it will hit you hard just how dopey the fake break-in was. 

Filomena’s window is by far the WORST way to break into the house at night (in fact any time).

Above the house on the other side of the road is a large parking facility, which is very well lit at night. There are also bright street lights.

So Filomena’s window could be observed at night as if it was daylight by people on foot or passing in cars.

Four other possible entrances, all much easier (the front door, laundry-room window, large-bathroom window, and Laura’s bedroom window) would also be brightly lit.

But the balcony around the back with a French door and a kitchen window could be a great way in, in less than 30 seconds - with nobody to see or hear, in almost pitch dark.

There were two break-ins via this route in 2009 - one by a crackpot squatter, and one possibly by a defense hire “helpfully” trying to prove the house was not secure.

To get to the area below Filomena’s window, one would have to walk directly below that balcony. It wasn’t rocket science.

As of now, nobody EVER has climbed through Filomena’s window - even without glass covering the sill, totally untouched.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/30/19 at 11:48 AM | #

Ricardo Panella - a climbing enthusiast - used the security bars on Filomena’s window to pull himself up. The security bars weren’t there on the night of the murder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JL6nIkaYLs

This stunt was done for the poor Channel 5 documentary about the case.

https://www.atvtoday.co.uk/p43834-ch5/

Posted by The Machine on 09/30/19 at 12:19 PM | #

Hi Machine

As some commenters note, a very dishonest recreation.Shame on Riccardo Panella for helping to frame a black guy for the entire attack and doing the mafias’ wish.

1. Shame on Riccardo Panella for using the “new” bars, which were put there after the two break-ins in 2009.

2. Shame on Riccardo Panella for using special climbing boots totally unlike the sneakers Guede had on on the night.

3. Shame on Riccardo Panella for not showing us how many times he practiced the climb, and for not showing the entire climb in one take.

4. Shame on Riccardo Panella for starting with the shutters wide open when on the night they were stiff and forced almost fully closed.

5. Shame on Riccardo Panella for not trying to open the glass windows, jammed shut with the locked catch well away from the hole in the glass.

6. Shame on Riccardo Panella for not covering the windowsill with glass; he says he’d have to move the glass, not done on the break-in night.

7. Shame on Riccardo Panella for not ensuring the ground below was damp, and then checking the wall for any new marks.

8. Shame on Riccardo Panella for not showing he had left zero footprints in the soft ground below the window.

9. Shame on Riccardo Panella for not trying this at night when that area would be as bright as day and obvious to anyone on the street above.

10. Shame on Riccardo Panella for not trying the much easier way to break in, via the balcony around the corner - in the dark.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/30/19 at 01:02 PM | #

Hi Pete,

Multiple judges, including Supreme Court judges, didn’t conclude the break-in was staged because they thought it was impossible to scale the wall and climb in through the window - so the claim the break-in wasn’t staged because someone can gain entry to the cottage via Filomena’s window is a straw man argument.

The judges considered many facts together e.g. nothing was stolen, the shards of glass were on top of the clothes and objects on the floor - which proves the window was broken after the room had been ransacked, there were no pieces glass on the ground below and there were no marks on the wall and the earth was wet that night.

Almost all the documentaries about the case have been absolutely rubbish. There are two exceptions - Andrea Vogt’s excellent BBC documentary and the NBC documentary with Dennis Murphy and Clint Van Zandt.

Posted by The Machine on 09/30/19 at 02:36 PM | #

People like Gill, Preston and Gladwell have a Hollywood view of the world and see themselves as the dashing hero who saves a damsel in distress by the sheer power of their intellect and social influence.  It’s a mystery to me why anyone would want to knowingly defend someone so obviously guilty.  I can only imagine it is a form of sheer arrogance and conceit, rather than any genuine desire for the truth of the matter.  It’s, ‘look at me, I have the power t declare this person innocent.  I am an authority.’

And of course, Rudy wasn’t a random burglar.  He arrived at about 8:30 and finding no-one in, went away and came back later.  Either Knox or Meredith let him in.  He knew them both.  All the Italians were away with their families.  Sollecito needed to study for his upcoming exams.  Two people were adrift that evening.  Rudy was lonely, the sort of person who needs constant company.  Meet Amanda.  Nothing to do over Halloween except hang around uninvited and wander home alone. The pair met for sure that night.  Raff switched off his phone within minutes of Knox. 

Three people alive today know for sure what happened.

No doubt Party Rock has been told a version, as has Mom Edda.  Madison Paxton probably knows best of all. Knox wrote to her, ‘I hurt a friend’.

 

Posted by KrissyG on 09/30/19 at 04:23 PM | #

Hi KrissyG

Yeah the damsel in distress or white knight syndrome. Only here we have so many. We often spotted them leapfrogging one another. Jealousy was rife.

It’s the sheer clumsiness of Gill, Preston and Gladwell (and Heavey, and Douglas, and Ted Simon, and Kassin) that strikes me.

None of them are top-drawer crime-solvers. Spezi led Preston around by the nose. The same Preston who’d built a fiction career on lampooning clumsy fictional cops.

Quieter but better experts challenged each one of them.

Didnt Heavey’s own daughter tell him he had got it wrong about her former schoolmate Knox? Ask him to stop?

Perhaps we should invite Madison Paxton onto the team. We’ve had the disillusioned post here before.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 09/30/19 at 04:50 PM | #

She’s been paid off.  As has Colin ‘Thunderstrike’ Sutherland and James Terano.  Gagging clause or pay money back.

Posted by KrissyG on 10/01/19 at 03:21 AM | #

As has Sollecito? Transformed from extreme anger at not being invited to Modena to all smiles after a long phonecall with Knox.

Any guesses as to Knox’s real financial situation? The fee-paying talks to gullible groups (many of them lawyers) are dwindling or more likely being kept from the press.

(After her anti-press tirade in Modena, and ridicule for the fake wedding, no surprise there.)

The late lamented PMFs did good work figuring out what the book might have paid her. Not so much when sales were so-so and royalties actually paid would be tied to those sales.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/01/19 at 04:35 AM | #

On the bizarre Marasca/Bruno Supreme Court outcome taken apart in numerous posts here, there are a couple of things to add to this comment above.

(1) There were differences between the March 2015 announcement of their verdict by the panel of judges and what appeared in the written report. Hard to believe, but the judges had walked back a bit - and made this verdict worse for RS and especially AK, and better for the Kerchers: they could have appealed to the President Sergio Mattarella (actual head of the justice system) to have the final appeal run again as the verdict broke the law.

(2) As all our posters who did a critique could see, Marasca and Bruno were in many places channeling the huge written appeal statement Bongiorno filed for Sollecito - and Bongiorno in turn was channeling the hoaxers of the Knox PR who had lied repeatedly that the evidence was unsound.

Gladwell has chosen very unsavory company to try to make a buck.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/02/19 at 09:50 AM | #


Make a comment

Smileys



Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry There’s This Powerful Evidence Of Knox’s Crimescene Presence - Locked Right Inside Meredith’s Room

Or to previous entry Explaining to “No Physical Evidence” Gladwell Just How MUCH There Was #3 Footprints