Judge Massei's report on the sentencing of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito can be read online, printed out, or downloaded here

Category: The defenses

Friday, July 09, 2010

Third Of Three Excerpts In Italian from LA7 Program On Meredith’s Case

Posted by True North

Again, thanks to TJMK poster Cesare Beccaria for the video links. We posted some background last Friday.

This is the interview with Rudy Guede’s defense lawyer Walter Biscotti, and the continuation of the re-enactment of the crime - warning: it is very jarring, with graphical shots of Meredith’s room after the crime, and then three figures running and two later kissing.

Walter Biscotti claims to the LA7 reporter Andrea Vogt that Rudy Guede entered the house with Meredith, they talked for a while, and then they had consensual sex. Rudy later goes to the bathroom.

He hears Amanda’s voice enter the house. He hears an argument over money between Meredith and Amanda. While listening to his iPod Rudy hears a loud scream.

When he enters Meredith’s room, he sees her bleeding and tries to stench the flow of her blood with a towel. Rudy hears two people outside the house running away, and he also runs away.

Mr Biscotti cannot explain the damning evidence of Rudy found on the pillow under Meredith’s body.

*************

Inserted by Peter: We have been told that Biscotti was trying to claim sexual intimacy not sex. Apparently there is some difference. Please read the following paras by True North in that context. Judge Micheli didnt believe ANY claim of intimacy at Guede’s trial, so Biscotti is contradicting the Micheli sentencing report without making that clear. There is ZERO proof of intimacy, and the claim is ugly and highly disrespectful to Meredith and her family. Biscotti should withdraw it.

*************

The sex claim is old, totally improbable, not born out by any facts in evidence, or by the timeline, Meredith’s moral disposition, or her known plans for the second half of that evening. These were to complete an assignment, and then, since she had been up late the night before (Halloween) to get plenty of sleep.

Meredith never - NEVER - had casual sex and she already had a boyfriend (then traveling) who lived in the apartment down below. Even Walter Biscotti may conceivably be repulsed by this line of defense, but he seems to have no other way of placing Guede legitimately in the house, or explaining the signs of Guede having been involved in a sexual attack on Meredith.

Many have pointed out that it seems a severe weakness of the rather soft-line Italian system that Rudy Guede’s defense can continue to make such offensive claims about a victim, make no confession, offer no full apology, and still emerge with a sentence of only 16 years. Meredith’s family and friends are very ill-served by this, and it fuels a dishonest line by Knox’s supporters. 

Mr Biscotti does strongly finger Amanda Knox by name and one other person who everyone watching would take to be Raffaele Sollecito. The lone-wolf theory, also totally improbable, is not even mentioned here. Nor are the claims by convicted baby-killer Mario Alessi that Guede said he had two other accomplices.

There is of course no huge outcry among Italians over the “wrongful imprisonment” of their fellow Italian Raffaele Sollecito. People in Italy followed the trial in far more depth than they could in the UK or US, and they are not susceptible to any blown smoke, almost certainly including the nasty claims Biscotti makes.

Thursday, July 08, 2010

Second Of Three Excerpts In Italian from LA7 Program On Meredith’s Case

Posted by True North

Thanks to TJMK poster Cesare Beccaria for the video links. We posted some background last Friday.

This is the interview with Knox defense lawyer Luciano Ghirga at his law offices in Perugia, plus a fleeting but telling reenactment.

When the LA7 reporter Andrea Vogt asks Mr Ghirga to explain Amanda’s version of events, he emphatically responds that throughout the trial Amanda has been painted as a liar.

He says that Amanda stayed and never left Sollecito’s house between 5:00 pm and 10:00 am the next morning. He disputes the eye witnesses who claimed to have seen Amanda at the convenience store, and at the piazza above the house with Sollecito around 11:00 pm.

When Ms Vogt asks Mr Ghirga what he thinks about the quality of the evidence, he raises the fact that the bra clasp wasn’t retrieved until 46 days later. He believes the bra clasp evidence was contaminated because it had moved from its original location.

Andrea Vogt says to Mr Ghirga: “You always argued that there was only one perpetrator”. He responds that the trial forensics experts never ruled out the possibility that all of the body wounds, including those on Meredith’s neck, mouth and knees, could have been committed by one person.

**********

Note that in this interview Mr Ghirga never states that Sollecito never left his house that night. He only mentions that Amanda never left that house. In line with the observations of our poster Cesare Beccaria that the defenses rarely give the other defenses any breaks, and often make things more difficult for them.

Both the Micheli sentencing report for RG and the Massei sentencing report for AK and RS conclude that the wounds on Meredith with two knives and the sexual assault HAD to have been done by more than one person, and that dozens of evidence points confirm this.

And Mr Ghirga’s arguments at trial that Knox never left Sollecito’s house were very weak - and undermined by Knox herself and by Sollecito. Even the few straws he grasps at seem to be floating out of reach.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

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

Posted by Cesare Beccaria

In January 2009 the trial of Knox and Sollecito sees its first session. In February 2009 the prosecutor calls Rudy Guede to testify in the trial of his presumed accomplices.

A year earlier, Guede had said, on several occasions, that he wanted to have a face-to-face confrontation with Sollecito. This time, on the contrary, he says that he will be “mute” until his appeal, although he could “say some heavy stuff regarding the two defendants, but first I have to defend myself.”

All the attorneys conveniently keep their client off the stand, except for Amanda, who does a fairly decent job. Guede is not put on the stand and no confrontation was allowed by his lawyers. Sollecito is conveniently kept on the sidelines throughout the trial except for a couple of interventions. All their words were filtered by their lawyers.

On 4 April 2009 Guede is again called to testify at the trial in Corte D’Assise, andt he exercises his right to silence. From February to December 2009 the three attorneys play their game in Court, both in the Guede appeal and in the Knox-Sollecito trial in the Corte D’Assise.

Everything they said is documented in the trial transcripts and their reciprocal accusations went on and off until the last days in the Corte D’Assise.

As we have already seen for Rudy’s trial, during the closing statements the explicit accusations re-emerges with great strength (“the only guilty person is Guede, while Raffaele must be acquitted”, says Mrs. Buongiorno) and then the ceasefire kicks right back in again, right after the trial.

In mid-December 2009 a fourth Porta a Porta program discusses the murder of Perugia.

The previous week Amanda Knox and Raffaele Solecito have been found guilty of the murder, and now Guede is waiting for his verdict on appeal.

On this program the attorneys continue with their veiled reciprocal accusations, but without being direct and too explicit. More than a ceasefire, it’s an armed truce.

Amanda Knox’s attorneys were not present on the program, but Amanda was represented by Mrs. Sabina Castelfranco, the correspondent for CBS. This time she timidly tries to venture into the usual American media propaganda and lies regarding this case, but she’s regularly contradicted, and on certain occasions even ridiculed.

Sollecito’s father is present in the studio. His father talks about the innocence of his son, and only of his son, without mentioning anything in defense of Amanda. “My son was not at that house….  Curatolo could not have seen my son because he was at his house”. He says that if Raffaele was present at the crime scene he would have helped Meredith, and so on.

The host Bruno Vespa asks Sollecito’s father why did Amanda accuse Patrick, an innocent man? Francesco Sollecito responds “You are giving me a hard task, that of being not only the defender of my son but also of Amanda Knox”.

Giuseppe Castellini, director of the Perugia newspaper Giornale dell’Umbria, says that this trial has a logic, and such logic emerged from the various judges in 2008 up to Judge Micheli (GUP) that charged them with the crime.

The judges had said that more than one person committed the crime.

“Clear elements prove than more people were involved”. There’s physical evidence at the crime scene of more than one person. Two witnesses heard the screaming and more than one person leaving the house. The GUP had asked “Who are these people?” and Castellini concludes that “all clues and all circumstantial evidence lead to only two people and to no one else”.

“This is the weird thing”, says Castellini. “Everything leads to Amanda and Raffaele. There is not a third person….  Defense then rightly tries to dismantle such pieces of evidence one by one, but this is in essence the story of this trial”.

The host Bruno Vespa asks Guede’s lawyer Biscotti “You claim that the killers are Amanda and Raffaele?” Biscotti responds: “No, actually it is the Court that has decided on first instance that Amanda and Raffaele are the killers”.

The discussion rotates around Rudy’s role and statements.

We know that Rudy Guede never took the stand at either trials and only gave a spontaneous declaration that doesn’t require any questioning on the part of the prosecutor. In court, Rudy said: “I heard the voice of both Meredith and Amanda and they were arguing over what Meredith had already told me: the money that Meredith was missing”.

Rudy says he heard Meredith saying to Amanda “We need to talk”, and Amanda responding: “What’s happening?” In his declarations in Court Guede does not mention Raffaele (as he had previously done out of trial) but merely states that he was assaulted by a young man, in a time span of few seconds, and couldn’t recognize him. (Note that in previous statements he had said that the struggle lasted few minutes and that the assailant was Raffaele).

Vincenzo Mastronardi, a criminologist hired by Guede’s defense, repeats what Rudy told him: “I heard the bell. I heard it was Amanda. I heard Meredith say ‘we need to talk’”. Bruno Vespa asks him: “Did he only hear Amanda?”, and he responds “Yes, he only heard Amanda”.

Then Mastronardi explains his discussion with Guede. He asks him “Did he have glasses? He responded ‘no’. Did he look like Raffaele Sollecito? He responded ‘I don’t know, he might look like him but I am not certain’. ‘All I am certain of, is that the voice was of Amanda’ “.

This is interesting: why does Guede confirm that Amanda was in the house, but does not confirm - in December 2009, just a few days before his verdict on appeal - that Raffaele was also in the house?

Why has he been accusing Raffaele since March 2008 and now, just before his verdict on appeal, he says (or rather, his consultants say) that he’s certain about Amanda but not of Raffaele?

Do Guede’s attorneys fear a wrong move by Sollecito’s attorneys, while being confident about Amanda’s attorneys?

At this point the host Bruno Vespa starts a heated argument with the criminologists, claiming that it is not possible that Guede could have not recognized the assailant. “Come on, you’re a criminologist” says Vespa, “you know that anyone could easily recognize the face of the person that is wielding a knife in front of you….  You have to agree that this is an element of objective fragility” he adds.

Paolo Crepet, a psychiatrist, notes that originally Rudy’s version was kind of different. “Rudy talked to his assailant. He was threatened”.

Rudy’s attorney intervenes “No, you remember wrong”. Bruno Vespa also intervenes and says to Biscotti “Wait, you must admit that there is plenty of incongruence. They didn’t give Guede 30 years for nothing”. Biscotti responds “They sentenced Guede just like they sentenced the other two”.

On the timing of the murder, Bruno Vespa asks if it is true that Guede talked about 9:00-9:30PM.

Here the attorney of Guede gives an inaccurate response that was not picked up by anyone in the studio. He says that Rudy said that the murder happened at a later time. “He didn’t have a watch, therefore he didn’t know the exact time [of the murder], but it was certainly very late”, says Biscotti.

This is incorrect. Guede has said, at the beginning and on a couple of occasions after, that he entered the house with Meredith at 21:00 and that he heard the screaming at 21:20-21:30. So why is his attorney now saying that Guede testified that the murder happened much later? Why did no-one in the studio intervene to contest his statement?

On the forensic tests, Bruno Vespa says that “Non-repetitive testing must be done, by law, with the presence of all parties, otherwise they are not valid”.

The lawyer for Meredith and her family, Maresca, responds “All tests are not disputable, since all attorneys and their consultants were notified on the time and date of these non-repetitive tests”.

And in fact no one from the defenses showed up. By law, if they are notified and don’t appear for the testing, the results are perfectly valid. Defense attorneys chose not to be present, although notified and invited, because that was seemingly part of their defense strategy.

Regardless of the outcome of those non-repetitive tests, it would have been strategically preferable to avoid being present, because if the results were favorable to their client, that would be fine. And if the tests went against their clients, they could always claimed contamination at a later time.

On 4 March 2010 Rudy Guede, following the public release of the Motivazione against Knox and Sollecito, said: “chi sa’ parli” (“those who know must speak”).

On 6 March 2010 Rudy Guede writes a letter to Mediaset following the appearance on the scene of Mario Alessi, a child murderer serving a life sentence, who was claiming Guede divulged that he was alone at the house with another accomplice. Guede ends his letter by saying that the “horrible assassination” of Meredith was done by Amanda and Raffaele.

The court reached their decisions based on testimony and evidence from the night presented at trial. Everything else, including diaries, phone calls from Germany, cartwheels and media gossips, was totally irrelevant to the judges.

Formally, Guede’s accusations of the two accomplices must be dated from March 2008, but we know very well that the reciprocal accusations started on November 2007 and they went on for the entire two trials.

Except for Amanda, the attorneys have strategically avoided their clients from taking the stand and responding to questions, confrontations and cross-examination. Raffaele never spoke one word, except for spontaneous declarations. Guede was kept silent throughout the two trials, despite various promises of “speaking out”.

The prosecutor asked to have Guede on the stand for questioning, but he always exercised his right to silence and, as the Massei Report states on page 389 “The defense of Knox and Sollecito did not give their consent to admitting Guede’s declarations”. This is very indicative of the trial strategy adopted: avoiding their clients to pronouncing one bad word and avoiding putting them face to face with each other.

Now for some conclusions.

There is a lot of “I don’t remember” in this horror story. Rudy doesn’t remember the face of the aggressor, but then slowly, but progressively, his mind begins to function and, at appropriate moments, he remembers his name and that of his friend by the door.

Amanda doesn’t remember if she went to Via della Pergola with Lumumba, nor if Raffaele was with her. She doesn’t remember what she did at Raffaele’s house for the entire evening and night, but then she meets a nun in jail that restores her memory.

Raffaele also has a hard time remembering what happened in those few hours. He doesn’t remember if he was home alone or if Amanda was with him. Then he changes his statement but still doesn’t remember if Amanda left and, if she did, at what time she returned.

Can cannabis give such effects in exactly the time frame in which a young woman is being brutally murdered? Why did only three people out of 84 interviewed have this incredible amnesia?

As the journalist of Corriere della Sera, Fiorenza Sarzanini, said: “the arrests happened when they were saying things like ‘I was there with Patrick but can’t remember if Raffaele was also there’.

And Raffaele saying things like ‘I was at my house all night, but I don’t remember if Amanda was with me the entire time’”.

All three have lied several times, lost their memory but then slowly regained it, and changed their stories in order to fit new information as it became progressively known.

But most importantly they all have accused each other from the very beginning.

Not only the appellate judges of Rudy Guede’s trial but even Judge Micheli in Guede’s trial of first instance said that “The defendants, more or less explicitly, have intended to defend themselves by accusing each others.”

And that Rudy Guede “was there and he knows very well what happened”

“We might think that he remains firm on his unsustainable positions in order to cover up for someone, but on the contrary” says Judge Micheli, “it was from the very beginning that he chose not to involve others, and then he changed his attitude when he understood that other people were abandoning him to his own destiny”.

It should also be considered that the defense of Amanda Knox and of Raffaele Sollecito have called to trial only those witnesses that would testify against Rudy Guede and have requested only that police carry out more investigations on Guede.

Also, the Massei Report states that the defenses of Knox and Sollecito have at the end of it all “explicitly indicated Rudy Guede as the sole perpetrator of the criminal acts against Meredith Kercher”.

Rudy’s original story of the events was so ridiculous that no one could have possibly believed him. And no one did.

Despite this, he avoided naming his presumed accomplices directly, but chose instead, from the very beginning, to imply their involvement through his writings and his threats, while waiting for the appropriate time to formally accuse them of the murder.

“Guede kept quiet for as long as he could” said the Court of Appeal “because, given the deep connection of the events, accusing Amanda and Raffaele would have exposed him to their very probable retaliation”.

The court said all three should have explained what had happened in that house on the night of the murder, “at least for a sense of human compassion toward the poor victim”.

Instead, they “preferred to cram their statements (made on several occasions) with lies, reticence, half-truth, allusions, improbable occurrences and by more or less veiled reciprocal accusations”.

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

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.

Friday, May 14, 2010

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

Posted by Cesare Beccaria

On 12 November 2007 Guede has a first chat conversation on MS Messenger, from Germany, with his friend Gabriele.

His friend asked him why he keeps running away, and Guede answers “I can’t”.  “You can’t what?” asks his friend. Guede replied “you know [why]”. “What should I know” asks his friend, but with no further reply.

Up to that moment the media knew nothing about Rudy Guede’s involvement, but he certainly felt that police were already investigating him. He knew that thus far Amanda and Raffaele had not mentioned his name.

On 15 November the investigators identify the finger print on the pillow as belonging to Rudy Guede.

On 16 November Giacomo, another friend of Rudy, was informed that Guede could have had something to do with the murder, and on the 18th he is interrogated by the prosecutor.

On 18 November Raffaele writes in his diary: “As I am thinking and rebuilding [my thoughts] I think that Amanda always remained with me. The only thing I don’t remember exactly is if she left during the evening for few minutes”.

At this point police know that Raffaele and Amanda were together at his house when Jovana Popovic arrived at 8:40PM. But they were also found together at Raffaele’s house when Jovana rang the bell in the afternoon between 5:45-6:00PM.

Why then would Raffaele say at first that he went home alone at 9:00PM, and then that “maybe it was 8:30” and Amanda was with him, and now he thinks that Amanda was with him the entire time, but he doesn’t remember if she left and, in the event that she did, at what time she returned?

Was he desperately attempting to dissociate himself from Amanda? Was he then being told to retract, but just not too much?

“I am certain that she cannot have killed Meredith and then returned home” says Raffaele. “I hope that truth emerges. None of us three [meaning also Patrick Lumumba] have anything to do with this”.

Here again we find this supposition regarding Amanda. A week before he said “It would be fabulous if Amanda hasn’t done anything” and the previous day he said: “I don’t think she’s capable of killing someone”.

What is the need of all these quasi affirmations? And why does Amanda make the exact same quasi affirmations in her own diaries?

On 19 November Guede has another chat conversation on MS Messenger, this time with Giacomo. He explains to Giacomo what had happened that evening, and that neither Amanda nor Patrick are involved.

Why does he explicitly deny Amanda’s involvement in the murder? Could he be covering up for her, since she also hasn’t ever mentioned his name up to this date?

On the same chat session, Rudy describes the aggressor as an Italian of young age. When Giacomo asks if that person was Raffaele, his reply was “I don’t know, but I think so”. He repeated “I think so” several times as Giacomo kept asking him if he was sure that person was Raffaele.

Soon after, Giacomo and Rudy started a conversation via Skype, the online video phone system. This conversation was recorded, and made public.

A couple of parts are very important. First of all, Rudy puts a lot of emphasis on the money stolen, and on Meredith being upset with Amanda. Why would he be so insisting on this matter?

Rudy adds that “Amanda never mentioned the money issue, nor did Raffaele” implying that he somehow knows this information first-hand, since it had not ever been reported in the media up to that day.

Rudy then tells Giacomo that he went to the bathroom, and heard the doorbell ring and Meredith opening the front door. Rudy adds that “It could have been anyone … it could have been Amanda”.

So again he explicitly mentions Amanda. Why would he say “It could have been Amanda”?

On that same conversation Guede reads a paragraph to Giacomo from a media article mentioning the laundry, the break-in and the undressing of the victim, Meredith.

Guede says “If all this really happened, it must have been done by Amanda or Raffaele… they have done it”. Giacomo asks “Why would they have done this”? And Guede replies “Because when I left she [Meredith] was dressed”.

Giacomo says “So they killed her while she was dressed”. And Guede says: “Yes, here it says that they [clothes] were washed in the washing machine, but that’s not true. She was dressed”. And then he explains to Giacomo how she was dressed and adds: “That means that they have washed them [Meredith’s clothes]”.

Then Giacomo asks “But why did they wash her clothes if she [Amanda] has nothing to do with this”, and Guede replies “What the hell do I know”. And finally Guede adds: “ … then after, from what I read, someone came back, because when I left the window was not broken. That means that someone broke it, and it wasn’t me”.

Again, here we have Rudy Guede mentioning Amanda and Raffaele. Why would he mention their names, and assume that they staged the break-in, undressed the victim, and did some laundry?

On 20 November Raffaele writes “Today they finally caught the real killer of this incredible story. They found him in Germany. But at the moment I am not 100% tranquil because I fear that he might make up strange things”.

Why would Raffaele fear that the killer might fabricate some strange things?

On 20 November Rudy is arrested in Germany. He is interrogated for the first time, in Koblenz, where he repeats the same version he had given to Giacomo on the phone, except that he does not mention Amanda or Raffaele.

During his detention he writes a memorandum in which he describes the events of the night of the murder.

This document is of extreme importance, since this time he does mention Amanda again, this time with serious threats.

First, he includes “kind words” for Meredith

To see these written in a memorandum while denying his own role in her death and failure to save her seem simply repulsive. They seem about the lowest thing that a man with a minimum of decency could ever write.

He was undeniably there when she was killed, and according to the judges he participated to the murder. His story of using an I-Pod when going to the bathroom and not hearing things and then hearing things seem simple stupidity.

Second, Guede indicates that Amanda’s story of being at the house with Patrick is not true.

He knows that Patrick has been recently released. Why then does he ask “How could Amanda have slept in that place full of blood”? Also, why is he blaming Amanda for not calling the ambulance?

Also, Rudy knew that Amanda stated that she heard Meredith screaming. Why would he tell Giacomo on Skype that he heard “a scream so loud that it could have been heard from the street”?

Third, in his writings, Rudy asks Amanda for the reason for her account of Meredith being raped. “Meredith and I just talked that night” Rudy writes. Then he adds “Say the truth, what are you hiding”.

We see here another important statement that Guede is making. Why would he be upset that Amanda said that Meredith was raped? Also, why would he want to clarify the fact that with Meredith they “just talked”?

Guede sounds as if he’s extremely upset about Amanda’s story of rape, and about the accusation of a black man. To him all this must appear as if Amanda was giving clues to the prosecutor to look further into Guede as the possibly killer.

We should note that Amanda did make a partial retraction when she states that her story could have been an imagination of her mind. But she never fully retracted her story, or her accusation against a black man.

Guede knows that Amanda’s story is not just partially but totally untrue. For this reason he writes a harsh criticism of Amanda and asks her, in a threatening way, to talk and speak the truth.

Guede is also angry about what he read regarding the staged break-in, the undressing of the victim, and the laundry, and quite probably about the evidence left intact in the toilet.

To him, the sum of these events and statements by Amanda probably looked like a direct attempt now to accuse him of the murder. “You already knew who to blame” he asks.

And then in turn he blames Amanda for the killing. “Did you hate your friend so much to the point of killing her or wishing her death?”.

All this was written as early-on as 20 November 2007.

Raffaele is also mentioned by Guede in his prison diary. He writes: “that AF, AF, could have been his name?”. Rudy adds: “what the hell happened that night. Talk and say the truth. What are you hiding. If it wasn’t Raffaele with you that night, who was it?”.

So we can clearly see that the reciprocal accusations began long before March 2008. Much less than one month after the murder of Meredith, they were already threatening one another and accusing each other.

And there’s more.

On 23 November 2007 three days after Guede is arrested in Germany, Raffaele requests an appointment with the prosecutor because he wants to clarify his position.

Mignini sets the appointment for 6 December 2007.

On 3 December 2007 Walter Biscotti, Guede’s attorney, announces on the Porta a Porta show (the most popular television program in Italy) that his client has important revelations to make, and that he “saw the killer and might be able to identify him … Rudy didn’t tell me his name … on his return I will show him the pictures and I imagine that he will be able to recognize him”.

But hadn’t Rudy already seen Raffaele’s pictures on the media while in Germany? Didn’t Giacomo ask him if it was Raffaele, to which he responded “I don’t know but I think so”?

On 5 December 2007 Guede meets his father in Mannheim.

According to “Il Messaggero” and “Il Mattino”, Rudy is quoted as saying: “I want to return to Italy as soon as possible and tell everything I know. I want to indicate the murderer of Meredith. I saw him and I could recognize him. Someone else was with him”.

When journalists ask Rudy’s attorney if he has seen the photos of Raffaele, he responds that all this is a matter for the prosecutor.

On 6 December 2007 Raffaele is questioned by Mr. Mignini - but he exercises his right to remain silent! Although it was he that asked to be interrogated in order to “clarify his position”.

On 7 December 2007 Guede arrives in Italy and is interrogated by the prosecutor.

Everyone is expecting Rudy to announce the name of Raffaele, but he doesn’t. He never even mentions Amanda. Rudy’s attorney tells the journalists that his client “did not give out the name of the killer because there is no name to give”.

So why did Guede announced from Germany some “important revelations” and that he saw the killer and could identify him - and then he doesn’t?

Why did Raffaele ask to be interrogated and then, after Rudy’s threat, and the day before Guede’s arrival, he exercises the right to remain silent once he sits down, face to face, at his own request, with the prosecutor?

Walter Biscotti tells the prosecutor that any “possible procedural action of recognition will be subject to subsequent interrogation” (“eventuali attivita’ processuali di riconoscimento saranno oggetto di successivo interrogatorio”).

Does this mean that Rudy is reserving the right to indicate the killer sometime in the future?

During the trial, Mr. Biscotti specifically noted that the name of Amanda Knox was not brought up by Guede only late in the day, since during the interrogation of 7 December 2007 by the GIP (the judge for the preliminary hearings) the attorney had stated that his client would be “available to provide further clarifications” right then.

Only the working schedule of the prosecutor made the interrogation slide to March 2008. 

On 7 December 2007 Rudy Guede was interrogated by the GIP for seven hours, and he claimed his innocence. He explains his byzantine version of the events on the night, and he never mentions Amanda or Raffaele.

Guede says “I don’t know who the killer is and I cannot give a precise description because I was concentrating on looking at the knife”. Guede says that he heard two people talking outside the house, but he couldn’t even tell if those voices were of a male or a female.

In response to many other questions, his recurrent phrase was “I don’t remember”. He also explained his knowledge of Meredith’s missing money, which Rudy knew way before it became of public knowledge as he revealed in the conversation with Giacomo from Germany.

Amanda had previously said she had been at the house on the night of the murder, and she had never mentioned the name of Rudy, accusing instead another black man.

On 14 December 2007 Guede is heard by the Tribunale del Riesame.

He repeats that he didn’t see the aggressor because it was dark but that he could create an identikit. He confirms that two people were present, but doesn’t name Amanda or Raffaele.

The judge warns him that he must reveal the truth by telling the names of the people involved, but he refuses, saying that he never met Raffaele, and that he didn’t know Amanda had a boyfriend. 

The Tribunale rejected his plea of house arrests because he was not coming clean.

A few days after his return to Italy, Guede receives a visit in prison from his friend Giacomo. During the conversation, Guede tells him that his memory was improving and that he saw Amanda at the house.

We can again see therefore that Amanda is mentioned, way before March 2008.

Guede also adds that Amanda accused Lumumba because, most likely, the assailant told her that a black man was in the house. Guede tells Giacomo that he had never met Sollecito before.

This discussion in prison took place on 7 December 2007 though it was brought out at trial only much later, through Giacomo’s testimony.

On 25 January 2008 Sollecito’s attorneys allow him or make him to say “I don’t know Rudy Guede but I am ready for a face to face confrontation with him”.

Obviously it was just a bluff.

Raffaele never talked, was never cross-examined, and was always kept off the stand. All we know about his statements was either through his lawyers or his father.

Wednesday, May 12, 2010

How Each of The Three Subtly But Surely Pushed The Other Two Closer to The Fire (Part 1 of 4)

Posted by Cesare Beccaria

Most people in Italy believe the two trials ended correctly because they have been exhaustively reported-to throughout.

Also they have been able to follow the machinations and the twists and turns of the three defendants and defenses in real time. And the court documents and transcripts are all issued in Italian, and some are officially posted on the Internet.

The media coverage in Italian in Italy exceeds the media coverage in English in the UK and USA by a factor of five or ten. And there have been a number of very highly rated and balanced TV talk-shows on the case, in the course of which the defenses were not able to muzzle or slant the discussions - even if they ever considered doing such a thing.

These TV talk-shows on the case have included the most prestigious of all such shows in Italy, Porta a Porta, which offered hours of discussion by all the legal players except for Amanda Knox’s team in December 2007, October 2008, February 2009, and December 2009.

The Porta a Porta discussions are at various points referred to here, and the images used here are from those shows.

This is a four-part analysis, based mostly on Italian-language sources, of the many twists and turns of each of the defendants (as they then were) and their defense teams when intent on giving themselves an edge while often slyly selling out the others.

This interplay has been evident almost as much between Knox and Sollecito and their teams as it has between either of them and Rudy Guede, though rather less hostile.

It is worth pointing out two things up-front. First, that this is still far from played-out, more twists and turns can be expected, and we still might see the complete flying-apart and separation of all three. And second, that public maneuvering like this by three people accused of a crime is REALLY unusual and there have been few real precedents. This behavior sure is not typical of innocent parties.

So to begin…

“Guede has kept quiet for as long as he could” said the Court of Appeal in its recent motivation report “because, given the deep connection of the events, accusing Amanda and Raffaele would have exposed him to their very probable retaliation”. (“Guede, finché ha potuto, ha taciuto, poiché, stante la profonda connessione degli eventi, accusare Amanda e Raffaele lo avrebbe esposto a più che probabili dichiarazioni ritorsive da parte di costoro”).

This phrase in boldface is extremely important in understanding the connection of the three actors to this horrible story.

Their attorneys have done an excellent job so far (the best they could) and will continue on appeal to try to convince the judges of their innocence, or at least for a substantial reduction of their sentence. Rudy Guede’s attorneys have already obtained what they needed. He will probably be out on parole in less than five years now.

The other defense have played a very delicate game in this trial. From the beginning, they could have asked for a finding of “preterintenzione” (a sort of non-intentional second-degree murder). But this would have forced their clients to admit the truth without the certainty of the judicial outcome. Hence they opted for the not-guilty plea.

Their first strategic action was in each case (RS and AK) to stop the damages that their clients were inflicting upon themselves with their statements.

The next strategic action was that of not appearing at the lab for the non-repetitive testing for the DNA, with the obvious intention (almost habitual in Italy) of refuting ex-post each and every forensic finding that could have been adverse to their client.

The third strategic action flowed from the major problem all the attorneys were facing in defending their own client: the risk of reciprocal retaliation. Like concentric circles, they all came to share a gray area that was tacitly considered off-limit for everyone else, like a haunted house that no one else dared to enter.

At first, this tacit accord was respected. But when various defense necessities emerged, the breaching of the accord began. The process was gradual but inexorable, leading to two brief but clear breaches: Guede’s explicit accusations against the other two in March 2008, and reiterated right after the disgraceful intrusion on the scene of Mario Alessi earlier this year.

This tactic was observed by the Appellate Court that heard Guede’s appeal. In their recent motivation report.

The judges reprehended all three offenders by stating that all three should have explained what had happened in that house on the night of the murder, “at least for a sense of human compassion toward the poor victim” and that instead they had “preferred to cram their statements (made on several occasions) with lies, reticence, half-truth, allusions, improbable occurrences and by more or less veiled reciprocal accusations”. (“Gli imputati hanno invece preferito infarcire le loro dichiarazioni, rese in diverse occasioni, di bugie, reticenze, retromarce, mezze verità, allusioni, prospettazioni inverosimili, accuse reciproche, più o meno velate”).

Rudy Guede was questioned in Koblenz, Germany, right after his arrest. He was also interrogated on December 7, 2007 and on March 26, 2008, and made spontaneous declarations on May 15, 2008.

At first he did not formally accuse anyone, and he remained very vague about his accomplices. He chose to go on trial first and so he had a slight advantage over the others.

Rudy Guede is undoubtedly a compulsive liar. He told his version of the events to perfectly fit his case, and adjusted his inconsistencies according to the changing development of events.

He first says Meredith was killed around 21:20 and then his attorneys made him change the time to 23:30. According to his absolutely improbable account, he met with Meredith at 21:00 and within TEN MINUTES they managed to talk about her mother’s health, go around the house looking for the missing money, had oral sex, and then suddenly had an urgent need to go to the bathroom. Then he puts his I-Pod on at high volume while doing his business in the bathroom of a girl he barely knew.

In this implausible story, Guede doesn’t explicitly name his accomplices. Amanda and Raffaele also told their fair share of lies, but at the beginning they didn’t directly accuse Guede either.

Things changed when the various attorneys started to slowly penetrate inside the off-limit zone.

Guede’s memory began to function as the lone-wolf theory was materializing. Apparently the volume of his I-Pod was not loud enough now to impede him from recognizing Amanda’s voice. His vision became clearer and he began to recognize her silhouette from the window and the identity of the aggressor.

The more Knox and Sollecito’s attorneys were elaborating their theory to reinforce their defensive strategy, the better Guede’s memory became. Every time allegations of the sole killer emerged, Guede’s attorneys were ready with their rounds of ammunitions, needed to keep the other attorneys at bay.

Now, if we take a closer look at the chronology of events, we can observe a possibility that has been largely overlooked but is of extreme importance. 

Maybe the staged break-in was not necessarily made with the intention specifically to frame Guede. (Judge Micheli actually advanced this notion, as Amanda and Raffaele most likely had no knowledge of Guede’s earlier break-in in Milan.).

And yet it is without doubt that some one person or several persons intentionally tried to mislead investigators and with a good degree of certainty these people took also part in the crime. And for obvious reasons Guede was not among them during the staging and the cleaning.

Let us now look more closely at the chronology of the events in order to understand why it is clear that Guede did not act alone. Also to see that he did mention Amanda and Raffaele way before the interrogation of March 2008. We can also observe how the three defendants have tried in various ways to accuse each other from the very beginning, through their voluntary statements and through their “prison diaries”.

It should be noted that it is highly unrealistic that lawyers let their clients write “prison diaries” without their consent, especially after all the lies and inconsistencies they have told to police and prosecutors until they took over. Those “prison diaries” sound anything but spontaneous.

Raffaele changed his versions of the events at least three times. At first he confirms Amanda’s original deposition. But then, under interrogation on 5 November he admits to having spoken rubbish in his previous statement, because, he claimed, Amanda convinced him of her version and he didn’t think of the inconsistencies. And that he went home alone around 9:00 PM, smoked a joint, ate and surfed the net, and finally Amanda returned at 1:00 AM.

Amanda then is told by police that Raffaele had just blown her alibi. But instead of refuting Raffaele’s statement, she immediately takes the opportunity to accuse Patrick Lumumba, adding that Raffaele was probably with her at the crime scene.

Let’s now look at Amanda’s statement given to police on 6 November 2007.

Amanda writes: “I know that Raffaele has placed evidence against me, saying I was not with him on the night of the murder … there are things I remember and things that are confused … what happened after I know does not match with what Raffaele was saying”. Amanda goes on to explain what happened at Raffaele’s house in a very confusing way and with many “perhaps”, I’m not sure” and “I don’t remember”.

She goes on to write: “my boyfriend has claimed that I have said things that I know are not true … I never asked him to lie for me … What I don’t understand is why Raffaele would lie about this. What does he have to hide? I don’t think he killed Meredith but I do think he is scared, like me. He walked into a situation that he has never had to be in, and perhaps he is trying to find a way out by disassociating himself with me”.

She adds: “I also know that the fact that I can’t fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele’s home during the time Meredith was murdered in incriminating”. Raffaele as well states that he cannot recall precisely what he did at his own house that evening.

Amanda remembers that she noticed blood on Raffaele’s hand, “but I was under the impression that it was blood from the fish”. Amanda then asks: “is there any other evidence condemning Patrick or any other person. Who is the real murderer?”

A week later, when the knife was found, Amanda goes even further. She now wonders if Raffaele could have killed Meredith and then put the knife-handle in her hand while she was sleeping. “Was Meredith’s DNA on the knife?” Raffaele had asked “Maybe, because one time I accidently pricked her”.

“It’s impossible that Meredith’s DNA is on the knife”, says Amanda, “because she’s never been to Raffaele’s apartment. So unless Raffaele decided to get up after I fell asleep, grabbed said knife, went over to my house, used it to kill Meredith, came home, cleaned the blood off, rubbed my fingerprints all over it, put it away, tucked himself back into bed, and then pretended really well over the next few days, well, I just highly doubt all of that”.

Doesn’t all this sound like a reciprocal veiled accusation? Why would two people accused of murder, with exactly the same fate, write down their doubts about the innocence of their presumed accomplice? Why doesn’t Amanda mention Patrick or Rudy at all in her diary?

On 7 November 2007 Raffaele Sollecito begins writing his own diary. His most recurrent phrases are “I don’t remember”, “maybe I did this, maybe I did that”. The prosecutor has already reminded him that he has given three different versions of his story, in particular about Amanda. He is still not sure if Amanda left the house, and if she did he now doesn’t remember how long she was out for. “Why don’t they investigate on her”, he asks.

On 11 November 2007 Raffaele recalls that someone told him that on the morning of November 2 Amanda went home to take a shower and then went to a public laundry with some Argentinean guy and he put a pair of blue Nikes in the washing machine.

“All this makes me totally lose faith in Amanda, after she keeps on lying”, Raffaele writes. Adding that “I know little of her, but although I don’t think she’s capable of killing someone she could be capable of lying in order to hide the fact that she has relations with [hangs out with] disreputable people”.

We note here Raffaele saying: “I don’t think she’s capable of killing someone“, while a few days before Amanda wrote: “I don’t think he killed Meredith”. Why would they both have the need to make such conjectures? It is very unlikely (if not impossible) that lawyers would allow them to make any written statements, including diaries, without their consent.

Raffaele goes on to write: “I worry about two things: if Amanda that night remained with me all night, we might (although that is a very remote hypothesis) have made love all evening and all night, stopping only to eat. That would be a mess because there would be no server connections during those hours.” (How can a twenty-three years old boy not remember if he made love “all evening and night”?). Four days earlier Amanda wrote: “perhaps I made love to Raffaele. In fact, I think I did make love with him”.

Raffaele’s second worry is that “Amanda could have stolen my knife and gave it to the son of a bitch that killed Meredith, although even this hypothesis sounds like science fiction, but possible, therefore I am not at ease.”

Amanda writes in her diary that the encounter in prison with a nun made her memory function all of a sudden.

She says: “In my cell I was waiting for an answer to come to my head when a sister arrived at my door. She told me to be patient because God knows everything and would help me remember the answer … and then it hit me. Everything came back to me like a flood one detail after the other … I cried, I was so happy. I wrote everything I could remember and an explanation for my confusion previously … Police think that I’m involved … But now at least I know it’s not true. I remember what I did that night and there’s no way that they can prove that I was there, in Meredith’s room”.

“They really think I’m involved and its sad, because it means they still have no idea what happened. They really don’t know who killed my friend”. Then she continues to ask herself why Raffaele is lying, what is he afraid of.

This reciprocal accusation of lying is also repeated. We will see that in his diary Rudy also accuses Amanda of lying. Why do they constantly accuse each other of lying? And why do they also insist on the recurrent phrase: “what are you hiding”?

On 12 November 2007 Raffaele gets 90% of his memory back.

He says: “I am 90% sure that on my second declaration I said rubbish”, and that his first version (that Amanda was with him) is the right version. It should be noted that in his second police interview he said the exact contrary, stating that his claim that Amanda was with him was rubbish.

Now Raffaele changes his story again and adds: “the fact that Amanda induced me to tell her version is rubbish … I’m realizing that probably Amanda was with me all night, without ever leaving. And I am certainly not the one that lies in order to help the investigations and put everyone in trouble. On the contrary, it would be fabulous if Amanda hasn’t done anything”.

The memory loss claim now surfaces. Raffaele adds: “I realize that if we all ended up in jail is also my fault regarding the facts of that evening and also because me and Amanda smoked many joints.” “I lived in weightlessness an event that I could not believe it could have been real”. Raffaele is basically saying that it’s also his fault if he cannot remember what happened that night. As we have seen, Amanda wrote something similar when she acknowledge that her lack of memory could be “incriminating”.

Not only Raffaele, but also Amanda and Rudy have this mysterious amnesia on the events of that evening. All three of them don’t remember well. All imagine that certain things happened … but maybe not. No one is able to recall even the most impossible things to forget (was it Raffaele the aggressor with the knife? Was Amanda home with Raffaele? Was Amanda at the cottage with Lumumba? Was Raffaele with her? Did they really make love all night?).

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Possible Trial Delay While Giulia Bongiorno Gets Well

Posted by Peter Quennell

[This new image was just emailed to us - it seems that we are read in Rome]

Italian media are now reporting that Sollecito’s lead lawyer has appendicitis.

A decision as to what to do will be made by the court today. Under the agreed schedule for the next two weeks, Ms Bongiorno and Mr Maori were due to argue Solllecito’s side of things this Saturday and next Monday.

This is the second time the trial schedule has been affected by ill health. The previous time it was Judge Massei. He contracted a touch of pneumonia.

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Expert Examinations Denied: The Report From Andrea Vogt

Posted by Peter Quennell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expert Examinations Denied: The Report From Nick Pisa

Posted by Peter Quennell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thursday, July 16, 2009

Attitudes Seem Hardening In Italy Against Knox Campaign And Defense

Posted by Peter Quennell

Increasing negativity is now being reported.

Lack of respect for the victim and for the police, investigation, prosecution, and in some respects Italy itself, do seem not to be paying off. Some of our commenters in the posts below suggested that the behavior and attire of Knox’s family in Perugia seemed a seriously wrong move.

Our posters and readers in Italy and the Italian media report pretty much the same perception.  In Perugia amd Italy generally, sympathy and goodwill seem perilously close to empty. Now Newsweek reflects this deteriorated situation.

1) On behavior around Perugia, attire in court, and those photographs.

There should be a basic set of rules when on trial for murder: Don’t antagonize the prosecutor and judge. Dress appropriately in court. Don’t let your family pose for photos in front of the crime scene…
Two weeks ago, Ashley Knox defied the prohibition on minors attending sex-related hearings and had to be removed from the proceedings. Then Deanna Knox showed up in a red, white, and blue ensemble, complete with hotpants, on July 4.

2) On the strength of the case the prosecution presented

The prosecution took five months to make its case, which relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including Knox’s lack of alibi, her behavior after the murder, and contradictory statements she and her co-defendant, Rafaelle Sollecito, made during questioning.

Newsweek quotes Alessandra Batassa, a Rome-based criminal lawyer who defends murder suspects, as saying that Italian courts have handed down guilty verdicts on less evidence than this. And an unnamed Perugia judge is quoted as saying “Lies can discredit the suspects as much as hard evidence.”
3) On the muddled wrapping-up of the defense part of the case

The Knox-Sollecito defense team plans to wrap up their case this weekend even though they have presented only a handful of witnesses. Knox’s original witness list contained 35 names but defense lawyers have retracted 23.

Sollecito’s chief forensic consultant walked away from the case (and stuck lawyers with a 50,000 euro bill) in May because he disagreed with the defense strategy.

The witnesses who actually testified for the defense caused even more confusion: two forensic scientists placed on the stand contradicted each other. (Sollecito’s expert told the jury that Kercher was killed by a single assailant from behind; Knox’s said Kercher was killed from the front.)

Among the lawyers, chaos reigns: Sollecito’s lead attorney, a parliamentarian in Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s party, has not been in court for weeks, and his other two attorneys have dismantled their joint practice during the course of this case.

4) And on very important prosecution evidence still uncontested

Nobody has testified about Knox and Sollecito’s whereabouts that night. Nor has the defense broached the topic of the mixed DNA in the bathroom the girls shared. Legal experts who follow this case have suggested that blood evidence cannot be dated and therefore could have been left weeks before the murder.

But when Knox testified in her own defense in June, she conceded that there was no blood in the bathroom the day before the murder, effectively dating those blood stains to that night.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

End To A Long And Unnecessary Charade Over The House

Posted by Peter Quennell

[click for larger image]

ANSA is reporting that the Court of Assizes of Perugia has acceded to the request of the owner of 7 Via Pergola to have his house back.

Well over one year ago the prosecutors had no objection to this. The crime scene had been thoroughly processed many weeks before, and there was no further evidentiary value.

However, the defense teams claimed they might want to run various tests and inspections. These happened only many months later. We posted on them here and here.

Nothing of value that we are aware of ever emerged from these exercises. If anything, they failed, rather conspicuously.

During the period of the very long defense-induced delay, the house was suspiciously broken into, twice, and the contents was severely disarrayed. Amazingly, defense supporters tried to win points out of this.

So the crime scene was processed well over one year ago, and everything since was pure distraction. And where Meredith lived for two months has been thoroughly desecrated.

We’re glad the defenses are FINALLY calling it quits on this sad charade.

Monday, March 16, 2009

Outcome Of Back-Seat Driving: Defense Lawyers Pulling Their Hair Out? Again?

Posted by Peter Quennell

1) Stepfather Chris Mellas as reported on Saturday:

He had spoken to Ms Knox on the eve of the hearing. “I told her she’s innocent and she needs to speak up for herself.”

2) Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini as reported on Sunday.

The newspaper Corriere dell’ Umbria said that Giuliano Mignini, the prosecutor, would bring an additional charge of slander against Ms Knox, since all police officers and interpreters who have given evidence at the trial have testified under oath that she was at no stage put under pressure or physically mistreated.

3) Stepfather Chris Mellas as reported on Monday:

Ooops. Did I just cost her 6 more years? Maybe her lawyers really can advise Amanda better than an amateur who doesn’t speak the language. 

I’m on the next plane outta here. Sorry, kid, and all that. Still friends, though, right?

Okay, we made that last one up. But maybe even Amanda Knox is now thinking this way?

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Saturday At The Trial: Some Of The Happenings

Posted by Peter Quennell

1) Nick Pisa reported this in Sky News:

Tests found that nobody had worked on Raffaele Sollecito’s computer over an eight-hour period spanning the night when Ms Kercher was stabbed to death in her bedroom, prosecution witness Marco Trotta told an Italian court.

Sollecito has maintained he was at his own apartment the night of the murder, working on his computer. Trotta showed the court videos and said there was “no human interaction” between 9:10 pm on November 1 and 5:32am the following day…

Ms Kercher is believed to have died between 9pm and 11pm on November 1, according to court documents.

2) Other reports from the trial state that the playing of the 90-minute movie “Amelie” from 6:37 pm was the last detectable major action.  The 9:10 pm action appears to have been simply the closing of a program that was running.

3) Sollecito’s lawyer Giulia Bongiorno claimed in the trial that while “this computer may or may not be proof or evidence of an alibi” it had proved impossible for the communication police ‘to read data on four of the five machines seized [two belonging to Sollecito, one to Knox, one to Meredith and one to Guede] three of which have suffered electric shocks” and that the reconstruction of the evening’s computer actions “provided only partial and fragmentary data.”

4) The lawyer Francesco Maresca, who represents the Kercher family as a civil party, observed that for him “one of the alibis collapses” because the findings indicate that in the period of the murder there was no human interaction with the computer.

5) Nick Squires reported this in the Daily Telegraph:

The American’s former teacher told the court that four days after the murder she told her class to practise their Italian by writing a letter home.

Miss Knox penned a letter to her mother in Seattle in which she said she was “confused and worried” and that as a way of distracting herself she wanted to going shopping.

The teacher, Antonella Negri, described Miss Knox as “diligent” and “attentive”. She said that at the beginning of the lesson she had made reference to Miss Kercher’s murder. “I saw in Amanda a reaction of discomfort,” Mrs Negri told the court. “She leant forward onto the desk and lay her head in her arms.”

6) John Hooper reported this in the UK Guardian:

Earlier today, another police interpreter described noticing a red mark on Knox’s neck. Aida Colantone said Knox was in the police station at Perugia.

“Since her throat was bare – she had a blue tracksuit with the zip in front – I was struck in my mind by the extraordinary pallor of this girl from which a red mark leaped out,” she said.

7) Nick Pisa reported this in the Daily Mirror:

The pretty American - known as Foxy Knoxy - is accused with her ex-lover Raffaele Sollecito, 24, of murdering British student Meredith, 21. She could now face a second slander charge after claiming in court she had been hit by police during questioning.

8) And Richard Owen reported this in the London Times:

Chris Mellas, Ms Knox’s stepfather, told journalists at the court that the police investigation was flawed.

Mr Mellas, 35, an IT consultant, said that he had visited Ms Knox three times in prison.

“She is doing OK,” he said. “These things stress her out, and it’s hard for her to see the overall picture. I sit down and tell her that is not going so bad, that the prosecution haven’t really brought anything up in court yet.”

Asked if he shared the defence view that the police inquiry had been mishandled and evidence contaminated, he said: “I think particular portions of it have not been done appropriately, and the court is seeing that as well. We will see how it was conducted.”

He said that Ms Knox was “completely innocent”. There had “not been a day” when he “even considered” doubting her. There is no evidence against Amanda”.... He had spoken to Ms Knox on the eve of the hearing. “I told her she’s innocent and she needs to speak up for herself.”

Asked for his opinion of the Italian justice system he said: “It is different from ours, but I’m sure it will end up OK. As soon as this is done she will want to rejoin her family and friends. But do I think she will come back to Perugia? Most certainly.”

Saturday, February 28, 2009

Wrap-Up On The Testimony For This Week

Posted by Nicki

[Sollecito’s lawyers Buongiorno and Mauri last October when he was sent to trial]

Today’s hearing resumed with the deposition of Ms Monica Napoleoni, the head of Perugia’s homicide squad, which had been halted yesterday.

Some of her statements were extremely touching and sad. For example, she reported on the text messages that were found on Meredith’s phone from her parents who, having heard on the news broadcasts that a British student had been murdered in Perugia, wanted to make sure that their daughter was fine. [A heartfelt comment on this by reader TT on the post below this one]

Ms Napoleoni also described what she saw when she entered the murder room and leaned over Meredith’s lifeless body. She reported that Meredith body had been cut about so ferociously that it was very hard for her to even look at the wounds.

Ms Napoleoni also talked about a female shoe print that was found next to the pillow near Meredith’s body, a footprint of a size compatible with Knox’s.

During cross-examination, Sollecito’s defense showed Ms Napoleoni pictures of the cottage rooms taken while the search by the Flying Squad and Scientific Police was taking place. She pointed out that shoe covers and gloves were always being worn by everybody present.

In one instance on December18th when the bra clasp was found and sequestered “whole overalls were used by everyone, since the scientific police were at work”.

Ms Rita Ficarra, the officer in charge of the Perugia Flying Squad, reported about the night between November 5 and 6, when the two defendants were interrogated and later arrested in the wee hours of November 6th.

Knox turned up at the police station, although she hadn’t been asked to, “because Sollecito had been requested to be interviewed and she was accompanying him” Ms Ficarra said. She was not required to stay, and could have gone home any time.

“I saw her in the waiting room doing splits, cartwheels and bridges. She was showing off her gymnastic capabilities”.

Ms Ficarra also referred to Knox’s interrogation and the false accusations against Patrick Lumumba. Ms Ficarra testified that when Knox was asked about Mr Lumumba‘s text message to her on the night from his bar, “she started crying and wrapping her hands around her head, she started shaking it, and then she said: it was him…Patrick killed her”.

At this point, Ms Ficarra said “I stopped the interrogation and informed the judicial authorities”. Ms Ficarra stressed that “Amanda was never mistreated” and that “she had a chance to rest, go the bathroom, and eat”.

Ms Ficarra added that at one point, she reproached Amanda, and asked her to quit her inapt behaviour, as in addition to her gymnast show, Knox kept French-kissing, stroking and hugging Sollecito.

Ms Ficarra felt that was very inappropriate behaviour to be going on in a police station while waiting to be heard concerning a gruesome murder.  “Everybody else was terrified” Ms Ficarra said “except for Amanda and Raffaele, who seemed indifferent, were smirking, and kept on French kissing.”

Ms Ficarra’s deposition continued: “When Knox was notified of her arrest – in English - she asked for a pen and paper, saying: I’ll give you a present“. Ms Ficarra added “Knox asked me to read what she was going to write before she was taken to jail, because she wanted me to have a clear idea about what had happened”.
Ms Ficarra maintained that “Knox was never subjected to threats or violence…. she was treated firmly, but with cordiality”. Ms Monica Napoleoni confirmed the impartial handling of Knox, and also that she witnessed “Knox‘s gymnast show” and improper behaviour of the couple during the course of investigating such a tragic event.
Knox and Sollecito both made impromptu declarations during today’s trial session.

Knox made a very brief statement in Italian, claiming “They did offer me drinks and food, but they started treating me as a person only after I made those declarations”. She did not elaborate any further.

Sollecito’s declaration took more time. He claimed that during his interrogation on the evening of November 5, he asked to make a phone call to his father but was denied it. He then asked for permission to call a lawyer, but he was not allowed to do so. He did not report any mistreatment or any physical or psychological abuse from the police.

A comment on this. It should be noted that when Sollecito asked for a lawyer’s assistance, he had not yet even become a suspect. His status was still that of a “person knowledgeable about the facts.”

Not an actual suspect. Simply a person who could possibly yield useful information to the investigators. So why would someone who is being heard as a “helper” be so concerned about getting a lawyer? If he really had nothing to hide?

The next trial dates are March 13 and 14, 20 and 21, and 27 and 28.

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

Amanda Knox Defence Team Strongly Objects To Seattle Sliming Strategy

Posted by Peter Quennell

Above: Luciano Ghirga (left) and Carlo Della Vedova.

Click for a larger image. They are apparently thoroughly ticked off. Here’s our previous post on exactly what made them so ticked.

Once again, the demand from the Amanda Knox legal team goes out: Pipe down, Seattle. And give Amanda Knox a break.

Translation below by poster Kermit is of the story in today’s La Nazione

“Those American personalities are not helping Amanda”

Lawyer Ghirga: “I have spoken with Prosecutor Mignini”

by Enzo Beretta - Perugia

“There are people around the figure of Amanda who have no formal role in the student’s defence team, which is formed by myself together with my colleague Carlo Dalla Vedova.

These people are not only not helping our client in the difficult judicial process in the Corte d’Assise in which we have to defend her, but on the contrary, they are harming her judicial position.”

Luciano Ghirga, lawyer for the American accused by the prosecutor of sexually assaulting and killing Meredith Kercher with her former boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Hermann Guede, once again distances himself from the Stars-and-Stripes “know-it-alls” who repeatedly have tried to throw mud on the work of investigators and have even personally attacked Giuliano Mignini, head of the murder investigation.

There is strong evidence which supports the prosecution, unlike the “macaroni” pleading endlessly and one after the other on American television broadcasts, who pay lawyers, show-men and private investigators not much inclined to read the documentation.

That documentation was studied a lot by the Review and Court of Appeal judges, who confirmed preventive prison for the suspects, and the GUP Paolo Micheli, who has sentenced Rudy to thirty years in prison (with the abbreviated trial) and sent the ex-boyfriend and girlfriend to trial. This is a validation of the good work done by the investigators.

Lawyer Ghirga has not acted on a video in which the correctness of the findings of the forensic investigators is called into question, thereby attacking the protagonists of the case. But he will play his cards at the appropriate time in the trial, which resumes Friday.

“On a personal level I expressed my impressions to Dr. Mignini,” Ghirga said.

The lobbying work by Amanda’s side fits into a framework of traditional adversity by Americans when their fellow citizens are left in the hands of another country’s justice.

Friday, January 30, 2009

Is The Amanda Knox Defense Team Being Undermined?

Posted by Peter Quennell

[click for larger images]

Carlo Della Vedova (left) and Luciano Ghirga.

Two of the smartest defense lawyers in Italy.

They are widely regarded as supremely competent and as truly superb players within the Italian system. They have a long list of acquittals to their names.

And they are said to get along very well with Prosecutor Mignini and to respect his role in the process and him personally.

If there are any lawyers in Italy that Amanda Knox can look to for a really powerful defense that could get her off and out of there, it would seem to be the team she has now.

Mr Ghirga and Mr Della Vedova have in the past voiced extreme irritation over past sliming from safely-distant Seattle of the Italian judges, the prosecutors, the police, and the evidence service.

They had essentially asked Seattle to pipe down.

We haven’t yet heard from them on the rabid new sliming of Prosecutor Mignini from Seattle. But lawyers following the case in New York and Italy seem stunned at the ferocity and pure foolishness of the attacks.

Several have remarked that they might walk right off a case if they were so undermined in their handling of a defense. And that they might file suit if they were the prosecutor.

Now Mr Mignini himself actually has filed suit. He has just filed a defamation complaint and Mr Ciolino and a small Seattle rag are those cited.

It seems to be a pretty popular move in Italy. We wonder why…

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

Is The “Mignini Has Framed Them” Meme Now Fading?

Posted by Peter Quennell

[click for larger image]

Looks to us like it might be a strong case.

Perhaps easy to challenge the bits and pieces of the evidence. Perhaps harder now to challenge the sum of the whole.

The whack-a-mole problem.

And if Rudy Guede mounts the stand to tell all (he is to be an early witness, and wants time off his 30 years) and if Rudy’s tale cannot be seriously shaken by the defenses ...

Well, as the lead judge observed, this trial might be over by summer.

In Italy, the notion that Prosecutor Mignini somehow invented or twisted the facts of the crime to frame two of the defendants never really seemed to catch fire.

The problems with this notion are that there were too many professionals involved, the case has had to pass through too many judicial hoops, and there now seems an awful lot of evidence needing serious addressing.

Maverick Rome-based Peter Popham of The Independent (new image above - he looks better!) has seemed to be the lone media holdout for the Mignini-invented-it point of view.

But even Mr Popham is now sounding as if he’s in the dispiriting early phases of a U-turn.

This is from a skeptical piece of his just recently posted:

... how did Mr Mignini discover these salacious details? Through confessions, witness accounts, tapped telephones? Was there a video camera or tape recorder running throughout? None of the above.

None of the three accused has dropped even a hint that they were involved in an orgy, no party trash was discovered, nobody was peeking through the windows. The account seems to have emerged fully formed from the prosecutor’s imagination.

But this is from a more jaded piece also just posted.

Where did they actually pass the night, and doing what? Why did they make a start on cleaning up the murder scene next morning, and why didn’t they call the police? Amanda Knox will have to do a lot more than smile if she wants to go home.

As we mentioned yesterday, Mr Popham’s first piece above was strongly challenged by a commenter - a lawyer in the UK, who actually knew Meredith in person.

Comment by Liam O’Huigin

Title: Peter Popham: Legal Genius

“Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are on trial because Meredith Kercher died horribly, and they gave conflicting accounts of what they were doing at the time and behaved suspiciously the next day.”

Yeah, right. And I suppose everything else the Independent has reported about the pair since November 2007 has come fully formed from the brains of its journalists without the benefit of corroboration from the pair.

Before we take up Mr Popham’s invitation to consider Knox and Sollecito to be whiter than the driven snow, let’s remember, inter alia, that Knox implicated a man who could prove that he was not at the crime scene at the relevant time, that they have given a number of inconsistent accounts of their own whereabouts and activities, that the pair have fallen out between themselves, and that DNA evidence was recovered strongly suggesting their presence. If a prosecutor failed to bring a case against them, people would rightly think that some sort of cover-up was in place.

If it was Mr Popham’s daughter who was the victim of this crime, I doubt he’d be writing about the case in such a lofty and detached tone. I happen to have known Meredith, and I also happen to be a lawyer. I would be outraged if the Italians had not taken matters this far in the light of what we have so far read about the case. And unless the defence manages to produce something very special during the course of the trial I know what verdict I expect to be brought in….

Mr Popham commits an interesting Freudian slip in this article, which shows where his sympathies lie. He talks of the “three” accused, by which I assume he is including Rudy Guede: the latter is no longer an accused, having been convicted of the murder and sentenced to thirty years.

He is therefore correctly described as a murderer, or a criminal or a convict. Why does Mr Popham find that hard to do?

None of Mr Popham’s commenters, in fact, are still buying the fading “invented and framed” line. And we would REALLY like to see more of Meredith’s friends now speaking up.

Write to us, or for us, if you want to win one for her.

Monday, January 05, 2009

Another Dog-And-Pony Show Friday: A Second Shot At The Giggle Test

Posted by Peter Quennell

We refer of course to this giggle test.

It’s just been reported in the Italian media that a new defense test has been scheduled for 12:30 this Friday.

If they fail that test for a second time, it will be pretty obvious to the known universe that:

• There never was a burglar who covered up a burglary with a sex crime, a bizarre move almost unknown in the annals of crime as the penalties are so very much harsher.
• There really was a rearrangement of the crime scene in an attempt to point the finger of blame at a single perpetrator who had just taken to his heels up some local steps.

A lot is riding on this one. We guess the burglar hired for the job will be in real fighting trim.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

“They Were Held For A Year Without Even Being Charged!!”

Posted by Nicki

[Below and at bottom: the Italian Supreme Court Of Appeals}

This header above is perhaps the most mindless and misinformed of the mantras on the case.

Much of the US media and some of the UK media - sometimes enthusiastically, sometimes with reserve - has parroted the claim that Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox were “held without charges” for nearly a year.

Perhaps bringing to mind the notion of two innocent bystanders to the crime being arbitrarily arrested? Locked up in cockroach-infested jails by abusive police? Led on by an evil prosecutor with endless powers up his sleeve, and nothing at all to slow him down? Lost and forgotten by any judges in the case?

Well, good luck with that one, if it’s designed to sway the process.

It irritates just about everybody here in Italy, the judiciary and the media included. And it is doing the defendants no good at all.

Negative stereotypes like these really should not be applied to a country that is one of the founding members of the EU, of NATO, and of the European Council, and of the G-7, G-8, OECD, and United Nations (the non-permanent member of the Security Council in 2007-2008).

So for media reporters and commentators, please let us get the facts straight. Once and for all?!

Italian jurisprudence developed from Roman Law. It was shaped in the course of history to become a modern and very fair system. Judicial powers are subjected to a very complex and extremely pervasive set of checks and balances, which really assure maximum protection of every citizen’s rights.

Comparing the US and UK common law system - a model founded on non-written laws and developed through judicial proceedings - with this system which arose from the Roman Law model - based on a written civil code - is really like comparing apples to oranges.

They were both conceived to protect individual’s rights at a maximum level, while seeking justice for the victims. But with entirely different processes.

One is not necessarily better or worse. But there are legal experts who think the Italian system is distinctly fairer - much more weighted toward the defendants. In the US and the UK the prosecutor usually has to make it through only one pre-trial hoop. In Italy the prosecutor has to make it through a whole row of pre-trial hoops.

Let’s see what happens in Italy to the legal status of a person who, while considered a “persona informata dei fatti” which means “a person who could yield useful information” in relation to a brutal murder, suddenly becomes a suspect in the eyes of the police.

If while interviewing the “person who could yield useful information” the suspicion arises that such person could have played an active role in the crime, their status then turns into that of a suspect. The police can then detain that suspect up to 48 hours.

Those 48 hours are the period within which a prosecutor - if he believes that the evidence of guilt is meaningful - can request a validation of the arrest by the Judge of Preliminary Investigation (the GIP).

If the judge agrees with the prosecutor that a serious indication of guilt exists, a warrant for the arrest is issued by the judge, and the person’s detention is thus validated.

Immediately, as soon as the status of “person who could yield useful information” status changes into the status of a suspect, the suspect person has a right to legal counsel. This legal counsel normally immediately appeals for the release of the suspect.

Thus setting in motion what can be a LONG sequel of hearings - for which in US and UK common law there is no such equivalent. Each hearing is headed by a different judge. This judge examines prosecution and defence arguments, and decides if the suspect may be released on any of these bases:

• Seriousness of the clues presented by prosecution
• Likelihood of repeating a similar crime
• Likelihood of fleeing the country during the ongoing investigation
• Danger of tampering with, or fabricating evidence

If every one of the defence appeals fails, in front of a number of different judges, in a number of different hearings, and the investigation is officially closed, the suspect then goes on to a pre-trial hearing.

Once again here, yet another judge rules either to clear and release the suspect by rejecting the submitted evidence, or to send the suspect to trial on the basis of that evidence, thus making the charges official.

Now that the charges are official, the judge can decide if the defendant must await trial under house arrest, or in freedom, of if the defendant must remain in jail.

If the judge, based on their knowledge of the crime and the defendants, estimates that the chances of re-offending or fleeing the country are high, the suspect must remain in jail.

So nobody in Italy can be detained without a reasonable suspicion, a long series of judicial hearings (any one of which could set them free) or eventual official charges.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito have not in fact been incarcerated for over one year due to zealous police or a bizarre prosecutor or the complicity of a number of judges throughout the process.

They have been incarcerated because an articulate and balanced process of law has officially and very fairly established there are strong indications that they willingly participated in the vicious murder of Meredith Kercher.

Their own lawyers have put up a tough fight for Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox throughout the judicial process.  But they have simply failed to convince the judges throughout that process.

One that actually seems strongly weighted in their favor.

Browsing Online


Total now reading 41
Peak daily visits: 21,909


Subjects This Page

• Concerning Meredith
  • In memory
  • Her London
  • Her Leeds
  • Her Perugia
  • Her Europe
  • Her family
  • Her video
• Sentencing Reports
  • The Micheli report
  • The Massei Report
• The legal participants
  • The Italian system
  • Police and CSI
  • The judiciary
  • The prosecutors
  • Truth on Mignini
  • The defenses
  • Victims family
• Crime hypotheses
  • P-Points scenes
  • P-Points forensic
  • More scenarios
  • Myths rebutted
  • Similar cases
• Prosecution's case
  • Facts presented
  • Summing-ups
• Hearings and trials
  • Prelim hearings
  • Guede trial
  • RS + AK trial
  • The appeals
• Public evidence
  • Known witnesses
  • Cellphone activity
  • DNA and luminol
  • Other physical
  • RS + AK alibis
• The three defendants
  • Rudy Guede
  • Raffaele Sollecito
  • Amanda Knox
  • PR campaigns
• Defense's case
  • Facts put forward
  • Summng ups
• Reporting on the case
  • Best reporting
  • Worst reporting
  • Books on case
  • Media news
• The wider contexts
  • Perugia news
  • Sonia Marra
  • Seattle news
• The many fall-outs

Your Comments

By cath on the post 'In The Seattle Media The Anne Bremner Case Continues To Reverberate'.


True North, thank you for your comment regarding Italians’ opinion of Steve Moore. No surprise here.
I’ve just finished reading ABC’s Interview With Former FBI Agent Defending Knox Has Repercussions in Italy. Walter Biscotti’s response to Moore’s accusations…

By True North on the post 'Van Der Sloot's Attention Seeking Antics In A Peruvian Prison Are Continuing'.


All of the white knights who have injected themselves into lobbying on behalf of Amanda Knox, neglect to mention and fail to comprehend that the only real victims in this case are Meredith Kercher and her grieving family.

By Mo-in-Mass.,USA on the post 'In The Seattle Media The Anne Bremner Case Continues To Reverberate'.


Apparently Anne is having difficulty putting the eggs back into their shells.  She ought to put on her “big girl” britches, honestly and fully own up and then shut up.

By The Machine on the post 'Anne Bremner's Drunk Driving Mea Culpa: Now One For Meredith's Friends And Especially Her Family?'.


Hi Black Dog,

I agree with you completely. Anne Bremner tried every trick in the book to escape justice. When she realised that she wasn’t going to get away with her crime, she decided to plead guilty and apologise.

I…

By Innai on the post 'In The Seattle Media The Anne Bremner Case Continues To Reverberate'.


Barbie Nadeau may well be right that, since her arrest, Anne Bremner has taken a backseat with regards to her foa commitments and Steve Moore has stepped up to fill the gap.  If he truly had something to offer, it…

By True North on the post 'In The Seattle Media The Anne Bremner Case Continues To Reverberate'.


Hi cath,

Steve Moore’s story wasn’t taken seriously at all in Italy and just a few of the Italian media reported about his absurd claims that Amanda Knox is innocent and evidence was planted.

In fact, one Italian media wrote…

By Black Dog on the post 'In The Seattle Media The Anne Bremner Case Continues To Reverberate'.


It just goes to show really.
Anne Bremner says “the creapiest cop”.
What she is giving out here is the same bile she has been giving out since her “Challenge” regarding the Meredith Kercher case.

Does she have…

By cath on the post 'In The Seattle Media The Anne Bremner Case Continues To Reverberate'.


Barbie Nadeau makes a very interesting observation regarding Bremner in the light of new revelations by Steve Moore:

***************

Knox’s supporters say they have not solicited Moore’s innocence endorsement, nor are they paying him to be the new front…

By True North on the post 'In The Seattle Media The Anne Bremner Case Continues To Reverberate'.


It appears that Anne Bremner received quite the sweetheart of a deal.

Where I live, given Bremner’s state of intoxication at the time,  as witnessed by the police and the other 911 caller and her lengthy past driver’s record, she…

By Hopeful on the post 'In The Seattle Media The Anne Bremner Case Continues To Reverberate'.


9/4/10

Could Anne be showing us things to come?

If Anne is symbol of FOA and Amanda Knox, maybe her wildly changing stories about her DUI, merely foreshadow and prefigure some upcoming self-destruction from Amanda in Rocco’s book. Loose lips…

By Innai on the post 'In The Seattle Media The Anne Bremner Case Continues To Reverberate'.


I think you are right, she should have quit whilst she was ahead.  A lot of people, myself included, were prepared to give her credit for taking responsibility for her actions and pleading guilty. However, the radio interview did her…

By cath on the post 'Anne Bremner's Drunk Driving Mea Culpa: Now One For Meredith's Friends And Especially Her Family?'.


cont. @Lola
sorry for 2 posts (pushed the submit button too fast) -
I forgot to add, that this act equals taking back her apology. This is what I understand Hopeful meant.

By cath on the post 'Anne Bremner's Drunk Driving Mea Culpa: Now One For Meredith's Friends And Especially Her Family?'.


@Lola

Hopeful said AB “took back everything she’d said to the judge!”, which she did beginning at 0:25 of her radio interview.

By Lola on the post 'Anne Bremner's Drunk Driving Mea Culpa: Now One For Meredith's Friends And Especially Her Family?'.


Hopeful,

‘took back her apology’?  On tape said she was ‘wrong, made a mistake ... I apologise ... I stand by what I said (to the judge)’.

By Black Dog on the post 'Anne Bremner's Drunk Driving Mea Culpa: Now One For Meredith's Friends And Especially Her Family?'.


Re: Bremner’s Kiro interview.
I don’t know if it’s me dear listeners, but she sounds like she’s had a couple of scoops.

By Hopeful on the post 'Anne Bremner's Drunk Driving Mea Culpa: Now One For Meredith's Friends And Especially Her Family?'.


9/3/10
cath, thanks. Whoa baby, that KIRO interview set me straight about Anne Bremner. On the radio, she took back everything she’d said to the judge! She still implies the policeman got it wrong, that she was not really…

By aethelred23 on the post 'Anne Bremner's Drunk Driving Mea Culpa: Now One For Meredith's Friends And Especially Her Family?'.


I am glad this has happened to Anne Bremner. Her antics have been an outrage , especially when she tried to defend Amanda against the charges filed in the Massei report , which accused her of opening the door to…

By Mo-in-Mass.,USA on the post 'Anne Bremner's Drunk Driving Mea Culpa: Now One For Meredith's Friends And Especially Her Family?'.


I think Black Dog nailed it perfectly.  Being backed into a corner made Anne Bremner tell the truth.  Wouldn’t it be nice now if AK or RS decided to reduce their sentences by finally coming forward with the truth, too?…

By Innai on the post 'Anne Bremner's Drunk Driving Mea Culpa: Now One For Meredith's Friends And Especially Her Family?'.


That quote Cath has posted above from the AB interview certainly doesn’t come across as particularly sorrowful or apologetic.  It sounds like passing the buck.

By Black Dog on the post 'Anne Bremner's Drunk Driving Mea Culpa: Now One For Meredith's Friends And Especially Her Family?'.


There is absolutely no chance whatsoever of an apology to the family of Meredith Kercher, or Italy for that matter.

Anne Bremner is only sorry for herself here and I in no way commend her for owning up and saying…

By cath on the post 'Anne Bremner's Drunk Driving Mea Culpa: Now One For Meredith's Friends And Especially Her Family?'.


The radio interview she gave after her court appearance made me distrustful of her real motives once again.

Excerpt from the AB interview:
“She says she was also in a traffic accident that night.“That coupled with having…

By Mo-in-Mass.,USA on the post 'Anne Bremner's Drunk Driving Mea Culpa: Now One For Meredith's Friends And Especially Her Family?'.


I have no doubt that she is sorry for her lies about this incident, however, if she has as long a record of drunken driving as has been found, wasn’t she sorry any of those times? 

I can’t help…

By Innai on the post 'Why The Media Are Wrong To Rely On Amanda Knox’s Family For Impartial and Accurate Information'.


Having read the Massei Report I can see that these 18 points are all contradicted by the evidence presented in court and reports by Judge Massei. 

I know the Report is 400 odd pages long, and is, in places,…

By Lola on the post 'Anne Bremner's Drunk Driving Mea Culpa: Now One For Meredith's Friends And Especially Her Family?'.


She was wrong in her previous attempts to deny responsibility and conceal records from public view; she should have expected to be treated the same as any other citizen.  However her contrition and remorse here does seem genuine and she…

By Mo-in-Mass.,USA on the post 'Anne Bremner's Drunk Driving Mea Culpa: Now One For Meredith's Friends And Especially Her Family?'.


After insisting on her innocence since June 4th, it seems odd that she would plead guilty now. Did she cut some kind of deal to keep her past DUI record under wraps? I hope that the whole shebang is brought…

Appeals Process

Judges sentencing report released March 4. Appeals late in 2010.