Series 6 No staging hoax

Friday, May 11, 2018

Overview Of All Our Powerpoints For Those Many On Media Threads Praising Them

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



Perugia from the Rome direction; railway station at center-left

1. Post Overview

These brilliant Powerpoints have been getting effusive praise online and in emails by many who began with them.

Others have posted asking how to find them.  We are very grateful for their interest. Here they all are, the complete set. One is by James Raper, one by Fly By Night, two by Nikki, and the others by that indefatigable frog Kermit.

They are often very funny, mostly bothersome to the humorless Knox attack-sheep, and always technically excellent. But their main draw appears to be that they are so explanatory, so highly compelling.

Watch a few and the sense that the Italians got things right can get to be unshakable.  While videos can be telling, Powerpoints look to be even more telling. Other victim sites might well benefit from this model.

2. All Our Powerpoints

1. Click for Post:  A Witness Trashed By Paul Ciolino For CBS In Fact Looks Very Credible (Kermit)

2. Click for Post:  A Comprehensive Guide To The Relevant Locations (Kermit)

3. Click for Post:  A Minute By Minute Visual Guide To The Events On The Night (Kermit)

4. Click for Post:  A Very Odd House, In A Very Odd Location (Kermit)

5. Click for Post:  A Graphical Tour Of The Crime Scene Itself (Kermit)

6. Click for Post:  Trace Evidence Seems To Confirm More Than One Perpetrator At Scene (Kermit)

7. Click for Post:  DNA Evidence - A Very Clear Intro To A Vital Subject Here (Nikki)

8. Click for Post:  Forced Entry Via Filomena’s Window Fails The Giggle Test (Kermit)

9. Click for Post:  Defense Claim AK & RS Couldn’t Have Disposed Of Meredith’s Phones Is Wrong (Kermit)

10. Click for Post:  The DNA Evidence May Be A Tough Mole To Whack (Nikki)

11. Click for Post:  Countering The Spin By The Defenses On The Recent Cottage Break-in (Kermit)

12. Click for Post:  Telling Evidence Against Sollecito The Experts Seem To Have Got Absolutely Right (Kermit)

13. Click for Post:  150 Questions For The Defendants They Have Incessantly Avoided (Kermit)

14. Click for Post:  The Telling Case Of The Doctored Footprint (Kermit)

15. Click for Post:  Justice For Meredith - The Thoughts Inspired By Two Mountains (Fly By Night)

16. Click for Post:  We Now Examine The Compelling Evidence For The REAL Railroading From Hell (Kermit)

17. Click for Post:  Total Evidence Suggests Knox And Sollecito Guilty As Charged (James Raper with Kermit)

18. Click for Post:  Katie Couric Interviews Raffaele Sollecito! We Already Have A Sneak Preview!! (Kermit)

19. Click for Post:  Placing The Noisy Claimant Doug Preston In The Hot Seat (Kermit)

20. Click for Post:  On Contradictions, Here Preston Contradicts Preston (Kermit)

21. Click for Post:  Diane Sawyer’s Very Tough Interview With Amanda Knox: ABC’s Sneak Preview! (Kermit)


Saturday, April 07, 2018

Innocence Project: Seven Years Clutching Knox And Trashing Italian Justice To Joy Of Mafias #4

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



One of two Sollecito footprints matching in EXACT dimensions

1. What Hampikian Omits In Misleading The American Audience (2)

Hampikian’s illegal nonsense on the DNA in the case is quite obviously worse than useless.

It actually came to HURT the defenses rather than helped them, and drew the mafias in (see Part 2 below). Do please feel free to purge your mind of it, and take in our forensic Powerpoints.

Click each image below, and keep clicking.

1. DNA: A Very Clear Intro To A Vital Subject By Nicki


2. DNA Evidence May Be A Tough Mole To Whack By Nicki


3 Telling Forensic Evidence Against Sollecito By Kermit


4. How Pro-Knox Mafia Tools Doctored A Sollecito Footprint By Kermit


5. Total Evidence Suggests AK & RS Guilty By James Raper w/Kermit




2. Tip For IP Contributors

On Amanda Knox. Innocence Project Idaho rep Hampikian’s ONLY achievement was to be main cause of annulment of 2011 appeal, to anger of defense counsel. Thus he subjected Knox and RS to much tougher appeal, leading to desperate measures to bend Supreme Court. Thus Hampikian directly caused mafia involvement that Knox and RS must hide for life.


Monday, April 02, 2018

Innocence Project: Seven Years Clutching Knox And Trashing Italian Justice To Joy Of Mafias #3

Posted by Peter Quennell



Knox enablers Jason Flom, Barry Scheck, Greg Hampikian

(Click here to go straight to Comments. Long post.)

1. What Hampikian Omits In Misleading The American Audience (1)

Think of the evidence in the case as a giant jigsaw puzzle. Say it consists of 1000 pieces.

We at TJMK and PMF and the Wiki are finally on top of nearly all of them. Thanks especially to Italy’s amazing habit of documenting and its open-process juries and our fine translators.

In the US and UK there would be few such documents. And no reasoning at all from any black-box jury. No surprise really that the Innocence Project has many cases here - and none in Italy.

Hampikian in his frenetic marketing of Knox, in sharp contrast to our full picture, leaves out pretty well everything. The previous post by KrissyG showed this for us first.

Amazingly, Hampikian revealed he is not even clued up on the full extent of the DNA.

Now in the prosecution phases of the trial back in 2009 the judges and lay-judges were presented with all 1000 pieces of the puzzle, in 20 day-long sessions (a quarter in closed court and not reported by media in detail). Also they did voluminous side-reading of the case files.

Plus of course staring at the telling Knox and Sollecito reactions for hours and hours.

Knox obviously preferred to be daffy and her version of likable, and to try to warm up a hostile Sollecito. He was obviously sulky and angry at Knox, refusing to look at her or to speak in favor of any of her alibis. Both grimly sat through the hard-to-take closed sessions.

For us and many in Italy, the case came to be a convincingly strong one about midpoint in the trial.

That was when a defiant Knox was on the stand for two days, doing herself no good, incessantly contradicting herself and causing this typical reaction and this one.

Knocked back by this, the defenses used up only a very few court days to attempt rebuttals and attempt to squeeze nice opinions out of character witnesses. Pretty well all Italy could see the defenses were outgunned, listless, and demoralized.

Back in 2008 there had been talk of RS and AK admitting to heavy drug use or psychological issues but the parents would have none of it.

So other than incessantly beating up on Guede (an easy “out” as he was not present to defend himself) it was hard for them to find things to talk about. Some court days were cancelled because of this and Sollecito lawyer Bongiorno skipped several sessions.

This all matters. It explains things. But Hampikian omits all of it in his simplistic and ridiculous bid for glory.

He misrepresents a small fraction of the DNA evidence, reveals himself ignorant of a much bigger and equally damning fraction, and ignores all other evidence as if everything other than DNA is of lower importance.

So here below from the Wiki Evidence Masterlist is all of the forensic evidence made public by the end of 2009. (Although very extensive, this is still only about 50% of all the evidence items on the Masterlist. Hampikian hid that half also.)

Again, this was all known to the jury as of the end of trial - which like any jury anywhere can convict on ONE item if it speaks guilt to them. This was the only jury to hear the whole case. The one that voted for guilt unanimously.  As any American or British jury would have done.

Part 3 at bottom summarizes the damning court take and the Knox shills’ spin.

2. Forensic Evidence In The Public Realm By Late 2009

Area 1: The Wounds

11-01   Meredith Kercher sustained 43 wounds during the assault that killed her. (Perna closing arguments 2009)

1-02   She had 10 knife wounds and 33 other wounds. (Lalli 2009)

1-03   She had at least 15 bruises: on her mouth, nose, cheeks, jaw, neck, elbows, right forearm, small of her back, left thigh, and right lower leg. The bruises indicate she was not only restrained, but also kept from screaming for help. (Lalli 2009)

1-04   Some of the bruising on Ms. Kercher was in the shape of fingertips, with some fingertips being smaller, of a woman’s size. There were no ligature marks. (Lalli, Marchionni, Codispoti 2009)

1-05   Some of the neck bruises indicate Ms. Kercher was being choked at some point during the assault. (Liviero 2009)

1-06   The internal vaginal bruising suffered by Ms. Kercher happened before her death and was violent. (Lalli, Marchionni 2009)

1-07   She had only 2 major knife wounds, one on each side of her neck. The remaining knife wounds were minor. (Lalli 2009)

1-08   The wound on the right side of her neck was narrow and deep. The wound on the left side of her neck was wide, large, gaping and fatal. These two wounds were likely made with two different knives. (Bacci, Politi, Codispoti, Mignini 2009)

1-09   She had another knife cut just below the gaping wound on the left side of her neck. (Lalli 2009)

1-10   She had 3 other glancing knife wounds on her neck and cheeks. (Lalli 2009)

1-11   She had 3 small cuts on her right hand and one small cut on her left hand. (Lalli 2009)

1-12   Her defensive wounds were virtually non-existent, especially when compared with other single-attacker knife attacks, where knife wounds on the hands and arms are prevalent. (Cingolani, Codispoti 2009)

1-13   The wounds were compatible with an assault by multiple persons (Cingolani, Codispoti, Lalli, Liviero 2009).

1-14   Bacci, Lalli and Liviero testified that the wounds could not be ascribed with 100% certainty to a single person or multiple person assault. However Lalli and Liviero preferred the multiple person assault scenario, given the quantity and different types of wounds. (Bacci, Lalli, Liviero 2009)

1-15   Lalli confirmed under questioning by Judge Massei that if the rape happened during the assault, then the assault had to be carried out by more than one person. (Lalli 2009)

Area 2: The Blood traces

2-01   Blood traces were found all around Ms. Kercher’s bedroom, not in one specific area. (crime scene photos)

2-02   In Ms. Kercher’s bedroom, blood was found by the far wall, on and inside the closet, under the desk, by and under the bed, on the walls above the bed, on the mattress cover, on the floor in large quantities and on the door into the bedroom. (crime scene photos)

2-03   Blood was also found on the floor in the form of partial shoeprints leading out of the cottage. Blood traces were also found on the small bathroom door, in the small bathroom (on the light switch, sink, bidet, bathroom floor mat, etc.), possibly on a few items in Knox’s bedroom, and also in Luminol-revealed traces found on the floor in the corridor, in Knox’s bedroom and in Romanelli’s bedroom. (crime scene photos, Codispoti 2009)

2-04   No blood traces were found near, leading to or in the large bathroom where Guede defecated. (crime scene photos, Dr. Stefanoni Genetic Test report)

2-05   Blood pattern analysis indicates Ms. Kercher was fatally stabbed around 40 cm above the ground, near to the closet door. (Camana 2009)

2-06   Blood traces on the floor indicate objects were shifted or removed after Ms. Kercher had started bleeding from the fatal wound. (crime scene photos)

2-07   Ms. Kercher’s body was moved after she was stabbed, as can be seen from the blood smears on the floor. (crime scene photos)

2-08   Blood traces on the mattress cover indicate that one or more knives used in the assault were placed on the mattress cover. (Politi 2009)

2-09   Blood traces under the bed indicate someone was likely searching under the bed for something after the assault. (Codispoti 2009)

Area 3. Clothing traces

3-01   Blood was found on her sweat jacket, bra, jeans and socks. (crime scene photos)

3-02   Ms. Kercher’s bra and sweat jacket indicate she bled on the right side, likely from the knife wound on the right side of her neck, for some time before these were removed. (evidence item photos in Dr. Stefanoni’s slide presentation)

3-03   The sleeves on her sweat jacket were pulled inside-out. (Stefanoni 2009)

3-04   Blood stains on her sweat jacket and shirt indicate these were pulled up around her neck after she had been wounded. (Codispoti 2009)

3-05   Her jeans were also inside out, with blood spots inside her jeans. (Stefanoni 2009)

3-06   Her panties were found near her body, and had no blood stains. (Stefanoni 2009)

3-07   Ms. Kercher’s bra was removed after she was dead, as can be seen from blood speckles on the bra that were not found on her chest. (Micheli Motivation report, Codispoti 2009

3-08   Her body was covered with a duvet, and she only had an undershirt on. (Micheli Motivation report)

3-09   Police found a pillow, a bed sheet, a sock and two towels under her body. (Nencini Motivation Report- citing Lalli’s site report)

3-10   Guede’s bloody handprint was found on the pillow. (Sbardella 2009)

3-11   Guede’s bloody shoeprint was found on the pillow right under Ms. Kercher’s leg. (Sbardella 2009)

3-12   Police found Ms Kercher’s bra clasp under the pillow, and then later found it again under a carpet in the bedroom, 46 days after initial discovery. (Cantagalli, Codispoti, Stefanoni 2009, crime scene photos)

3-13   A sock was found around one of Ms. Kercher’s purse handles on the bed. (crime scene photos)

3-14   Ms. Kercher’s purse was found on the mattress cover, indicating it had been placed there after the duvet had been used to cover her body. (crime scene photos)

Area 4. Ms. Kercher’s room

4-01   Only the mattress cover remained on the bed. After the assault, someone removed the duvet, pillow and bed sheet from the bed, and placed Ms. Kercher on the bed sheet, two towels and pillow on the floor, then covered her body with the duvet. (Codispoti 2009, crime scene photos)

4-02   Someone took Ms. Kercher’s wallet and credit cards from her purse and placed the purse on the mattress cover on the bed. (Profazio 2009, Nencini Motivations report, crime scene photos)

4-03   Someone left receipts on the duvet covering Ms. Kercher’s body. (Codispoti 2009, crime scene photos)

4-04   Someone took Ms. Kercher’s cell phones and tossed them over a roadside wall, inadvertently into the garden of another villa, some 950 meters from the cottage. (Nencini Motivations report)

4-05   Someone took Ms. Kercher’s room and house keys. (Napoleoni 2009)

4-06   An empty jar of Vaseline was found on her desk. (crime scene photos, Napoleoni 2009)

4-07   The wall shelf by her closet had been knocked around, and objects on the shelf were tipped over. (crime scene photos, Codispoti 2009)

4-08   Ms. Kercher’s nightstand lamp and Knox’s nightstand lamp were both on the floor next to the bed. (crime scene photos)

4-09   Knox’s lamp was partially under Ms. Kercher’s bed, and it was the only functioning light Knox had in her room. (crime scene photos, Nencini Motivations report)

4-10   Someone closed and locked Ms. Kercher’s bedroom door, and took her bedroom door key. (Battistelli, Romanelli, Altieri, Zaroli, Napoleoni 2009)

4-11   Romanelli testified Ms. Kercher rarely closed and locked her own bedroom door, while Knox claimed Ms. Kercher normally locked her door. (Battistelli, Zaroli, Altieri, Romanelli 2009)

4-12   Ms. Kercher’s bedroom door had a small crack in it before it was broken down. (Altieri 2009).

Area 5: Shoeprints

5-01   Guede’s bloody left shoeprints were found in Ms. Kercher’s room.

5-02   Guede’s bloody left shoeprints were also found leading down the corridor, into the kitchen/dining room and out the front door, without any trace of prints indicating he turned to close and lock Ms. Kercher’s bedroom door.

5-03   Five different papers and cards, most smudged with blood, were found on the floor in Ms. Kercher’s room. These papers and cards had at least two different types of shoeprints which did not match any of Ms. Kercher’s shoes.

5-04   A similar card was found in Romanelli’s room, with a shoeprint not matching those on the cards and papers in Ms. Kercher’s room.

5-05   A smaller shoeprint similar to Guede’s shoe type was found on the pillow found under Ms. Kercher. Police consultants estimate this was a female sized shoe.

Area 6: Footprints

6-01   Half of a bloody footprint was found on the bathmat. The heel of this footprint, which should have been on the floor, was missing, suggesting it was cleaned away. (crime scene photos, report)

6-02   The bloody footprint matches Sollecito’s right foot size and characteristics.

6-03   Five Luminol-revealed footprints were found on the floor in the corridor and in Knox’s bedroom.

6-04   One of these Luminol-revealed footprints was compatible with Sollecito’s right foot.

6-05   Two others were compatible with Knox’s right foot.

6-06   None of the Luminol-revealed footprints were compatible with Guede’s feet.

Area 7: Fingerprints

7-01   Ms. Kercher’s fingerprints were found on Knox’s closet door.

7-02   Knox’s fingerprints were only found on a glass in the kitchen. None of her fingerprints were found in her own bedroom, or elsewhere in the cottage.

7-03   Sollecito’s fingerprints were on Ms. Kercher’s bedroom door and on the inside face of Laura Mezzetti’s door.

7-04   Guede’s fingerprint was found in Ms. Kercher’s bedroom.

Area 8: DNA testing general

8-01   227 evidence items were sampled or bagged. 30 of these were not analyzed.

8-02   From the remaining 197 evidence items, over 480 DNA and Y haplotype tests were prepared from liquids, solids or hairs. Many objects were sampled in multiple places.

8-03   Out of the over 480 DNA and Y haplotype tests, only 193 of these tests actually yielded DNA useful for comparison. (40%)

8-04   24 tests were from samples taken from Ms. Kercher’s body. Of these, 1 test yielded DNA compatible with Guede’s Y haplotype, 17 tests yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s, and the remaining did not yield DNA useful for comparison.

8-05   11 tests were from samples taken from the exterior of the cottage. Of these, 2 tests yielded DNA compatible with an unknown female, 2 tests yielded cat DNA and the remainder did not yield useful DNA.

8-06   21 tests were from samples taken from the basement apartment at the cottage. Of these, 16 tests yielded cat blood, 2 tests yielded DNA compatible with an unknown male and the remaining did not yield DNA useful for comparison.

8-07   221 tests were from samples or items taken from the upper apartment at the cottage. Of these, 6 tests yielded DNA compatible with Guede’s DNA or Y haplotype, 82 tests yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA, 2 tests yielded DNA compatible with a mixture of Ms. Kercher’s and Guede’s DNA or Y haplotype (both tests from the same sample), 5 tests from 5 different samples yielded DNA compatible with a mixture of Ms. Kercher’s and Knox’s DNA, 2 tests yielded DNA compatible with a mixture of Ms. Kercher’s and Sollecito’s DNA or Y haplotype (both tests from the same sample), 4 tests yielded DNA compatible with Knox’s DNA, 1 test yielded DNA compatible with a mixture of Knox’s and Sollecito’s DNA, 2 tests yielded DNA compatible with an unknown female, 3 tests yielded DNA compatible with an unknown male and the remaining did not yield DNA useful for comparison.

8-08   4 tests were from samples taken (from bloodied tissue papers) found in the vicinity of the cottage, yielding DNA compatible with an unknown male or an unknown female.

8-09   16 tests were from samples taken from Sollecito’s car and no DNA useful for comparison was found.

8-10   102 tests were from samples taken from Sollecito’s apartment. Of these, 1 test yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA, 6 tests yielded DNA compatible only with Knox’s DNA, 7 tests yielded DNA compatible with a combination of Knox and Sollecito’s DNA, 7 tests yielded DNA compatible only with Sollecito’s DNA, 3 tests yielded DNA of 3 unknown males and the remaining did not yield DNA useful for comparison.

8-11   29 tests were from samples taken from Guede’s apartment. Of these, 14 tests yielded DNA compatible with Guede’s DNA and the remaining did not yield DNA useful for comparison.

8-12   6 tests were from samples taken from the pub Le Chic and no DNA useful for comparison was found.

8-13   50 tests were from samples taken from the defendants or defendant’s items during arrests or likely at the police station. Of these, 6 tests yielded DNA compatible only with Guede’s DNA, 8 tests yielded DNA compatible only with Knox’s DNA, 1 test yielded DNA compatible with a combination of Knox and Sollecito’s DNA, 2 tests yielded DNA compatible only with Lumumba’s DNA, 4 tests yielded DNA compatible only with Sollecito’s DNA, 1 test yielded DNA of an unknown male and the remaining did not yield DNA useful for comparison.

8-14   Of the 82 tests yielding DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA at the cottage, 4 samples were taken from the corridor floor, 5 were taken from the kitchen/dining floor, 66 were taken from Ms. Kercher’s room and clothing, 1 was taken from the floor in Romanelli’s room and 6 were taken from the small bathroom.

8-15   17 tests yielded unmatchable DNA, with 6 tests yielding DNA compatible with 3 different females and 11 tests yielded DNA compatible with 7 different males. 13 of these samples were found in tissue paper outside the cottage and on cigarette butts in the ashtray in the cottage kitchen.

Area 9: DNA testing- specific

9-01   Ms. Kercher’s DNA was found on the kitchen knife at Sollecito’s apartment. Her DNA was found in a groove towards the cutting edge of the blade. The grove is part of a series of noticeable scratches running parallel along the blade.

9-02   Knox’s DNA was found on the top of the handle of the same knife.

9-03   A second sample of Knox’s DNA was also found on the same knife, where the blade goes into the handle. This second sample was an LCN sample of mixed DNA, and was statistically determined to be Knox’s DNA. (RIS Berti & Barni 2013 report)

9-04   DNA mixture compatible with Knox’s and Sollecito’s DNA was found on another stained pocket knife that Sollecito had.

9-05   DNA mixture compatible with Knox’s and Sollecito’s DNA was found on a cigarette butt in the cottage kitchen. Except for the bra clasp, no other samples at the cottage yielded Sollecito’s DNA.

9-06   7 samples yielded DNA mixtures compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA mixed with either Knox’s DNA, Sollecito’s DNA or Guede’s DNA.

9-07   DNA mixture compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA and Sollecito’s DNA was found on the metal bra clasp. Sollecito’s Y haplotype was also on the metal bra clasp.

9-08   DNA mixture compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA and Guede’s DNA was found on Ms. Kercher’s purse near the zipper.

9-09   DNA mixture compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA and Knox’s DNA was found in three blood traces in the bathroom- on the bidet drain plate, in the sink and on a plastic container containing cotton swabs.

9-10   DNA mixture compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA and Knox’s DNA was also found in a Luminol-revealed blood stain on the floor of Romanelli’s room, and in a Luminol-revealed bloody footprint in the corridor.

9-11   A second Luminol-revealed blood stain in Romanelli’s room yielded Ms. Kercher’s DNA.

9-12   A sample of blood from the small bathroom faucet yielded ONLY Knox’s DNA.

9-13   Guede’s DNA was found on Ms. Kercher’s purse, the left sleeve of her sweat jacket, her bra strap, in Ms. Kercher and on the toilet paper in the large bathroom.

Area 10. Other biological traces

10-01   3 samples of presumed blood traces were found in Knox’s bedroom, on a pillow, on the night stand and on the wall by the head of the bed.

10-02   No semen was found in Ms. Kercher.

10-03   Guede left his feces in the toilet in the large bathroom.

10-04   3 fragments of toilet paper were found on Ms. Kercher’s desk; all three yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA.

10-05   2 tissue papers were found in Sollecito’s bedroom; both had blood that yielded DNA compatible with Sollecito’s DNA.

10-06   A glass on Ms. Kercher’s night stand yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA.

10-07   A strand of hair and a trace of blood were found on Romanelli’s window frame. The blood trace did not yield human DNA; the hair color was dark chestnut.

10-08   5 samples of blood traces on a towel and faucet in Guede’s bathroom all yielded Guede’s DNA.

10-09   4 samples of blood stains on Guede’s jeans and a museum ticket in his jeans also yielded Guede’s DNA.

10-10   The range of digestive timing is, under normal circumstances, 3-5 hours. This range could easily be expanded depending on any number of factors, including stress and alcohol, both of which slow digestion. (Ronchi 2009)

10-11   Based on body temperatures and the digestive process, the time of death range was estimated between 20:00 of November 1st and 04:00 of November 2nd, with the probability that the time of death occurred around 23:00 of November 1st. (Lalli 2009)

Area 11. Luminol traces

11-01   1 sample of a Luminol-revealed blood trace was taken from Guede’s apartment.

11-02   9 samples of Luminol-revealed blood traces were taken from the cottage, including Knox’s room, the corridor and Romanelli’s room.

11-03   Knox’s and Ms. Kercher’s DNA was found on the Luminol-revealed blood stain in Romanelli’s room.

11-04   Knox’s and Ms. Kercher’s DNA was found mixed in a Luminol-revealed bloody right footprint in the corridor.

11-05   14 samples of Luminol-revealed blood traces were taken from Sollecito’s apartment.

11-06   6 samples were taken from Sollecito’s bathroom, including the door, floor and shower basin.

11-07   3 samples were taken from Sollecito’s bedroom, including the door and floor.

11-08   5 samples were taken from the floor of Sollecito’s kitchen.

11-09   2 of the Luminol-revealed samples taken from Sollecito’s apartment yielded DNA compatible with a mixture of Sollecito’s and Knox’s DNA. 1 sample yielded DNA compatible with Knox’s DNA.

11-10   1 sample yielded an unknown male’s DNA (unmatchable).

Area 12: Hairs

12-01   Of the over 480 tests prepared on samples, 93 of these constituted hairs or fibers. 86 were human hairs of varying length, in varying colors. The most significant colors noted were black, blonde, chestnut, light chestnut and red chestnut.

12-02   Only 3 hairs yielded DNA; all 3 hairs yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA. All 3 hairs were chestnut colored and over 15 cm long.

12-03   35 hairs were chestnut in color; the vast majority of these were found in Ms. Kercher’s room. 2 were also found on a kitchen sponge at Sollecito’s apartment.

12-04   7 hairs were black in color. 6 of these were 4 cm long or less, and so likely Guede’s hair. 4 of these were on the duvet and 1 was on the mattress cover, both in Ms. Kercher’s room. 1 was also on a sponge at Sollecito’s apartment.

12-05   21 blonde hairs were analyzed, and were likely Knox’s hairs. Most were found at Sollecito’s apartment, 10 on a sponge in the kitchen and 5 on a sweater.

12-06   Of the 6 blonde hairs found at the cottage, 2 were on the duvet, 1 was inside the small bathroom sink, 1 was on Ms. Kercher’s purse and 1 was on her mattress cover.

12-07   4 light chestnut hairs were found. 3 of these were 9 cm long or less. 1 was found on the kitchen sponge; 1 was found on the bra and one was found on Ms. Kercher’s sweat jacket. Sollecito had light chestnut colored hair.

3. Court Assessment & Knox Spin

Judge Micheli was the first judge to make something of all this evidence, late in 2008. Unsurprisingly, if one has actually studied it, one of his major findings was this.

The pack attack, and the crime-scene rearrangement. Led by Knox. She could have escaped trial right there by rebutting it. But she and her team had pretty well zero comeback.

Oh, Hampikian, you didn’t know that?!

The “counter-case” of Hampikian, and other such shills of the PR campaign as Heavey, Fischer, Douglas, and Moore, is like a three-legged stool, with all the rest of the case simply ignored.

  • One leg is the Interrogation Hoax and we have shown in 20 posts that Knox always lied about that.

  • One leg is the supposedly “flawed” DNA analysis that actually wasn’t, which KrissyG took first new whack at last week.

  • The third leg is that there was no pack attack and that Guede somehow did all of the above on his own.

Including taking off a shoe to make ONE imprint in blood on the bathmat in a footprint several sizes smaller than his own…

On Planet Earth, nobody has ever come close to making all of the above fit a Lone Wolf. The defenses only listlessly went through the motions when they tried. Then they seized on Alessi and Aviello when they came along.

That was the defenses proving a pack attack!!

4. Tip for IP contributors

On Amanda Knox. Innocence Project Idaho rep Hampikian’s ONLY achievement was to be main cause of annulment of 2011 appeal, to anger of defense counsel. Thus he subjected Knox and RS to much tougher appeal, leading to desperate measures to bend Supreme Court. Thus Hampikian directly caused mafia involvement that Knox and RS must hide for life.


Thursday, March 29, 2018

Bizarrely Jubilant And Way Too Exposed Amanda Knox Again Fails Liar-Analysis Tests

Posted by The Machine



Pamela Meyer, a highly respected liar spotter and fraud spotter, explains how she knows if someone is lying. TED Talks applies the telltale signs to Amanda Knox.

This brilliant video needs to be promoted as much as possible on social media websites. Most people can’t be bothered to read the official court reports, but they will watch a fascinating TED talk that last a few minutes.


Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Innocence Project: Seven Years Clutching Knox And Trashing Italian Justice To Joy Of Mafias #2

Posted by KrissyG



Long post. Click here to go straight to Comments

1. Post Overview

Previously main poster Hopeful showed up the intensely superficial grasp of the case by an Innocence Project founder who is a lusty huge booster of Knox.

We see no sign that anyone in the Innocence Project (IP) has ever done due diligence, or has any better grasp of the case than Jason Flom. We certainly don’t see any on video or in print. We see only appallingly misleading and illegal work…. and nothing else. As Hopeful said in that post:

Anyone who thinks Idaho IP representative Greg Hampikian’s seemingly illegal involvement in the court-ordered DNA re-testing was somehow competent and truth-based should read KrissyG and James Raper for two blasts of reality.

This may come as a surprise. In ten years nobody whatsoever has ever landed the slightest blow on the huge (though not pivotal) DNA component of the case.

The defenses and many others have seriously misrepresented it, yes, but that is something else.

2. Chief IP Misleader Hampikian

Nearly a year before Knox ever turned up at her first Innocence Project meeting in Oregon, we had highlighted IP Idaho rep Greg Hampikian’s very misleading work here.

Our main poster the Machine had acidly remarked about Greg Hampikian in that post:

    1. He is ignorant of most of the basic facts of the case.

    2. He hasn’t read the official court documents in their entirety, but has instead relied on Amanda Knox’s family and supporters for his information without bothering to do any fact-checking.

    3. He incessantly downplays or misrepresents the hard evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and overstates that against Rudy Guede.

    4. He doesn’t limit himself to his own narrow area of expertise, but speaks about other aspect of the case and gets basic facts wrong.

    5. Like so many in the seedy defense operation he ridicules his counterparts in Italy, most of whom are much better qualified in criminal-case DNA than he is.

Do please read all of the Machine’s very damning post. Note that Hampikian has never ever tried to answer back, though he is still as much of a self-infatuated rooster as before. I would add to the Machine’s profile of Hampikian these further revealing points:

    1. In an aura of personality cult he incessantly proclaims that he is the founder and director of the Idaho Innocence Project.

    2. He took quite a shine to Amanda Knox and went white-water rafting with her.  He broke with his wife, shortly after.

    3. This absurd claim appears on his Wikipedia page - those are often written by the “celebrities” themselves:

    During the high-profile case of Amanda Knox, on May 23, 2011, Greg Hampikian announced that, based on its independent investigation and review, DNA samples taken at the crime scene all pointed to African drifter Rudy Guede and excluded Knox and Sollecito. Upon reexamination of the DNA, he concluded that the evidence is unreliable and contaminated. Hampikian’s findings are one of the main reasons that Knox and Sollecito were set free.

    Really?! The mafias had no role? Hard to believe from this that Hampikian was never an official witness put under cross-examination at the trial or appeals. He had zero official role, and the very extensive DNA evidence really proved nothing of the sort. More DNA samples of Knox than of Guede were at the scene. No contamination was ever proven.  In fact, it was categorically ruled out by the courts.

    4. He has appeared in numerous Youtube clips in especially prepared tv shows, in which he presents himself as “the objective scientist” not letting on that he is essentially only a PR shill.

    5. Hampikian was claiming a government grant for his department at Boise State University.  Journalist Andrea Vogt suspected he was using the funds to promote Amanda Knox’s marketing.  Vogt applied for information under the Freedom of Information Act.  Hampikian evaded the demand by claiming his work was a top trade secret. Academic scientists are supposed to be transparent and make their work replicable and peer-reviewed by other scientists.  So Vogt’s instincts seem correct, given the unlikely reason.

    6. He praises himself on his wiki page as “Prof. Hampikian is also an accomplished amateur folk singer and songwriter.” Indeed, he appears on a Youtube video, sounding like a hundred cats in pain singing about his d-i-v-o-r-c-e., after his rafting expedition with Knox.  She appears grinning by his side in pictures.

    7. He has given evidence under oath in court several times (though never in Italy) claiming he was THE expert who got Amanda Knox “exonerated”.  Knox has never been exonerated, certainly not on the DNA evidence, and the mafias clearly had a role in springing the pair. So, Hampikian is not someone who takes solemn oaths seriously, although his illegal interference was real. 

    8. The defence lawyers for Paul Jenkins and Fred Lawrence are currently in court to try to pin the DNA evidence on another convict, David Wayne Nelson, with Hampikian as the ‘expert DNA witness’ claiming,

‘“I do a lot of cases,” said Hampikian. “This is the second time I can remember one of my cases where it cleared two men and someone else is a hit to the database.”

He doesn’t say to whom he is referring in this absurd claim, but no doubt it is Knox and Sollecito with Guede as the ‘hit’.  Hampikian, thus, is a stranger to the truth, as Knox and Sollecito’s DNA at the crime scene is legally sound.

Comment by Ergon

Examples of typical dishonesty from Greg Hampikian in this article

1. “We asked the Italian lab to supply validation of such a sensitive measurement, but they never complied”.

Yes they did, though maybe not to the professor from Idaho.

2. “a new study on the knife was then ordered in Italy. This failed to repeat the DNA finding”.

They didn’t retest the ‘DNA finding’.

3. “This finding was never repeated, despite many attempts”.

There was only one attempt, which the defense accepted as all that could be done.

4. “As DNA consultant for the defence in the Amanda Knox case”.

You weren’t hired ‘by the defense’ but inserted yourself in your personal capacity using public funds.

5. “but when fingerprints and DNA from the scene were analysed, only two profiles were identified: those of the victim and Rudy Guede”

Also Raffaele Sollecito’s, and Amanda Knox’s blood DNA mixed with Meredith Kercher’s.

6. “Calls followed for global standards on use of low copy number DNA”.

Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA profile on the bra clasp wasn’t LCN DNA, nor was contamination proven against any of Stefanoni’s findings.

7. “a kitchen knife at Sollecito’s house. It didn’t match many wounds on the body and tested negative for blood.”

Because there were two knives, and it tested negative for blood because it was rigorously washed in bleach.


3. Who Manages Or Crosschecks Hampikian?

Hampikian seems to have a pass to claim whatever he wants in the name of the Innocence Project. No quality control, no peer review, no reporting, no accountability at all. Just a near-endless stream of lies.

If Hampikian was to be checked out and made to stop lying and acting as a PR shill, and to stick only to the truth, whose job in the IP would be that? Presumably the man at the top. Barry Scheck.

Has Barry Scheck been asleep at the switch? If so, not for the first time. .



4. Ten Quick Facts About Barry Scheck

1. Born 1949, at Yale Scheck was a ‘fervent anti-war demonstrator’.  In Los Angeles he was a key member of OJ Simpson’s ‘dream team’, which got OJ off a murder rap in 1995.

2. Barry Scheck, as a law professor at the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in New York City, is a forensic and DNA evidence expert. He joined the “Dream Team” to help them ‘harness the power of forensic and DNA evidence’ to assist in Simpson’s defence.

3. Scheck is also known for his work as co-founder and co-director of the Innocence Project, a non-profit organization that uses DNA evidence to ‘clear the names of wrongfully convicted inmates’.

4. Scheck co-founded the Innocence Project in 1992 with Peter Neufeld, also his co-counsel on the O.J. Simpson defence team.

5. The Project claims it is ‘dedicated to the utilization of DNA evidence as a means to exculpate individuals of crimes for which they were wrongfully convicted’.

6. To date, it claims 343 wrongful convictions have been overturned by DNA testing ‘thanks to the Project and other legal organizations’.

7. The Innocence Project claims ‘it does not use legal technicalities to challenge convictions; the Project accepts only cases in which newly discovered scientific evidence can potentially prove that a convicted person is factually innocent’.

8. Scheck unsuccessfully defended British baby sitter Louise Woodward against a charge of killing a baby in her care, shortly after the OJ acquittal, leading some to perceive a ‘backlash’ against his defence methods.

9. Scheck and Neufield were heavily criticised in 1999 in a case where eight cops were charged with abusing Abner Louima or shooting dead Amadou Diallo-to benefit their own civil cases on behalf of those victims, putting the police at risk of an unfair trial.

10. Scheck and Neufield called a press conference before the criminal trial, revealing potentially incriminating evidence against the four policemen from an autopsy report, which revealed Diallo was shot in his foot and legs whilst already down. Their ethics were questioned.  Outside the press conference, 1,000 Scheck supporters chanted, ‘“No justice, no peace, no more racist police.”

5. So The Bottom Line On Scheck Is?

Thus, we have a picture of someone who sees himself as a warrior for social justice, and anti-establishment.  Scheck uses his privileged position as a lawyer and DNA expert to help the disadvantaged and oppressed.

However, after the OJ Simpson trial, which saw Scheck shoot to fame, and not necessarily in a good way, but as a silver-tongued crafty defence lawyer who could persuade a jury that night is day by any means at his disposal, regardless of ethics, there emerges a hint of a ruthless man driven by an urge to get the better of his perceived opponents.

So far so good, this is 100% of what we the public have cynically come to expect of a winning-at-all-costs lawyer.  We want them to write our ‘strong letters’ for us, or to win our compensation; perhaps get us off a rap.

We want them to ‘be on our side’, and when you are poor, dispossessed and otherwise ‘invisible’ to the establishment, finding such a high-profile lawyer to champion your case, then fawning gratitude transforms into hero-worship and cult following.

Such is the effect of Scheck’s Innocence Project, thousands of prisoners in the USA claiming to be ‘wrongfully convicted’, whether they are or not, flock to sample the ‘exoneration’ he holds out as the prize for joining up.

Add to the pot US attorneys who as part of their standards are expected to devote a substantial part of their time towards ‘pro bono’ work (free representation), then the ready pool of the poor and deprived that make up the Innocence Projects are ready made clients for them.

6. IP Does Indeed Do Some Good Work

We have shown again and again that American law enforcement, justice and incarceration systems, not their Italian equivalents, are the systems where injustices are off the charts.

Read for example the series of three posts starting here.  An estimated 200,000-plus sitting in prison because prosecutors scared them into a plea-bargain.

Barry Scheck’s target group and release rate is absolutely miniscule compared to this 200,000, but it is not a net negative on the whole. Every little bit of pushback can help. Scheck’s interviews and speeches are often good.


 

7. But Things Do Go Badly Wrong.

The Medill Innocence Project Case

There seems plenty of evidence that the Innocence Project is only loosely managed from the top. Other grandstanders and corner cutters and law-breakers like Hampikian are far from unknown.

And to IP host institutions like lawschools “mistakes” like this one below can bring major harm.

In the Medill Innocence project, a professor at Northwestern University’s Medill School of Journalism, David Protess, was picked to head this.

His work had overturned convictions in a number of high-profile cases that won freedom for the ‘wrongfully imprisoned’ and earned him fame and prestige that included a TV-movie deal and a new post. From the start, Protess got his law students to were acting as amateur gumshoes, Protess dispatched them to interview witnesses and dig up new evidence.

Protess was looking for wrongful convictions.  He thought he had found one in Anthony Porter, who had narrowly escaped execution for a 1982 murder and had since served fifteen years, after winning a last minute reprieve.

Protess was keen to highlight that the State had been prepared to execute an innocent man, and he and his private eye students pinpointed an ‘alternative perpetrator’ in Alstory Simon.

“This investigation by David Protess and his team involved a series of alarming tactics,” the Cook County State’s Attorney, Anita Alvarez, said in her statement after Simon’s eventual release.  The Medill Innocence Project’s tactics, “were not only coercive and absolutely unacceptable by law-enforcement standards, “they were potentially in violation of Mr. Simon’s constitutionally protected rights.”

From the Daily Beast in 2014:

Perhaps the worst of those alarming tactics were used by Paul Ciolino, a private investigator working with Protess who got Simon to confess to the murder. According to Alvarez’s findings, Ciolino threatened Simon, promised him a short sentence and financial rewards for cooperating, and used an actor to play a witness who accused Simon of the shooting.

Finally, Ciolino volunteered a lawyer, Jack Rimland, to represent Simon in court. Rimland, a personal acquaintance of Ciolino, may have had a conflict of interest defending a man that his associate was trying to prove guilty, but that didn’t stop him from taking the case.

At the time, it did the trick. Alstory Simon confessed to the murder on video and within days, after more than a decade on death row, Porter walked free.

The State prosecutors then had to spend time and money retrying Porter and reaffirming the seemingly overwhelming evidence of his guilt (six eye witnesses named him).  However, the case against Porter was dropped a month later.  Following on from this case, Illinois banned the death penalty, in 2011.

More from the report in the Daily Beast.

After initially defending the program, Medill launched an investigation of its own. In the end, it was found that students working under Protess had used false pretenses in trying to elicit witness statements.

More damningly, the professor’s claim that the records from his class’s work were protected by journalistic privilege was undermined by the discovery that he’d altered an email instructing that the project’s findings should be turned over directly to defense counsels without any copies retained.

When it was all over, Protess had negotiated his retirement and left the school. His reputation bruised but with legacy of his central victory—winning Anthony Porter’s freedom—still intact.

After Simon’s release last month and the accusation that Protess helped put an innocent man in prison for 15 years, possibly freeing a killer in the bargain, his legacy may be the least of his concerns.


The IP Role

This is a perfect illustration of what can happen when badly supervised lawyers try to solve a case outside of a courtroom.  Delusion, fanaticism and a disregard for due process can blind an Innocence Project lawyer or law student to the truth of culpability.  In other words, they find themselves fighting the establishment, whatever that is, rather than true injustice.

The State prosecutor, Alvarez, said at the time:

“The bottom line is, the investigation conducted by Protess and private investigator Ciolino as well as the subsequent legal representation of Mr. Simon were so flawed that it’s clear the constitutional rights of Mr. Simon were not scrupulously protected as our law requires.”

In 2016, Alstory Simon filed a $40m lawsuit From the Chicago Tribune.

A federal judge on Tuesday gave the green light to a $40 million lawsuit alleging Northwestern University and former star professor David Protess conspired to frame a man for an infamous double murder that became one of the most significant wrongful conviction cases in Illinois history.

The lawsuit brought by Alstory Simon alleges Protess and private investigator Paul Ciolino manufactured bogus evidence, coaxed false statements from witnesses, intimidated Simon into confessing and set him up with a lawyer, Jack Rimland, who coached him to plead guilty.

In denying a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Robert Dow said that it was plausible the money and publicity Protess had brought to Northwestern had allowed a culture of lawlessness and unethical conduct at the university.

The Bombshell Twist

In June 2017 Chicago Tribune reported a ‘bombshell’ twist.  It was revealed that in 2014 at the time of Simon’s release a 28-page internal report wherein the deputies of the then State Attorney Alvarez had concluded, ‘there is not sufficient evidence to seek to vacate Simon’s convictions’. 

Many High-profile Innocence ‘Exonerees’ Earn $’000’s

Simon is like so many prisoners released early, whether or not there is an ‘Alford’ deal – where release is on condition the prisoner accepts the State does not accept liability that the conviction was wrongful and no ‘certificate of innocence’ is provided.

This type of deal is true, for example, for ‘Sunny’ Jacobs, released from death row and finally prison for her role in the murder of two policemen in Florida, and the notorious WM3 which includes Damien Echols, who has since made millions from books and tours on the back of ‘innocence’.

Amanda Knox, Damien Echols and the other two WM3 are listed by All American Entertainment as exonerated ‘speakers’ charging up to $10,000 a time.  Yet none have had a ‘certificate of innocence’.  Thus, by Ciolino’s own words, they cannot be classed as ‘exonerated’.

Cook County ‘Wanted to Prosecute David Protess and Paul Ciolino’

The reason Cook County gives for refusing to vacate Simon’s conviction is because he failed to come clean on the deception a taking a rap for another man’s crimes in exchange for a shorter sentence.  The reports states:

Simon was not a child or inexperienced at any relevant time. As of 1982 he had accumulated an extensive criminal history. He had been arrested for robberies or armed robberies five times between 1966 and 1977. He had three felony or armed robbery convictions. ... He was 47 when he (pleaded) guilty. This certainly complicates his claims regarding coercion and being misled.

The report criticises the ‘less than ideal circumstances’ in which Ciolino tricked Simon into confessing the first time, after which Simon continued the masquarade by spontaneously admitting to firing the fatal shots for some time after his conviction.  For example, in a letter to his lawyers.

However, in spite of these reservations, Alvarez had called a news conference and announced there was ‘no other conclusion’ than that Simon should be freed.  Pointedly, she indicated that if it were not for the statute of limitations (time limit for bringing a charge) she would have prosecuted Protess and Ciolino.

Subsequently she declined to send representatives to contest Simon’s effort to win a “certificate of innocence,” a document that allows wrongfully incarcerated, factually innocent persons to collect cash damages from the state.  It was because whilst Simon probably did not commit the murders, he was part of the innocence fraud which put him in prison and which freed Porter.

Paul Ciolino Hits Back

The latest news, as of January 2018, leading on from the supposed ‘leaked’ document of 2014 which showed Simon’s convictions were merely ‘vacated’ is that Paul Cionlino is suing Simon, Alavarez, and a couple of the ‘Park’ filmmakers, a Chicago Tribune journalist and policemen for damages for ‘defamation’.

The 66-page petition mirrors the counterclaim Ciolino filed before and which was dismissed last year.  He claims his reputation and career were destroyed by the allegations in the Simon case.  Ciolino claims Simon was ‘paid thousands of dollars’ and witnesses interfered with by these anti-Innocent Project forces. 

The Murder in the Park documentary, asserts there are many other cases where ‘the wrong man is imprisoned and the right one was freed, which Ciolino claims is defamatory.  He highlights the letter to Simon’s lawyers in which he states he killed Hillard in self-defence and Green by accident.  Ciolino’s new lawsuit is described as ‘frivolous and without merit’ (Prieb) and ‘so false as to be sanctionable’ (Ekl)

Simon had alleged Ciolino impersonated a police officer and used actors as fake eye witnesses.  He claims Ciolino said if he confessed, he’d get a shortened sentence by claiming ‘self defence’ and avoid the death penalty.  He was also ‘promised large sums of money from book and movie deals’ if he played along, the suit alleges.

Paul Ciolino Acknowledges a Vacated Conviction Does Not Mean ‘Exoneration’

If this illustrates anything, it’s that Innocence Projects running parallel to the US legal system can cause all sorts of chaos and confusion.  In effect, Alvarez the State Prosecutor having freed Simon, is now refusing to vacate his conviction.  The Innocence Project does not see a vacated conviction as an ‘exoneration’ as evidenced by Ciolino suing for defamation on the grounds that ‘Simon is guilty after all’.

If a vacated conviction does not mean exoneration to people like Ciolino, then people like Ryan Ferguson, the West Memphis Three and Amanda Knox, whom the Innocence Projects spearhead as their ‘Star Exonerees’ are gods with clay feet standing on a false pedestal.

It calls into question the integrity of Innocence Project lawyers, such as Kathleen Zellner, who is said to earn more than $12m per annum as a conservative figure.  The last published Annual Report of the Innocence Project shows a turnover of $26m, with a surplus gain of >$3m in the ‘not-for-profit’ org in 2016.  Zellner is famous for obtaining ‘death bed’ confessions from prisoners on Death Row taking the rap for the alleged crimes of her clients, thus securing their release.

8. My Conclusion About This Above

Given these pressures and these possibilities for mismanagement, what of the IP’s illegal intervention into the case in Italy? What of the false touting of an “innocent” Knox? What of the trashing of Italian justice, in witting or unwitting harmony with the mafias?

Another IP trainwreck waiting to happen. And happen it did.

9. Tip For IP Contributors

On Amanda Knox. Innocence Project Idaho rep Hampikian’s ONLY achievement was to be main cause of annulment of 2011 appeal, to anger of defense counsel. Thus he subjected Knox and RS to much tougher appeal, leading to desperate measures to bend Supreme Court. Thus Hampikian directly caused mafia involvement that Knox and RS must hide for life.


Monday, March 12, 2018

Innocence Project: Seven Years Clutching Knox And Trashing Italian Justice To Joy Of Mafias #1

Posted by Hopeful



Jason Flom, Amanda Knox

1. Series Overview

Barry Scheck’s Innocence Project quite openly admits to bending the 2011 appeal via collaboration with the “independent” DNA consultants.

Anyone who thinks Idaho IP representative Greg Hampikian’s seemingly illegal involvement in the court-ordered DNA re-testing was somehow competent and truth-based should read KrissyG and James Raper for two blasts of reality.

Beginning early in 2014 (soon after the Florence Appeal Court reaffirmed Knox’s guilty verdict and a whole year prior to the Supreme Court outcome) the Innocence Project clutched Knox firmly and propelled her onto the elite speakers’ circuit. It has repeatedly used her since as a keynoter and potent draw for attendees and presumably for funding too. 

Knox’s speaking career would have gone absolutely nowhere if Barry Scheck & Co had not promoted her with such manic enthusiasm. They still remain unencumbered by comprehensive due diligence or a fact-based narrative. Much simply seems unknown. Trashing Italy is apparently just fine.

Late next month at an Innocence Project “gala” in Kansas City Knox will yet again be an IP keynote speaker.

2. The Jason Flom Podcast

Jason Flom is a founding board member of the Innocence Project. As the sharp eyes of our main poster Guermantes picked up, Flom interviewed Knox in January 2017 for a podcast: The Wrongful Conviction of Amanda Knox.

Flom seems to have done little or no homework. Most of these posts predate this interview. So an open-minded interviewer not toeing the self-serving IP party line could have avoided the naivety and manipulation we can see here.

Knox tells Flom the Perugian investigators (actually the highly respected national elite) were like children pretending to process a crime scene but making major mistakes. Her tone of voice suggested mockery and ridicule of them playing at being forensic scientists.

Flom laps up this nonsense unquestioningly. However Knox’s lies to Flom were mainly of omission, so much that she didn’t want to speak of and that Flom could not even comprehend.

When he asked her why she was targeted when several other people were at the cottage the morning the police arrived (Filomena, her boyfriend, Raffaele) Knox explained that her behavior didn’t impress police as that of an innocent person because she was kissing Raffaele and being comforted in the yard of the cottage.

There is no special sign that she was targeted. And she omits a mountain of other behavior. She refuses to tell Mr. Flom of her highjinks in the Questura, her tongue sticking out, her cartwheels, or her thong-buying visit to Bubbles, nor of her skipping the memorial service for Meredith in the days after the death. None of that escapes her lips.

She does pretend some indignation about Rudy Guede the “real killer”. Mostly she talks of every single sad emotion she endured in the 8 months of incarceration before she was charged with murder.

She mentions Meredith throughout the interview very little. She seems to be mostly swept up in memories of how she was robbed of hope behind bars, and she revels (this was 2017) in how a few persons who first thought her guilty have been convinced by more recent media that she is innocent and have apologized to her. She ascends skyward on such thoughts.

Her main concern seems to be with her public image and her power to con the world.  It becomes evident when she narrates to Flom her morning at the cottage in the hours before Meredith’s body was discovered, when she first entered the cottage saying the door was wide open and she was there alone to take a shower before proceeding to go to Gubbio for the weekend with loverboy, that she was in a deep mental quandary as to the meaning of the open door, the small bits of blood in the sink (she emphasized to Flom how small the specks were) and the dirty toilet in a nearby bathroom that she was so greatly alarmed enough to want to slow down her trip out of town and instead bring Raf back over to see about things at the cottage and give his opinion.

She was so worried, she pretends. So terribly worried, but not worried enough to walk a few feet down the hall and open a bedroom door to see if a roommate were present and hadn’t heard her “hello, is anybody there?” Ridiculous. She also mentions that her computer was safe in her own bedroom and hadn’t been stolen but not one word that her lamp was missing… as if she wouldn’t have noticed that.

She talks much of her own humanity, that people who meet her will not judge her but will find her innocent, but if they haven’t met her in person they will assume guilt. She seems to feel that they need to be blinded by her “humanity” and give her a pass on having destroyed Meredith’s life. She says very little to Jason Flom about Raffaele, depicting him as a non-threatening puppy and their relationship before the murder as one of sweetness and a juvenile thing.

Mr. Flom suggests it was like a high school relationship between two college students, she half-way assents to his description. She said that the language barrier circumvented them from discussing deep issues, that it was mostly hand-holding and him wanting to give her perfume like Italian women wore and to show her some new store or market he had discovered.

Knox seems to hold her greatest anger and disdain (well-hidden of course unless you know this case backwards and forwards and have seen Knox’s wiles) toward Philomena. It was Philomena’s hysterics and shouts of “a foot, a foot” and the general screaming and shouting of spontaneous anguish and grief over knowing it was Meredith’s body in the bedroom, that seems to antagonize Knox the most. Imagine that, some people actually GRIEVED for Meredith and thought her worthy of a display of emotion and concern.

Knox tells Jason Flom that it was Philomena’s SIM card inside the cell phone that Meredith was using, that tied the phone to the cottage. It was Filomena’s SIM card that enabled the first police to rush to the cottage so fast, and who interrupted Knox in her little last minute cleaning scheme and that threw her out of her rhythm and almost tripped her up by arriving so quickly, perhaps that was why Knox despised Filomena so much. Also it was Filomena’s boyfriend who kicked open the door and thus sent Knox out of the cottage quickly and permanently. She seemed to show irritation with Flom when she spoke of being rousted from her house in Perugia.

She tells Flom that she believed the police when they said she was being sent to prison for her own protection, thinking she was a witness (untrue: grounds for arrest were fully explained by Dr Mignini). She said she should have realized when they put her in handcuffs that this was ludicrous, but she was naïve and idealistic.

She said she went to Japan and to Germany when she was 14 years old, and that her beloved Oma, her German grandmother, had wanted her to be an exchange student to Germany. She was taking German and Italian language classes before she went to Perugia, she said.

She seems to imply slightly that it was her father’s fault that she took the language courses rather her first love of creative writing. She said she felt she couldn’t have sold Dadddy on the usefulness of a creative writing degree, so she detoured and took the languages degree hoping to become a translator. She said that the University for Foreigners in Perugia was not demanding or rigorous at all and she was disappointed at that. (Hint hint, is she suggesting she had too much free time from studies and thus went wild due to “idle hands are the devil’s workshop”? She could easily have enrolled at the main university and gained course credits for her degree back in Seattle - as her parents believed she was doing.)

She bristles with rage at the thought of friends who suggested she change her name to deflect publicity. Never. Her ego is limitless and she wants to be herself, that is paramount.  She said her biggest fear was that she would forever have to cower in a corner. She speaks of her determination to do the opposite now that she has her freedom back and is safe to speak.

She seems sincerely grateful to people who spent their energy and time in trying to get her free from prison, and feared she might have been forgotten and left to languish behind bars. She seems sincerely moved that people who didn’t have to care about her, did so. No doubt this is the natural reaction of anyone sprung from prison cells, whether guilty or innocent.

Her main beef behind bars was that she could not sway the entire world with her words alone.  She talks a smooth line and certainly had Mr. Jason Flom in her sway. She also claimed that Meredith’s DNA had been thought to have been on the knife but that it was not (Carabinieri labs confirmed it was, so there’s another lie from Knox).

It irks me that people who question Knox won’t take time to read up on the case.

Why can’t they ask Knox about the 5 spots of her DNA mixed in Meredith’s blood throughout the cottage? Knox also laughs with Jason Flom about the impossibility of her cleaning up the crime scene, when it’s proven without question that a bloody footprint was erased that led to the footprint on the blue bathmat. Knox is lying about the cleanup.

And when Knox explained to Flom her discomfort at discovering the unflushed toilet, she tells him that Laura and Filomena were neat freaks (liked to keep a very clean house). She did not say the same for Meredith, but only mentioned Laura and Filomena being clean freaks. She did not tell Mr. Flom of her normal unflushed toilets that the long-suffering Meredith Kercher had to face daily.

Knox omits much of the truth, and twists the rest of the truth. Her best truth is whatever she can think up for the occasion. And the daffy Mr Flom swallows it.

3. Tip For IP Contributors

On Amanda Knox. Innocence Project Idaho rep Hampikian’s ONLY achievement was to be main cause of annulment of 2011 appeal, to anger of defense counsel. Thus he subjected Knox and RS to much tougher appeal, leading to desperate measures to bend Supreme Court. Thus Hampikian directly caused mafia involvement that Knox and RS must hide for life.


Friday, December 29, 2017

Why Did The Mainstream Media Enable A Takeover By The Conspiracy Nuts?

Posted by The Machine



How Seattle is misinformed. Exoneration? Riiiight….

Rampant Conspiracies

This condemnation is written in light of the ever-growing wave of translated transcripts.

They show how extremely good the investigation and case at trial really were. And how extremely wrong were too much of the press. Why did mainstream media organisations allow so many conspiracy nuts to spout their unsubstantiated and ridiculously far-fetched claims?

Mainstream media organisations have known for a while that the general public has an insatiable appetite for documentaries about allegedly innocent people who have been convicted of murders they didn’t commit.

A cursory glance at the selection of true crime documentaries on Netflix provides evidence of the appeal of this specific genre. Amanda Knox, West of Memphis and Making of a Murderer are all hugely popular.

The Serial podcast about the Adnan Syed/Hae Mine Lee case is one the most downloaded podcast of all time. Sarah Koenig presented the case from the defence’s perspective and concluded there isn’t enough evidence to convict Adnan Syed of Hae Min Lee’s murder. 

The juries in the respective cases above listened to the prosecution and defence present their cases in court.

They weighed the testimonies of the experts and witnesses for both sides and they were all convinced that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, Damian Echols, Jesse Misskelley and Jason Baldwin and Steven Avery and Brendan Dassey and Adnan Syed were all involved in exceptionally brutal murders.

There is damning evidence against all the people mentioned above. But many journalists don’t want the facts to get in the way of a good story.

Among The Worst

Paul Ciolino admitted in a question-and-answer session about the Meredith Kercher case at Seattle University that CBS News didn’t care whether someone was innocent. The only thing they care about is the story.

I work for CBS News. I want to tell you one thing about CBS. We don’t care if you did it. We don’t care if you’re innocent. We like a story. We want to do a story. That’s all we care about.

It was recognised as far back as 1999 in the legal profession that journalists have an inclination to slant their reports in favour of the defendants.

P. Cassell, “The guilty and the ‘innocent’: An examination of alleged cases of wrongful conviction from false confessions”, Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, 1999:

...academic research on miscarriages should not rely on media descriptions of the evidence against defendants. Journalists will all too often slant their reports in the direction of discovering “news” by finding that an innocent person has been wrongfully convicted.

The default position of mainstream media organisations in the US was that Amanda Knox is innocent despite the fact that the vast majority of journalists who covered the case weren’t in a position to know this - they hadn’t regularly attended the court hearings or read a single page of any of the official court reports.

The news organizations in Seattle was so partisan in their support of Amanda Knox that they were effectively just mouthpieces for the PR firm of David Marriott that was hired by Curt Knox to influence a credulous and naive local audience who felt duty-bound to support the hometown girl.

Lawyer Anne Bremner couldn’t resist the temptation to use the case to promote herself in the media. Judge Michael Heavey was recruited so he could use his position as a judge to sway the public.

The vast majority of people in Seattle were kept completely ignorant of the basic facts of the case by all their newspapers and all their TV news, so they were not in a position to realize that both Bremner and Heavey got basic facts wrong.

Many American journalists who reported on the case hold the ridiculous belief that the US legal system is the only competent and just one in the world, and that no US citizen charged by a foreign court with any crime can possibly be guilty of it or ever receive a fair trial.

The claim that Amanda Knox was being framed for a murder she didn’t commit by corrupt officials in a foreign country by her supporters was manna from heaven for mainstream media organizations in America.

It was a sensational story that was guaranteed to enrage and entertain a gullible American public in equal measure.

It’s not possible to ascertain precisely who originated the story that Amanda Knox was being framed for a murder she didn’t commit by a corrupt legal system.

But it almost certainly came from someone within or very close to Amanda Knox’s family. Jan Goodwin was one of the first journalists to make the claim after interviewing Edda Mellas for Marie Claire in 2008.

Studying abroad should have been a grand adventure. Instead, Amanda Knox has spent a year in jail, accused by a corrupt legal system of murdering her roommate.

Goodwin didn’t offer any evidence to substantiate her claim that the Italy legal system is corrupt, presumably the word of Edda Mellas was good enough for her.

It transpired that the word of Edda Mellas and ex-husband Curt and Amanda Knox’s supporters was good enough for the vast majority of journalists who covered the case on both sides of Atlantic.

They unquestiongly accepted everything they heard without bothering to do any fact-checking whatsoever. Time and again not a single investigator or court official in Perugia was interviewed.

This explains the reason why so many articles about the case are riddled with factual errors and well-known PR lies.

Other media organisations wanted to get in on the act and claim there was dastardly plot to frame Amanda Knox for Meredith’s murder.

CBS News allowed a couple of zany conspiracy nuts to spout their nonsense without providing any evidence to support their wild-eyed claims. Here’s Paul Ciolino again:

This is a lynching ... this is a lynching that is happening in modern day Europe right now and it’s happening to an American girl who has no business being charged with anything. (Paul Ciolino, CBS News.)

Here is Peter van Sant.

We have concluded that Amanda Knox is being railroaded… I promise you’re going to want to send the 82nd Airborne Division over to Italy to get this girl out of jail. (Peter Van Sant, CBS News.)

The reporting was invariably tinged with xenophobic sentiments. Italy was portrayed as some backward Third World country whose police force was comically incompetent. Here’s CBS’s Doug Longhini.

But in the case of Amanda Knox, the American student convicted of murder in Italy last December, the Via Tuscolana apparently failed to separate fantasy from truth. Too many Italian investigators rivaled Fellini as they interpreted, and reinterpreted facts, to suit their own, surrealistic script.” (Doug Longhini, CBS News).

WHERE in all the transcripts is that proved?  Doug Longhini’s pompous and pseudo-intellectual comments are meaningless and lack any substance, although he was no doubt very pleased himself for his “clever” reference to Fellini.

Ironically Longhini was unable to separate fantasy from truth when he produced the error-ridden American Girl, Italian Nightmare for CBS News. The documentary includes the familiar PR lies about satanic rituals, the 14-hour interrogation sessions, and Knox not knowing Rudy Guede.

Lawyer John Q Kelly seemingly forgot the Latin maxim “semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit” - “he who asserts must prove” - when he claimed that Knox and Sollecito were being railroaded and evidence against them had been manipulated.

My thoughts, Larry, it’s probably the most egregious international railroading of two innocent young people that I have ever seen. This is actually a public lynching based on rank speculation, and vindictiveness. It’s just a nightmare what these parents are going through and what these young adults are going through also.

“There’s been injustice here. There’s been injustice in other countries but this is just beyond the pale. The manipulation of evidence; the most unfavorable inferences drawn from the most common of circumstances and conduct was just a gross injustice here.”

(John Q Kelly, CNN).

Judy Bachrach was also allowed to claim there was a conspiracy to Amanda Knox on CNN.

Everyone knew from the beginning that the prosecutor had it in for Amanda Knox, that the charges are pretty much trumped up…

From the beginning this was carefully choreographed, they wanted to find her guilty, they’ve kept her in jail for two years even before trial and they did find her guilty. This is the way Italian justice is done. If you’re accused, you’re guilty.

There isn’t an ounce of hard evidence against her and all of Italy should be ashamed actually.” (Judy Bachrach, CNN).

Arguably the craziest conspiracy nut - and the competition is fierce - is the former FBI agent Steve Moore in early retirement.

Steve Moore claimed the Perugian police, Guilano Mignini, Dr Patrizia Stefanoni, Edgardo Giobbi the head of the Violent Crimes Unit in Rome, Judge Massei, and the Italian Supreme Court were all part of a dastardly plot to frame Amanda Knox.

Moore claimed the following on his blog.

For this to happen, though, pompous prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, forensic perjurer Patrizia Stefanoni, and mind-reading detective Edgardo Giobbi (and others), must be prosecuted for their corruption. The judge who rubber stamped the lies in the first trial, Massei, must be also called to the bar of justice-or back to law school.

In a discussion with lawyer Paul Callan on CNN Moore actually claimed the Supreme Court was involved in the conspiracy.

Paul Callan: “And now … and they (the Perugian police) got the Supreme Court of Italy involved in this conspiracy? You know, that’s like saying that … [Steve Moore interrupts]”

Steve Moore: “Yes, they do. Yes, they do. You are being naive. You don’t understand the Italian system. You don’t understand it. You are defending something you don’t understand.”

Barbie Nadeau reported Moore’s claim that evidence was manipulated for The Daily Beast.

The evidence that was presented in trial was flawed, it was manipulated.

Steve Moore has never provided any evidence to support his wild-eyed hysterical claims there was a huge conspiracy involving a prosecutor, different police departments, Judge Massei and judges at the Italian Supreme Court to frame Amanda Knox for Meredith’s murder.

It’s no wonder TV legal analyst Paul Callan was smiling, desperately trying not to burst out laughing, when he discussed the case with Moore on CNN.

Moore provided irrefutable proof in the short time he was on CNN that he is ignorant of the basic facts of the case, and that he hasn’t read any of the official court reports. He falsely claimed “the DNA that they said was Raffaele’s was actually a woman’s DNA.”

No expert claimed this at the trial.

Sollecito’s DNA was identified by two separate DNA tests. Of the 17 loci tested in the sample, Sollecito’s profile matched 17 out of 17. David Balding, a professor of Statistical Genetics at University College London, analysed the DNA evidence against Sollecito and concluded it was “very strong”.

Moore told Erin Burnett: “The second trial proved with independent experts that the DNA that they claim was the victim’s was not on the knife.”

A number of forensic experts - Dr Stefanoni, Dr Biondo, Professor Novelli, Professor Torricelli, and Luciano Garofano - have all confirmed that sample 36B which was extracted from the blade of the knife WAS Meredith’s DNA. The independent experts did not carry out a test on this sample. 

In England there were deranged conspiracy nuts claiming Amanda Knox was framed too.

Amy Jenkins bizarrely claimed in The Independent that Knox and Sollecito were the victims of a miscarriage of justice because Knox was a young woman, the Italians didn’t like the fact Knox snogged her boyfriend and someone needed to save face or something.

The truth is, Amanda Knox’s great crime was to be a young woman – but mainly it was to be a young woman who didn’t know how to behave. She was 20 years old, she was suffering from shock, and she was in a foreign country. She was interrogated with no lawyer and no translator present. She made a phony confession.

Clearly no saint, she wasn’t a Madonna either. That’ll make her a whore then. She snogged her boyfriend; she was slightly provocative on Facebook; she turned an inappropriate cartwheel. In a Catholic country, it’s clearly not such a leap to go from there to stabbing your room-mate in the neck during a violent sexual assault – because that’s the leap the prosecution made.

To save face, Knox and her poor boyfriend had to be somehow levered into the frame. As the whole juggernaut of injustice chugged on it became harder and harder for the six lay judges who acted as a jury to destroy a case that had been constructed over two years by prosecutors who were their close working colleagues.” (Amy Jenkins, The Independent).

Conclusion: READ THE DOCUMENTS

More and more the translated documents prove that all of them have been wrong. The conspiracy theorists predictably haven’t provided one iota of evidence that there was ever any conspiracy to frame Amanda Knox for Meredith’s murder.

I suspect the producers at mainstream media organisations like CBS News and CNN knew there never was any conspiracy to frame Amanda Knox all along, but they didn’t get care because they wanted a sensational story. 

Too many people within the media perversely see murder as entertainment. Rather than providing balanced and factually accurate coverage of murder cases they want to outrage and entertain the masses with melodramatic stories of conspiracies involving corrupt prosecutors and cops who want to frame innocent people for murders they didn’t commit instead.

We shouldn’t be surprised by the popularity of Making of a Murderer on Netflix. It filled a vacuum after Knox and Sollecito were acquitted in 2015.

I have no doubts that journalists from mainstream media organisations are currently looking for the next alleged case of someone being framed or railroaded for a murder they didn’t commit.


Thursday, December 10, 2015

Traitor? How Sollecito Extensively Smeared Italy In English But Of Course Not Italian

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters




1. Overview Of “Sollecito As Traitor” Series

By way for example of his new Italian book, Sollecito is trying hard to make himself liked in Italy.

An uphill task at best. Most Italians, who could follow the case a lot closer than most people outside Italy, know about all of this.

    (1) At his central-police-station interview 5-6 November 2007 and his first Matteini hearing two days later he dumped very heavily on Knox.

    (2) Throughout trial he gave Knox no help with her current alibi (that she was at his place all night) and again and again pulled out the rug from under her.

    (3) After the Hellmann outcome late 2011 Sollecito took off like a rabbit for the US (with his family soon in hot pursuit) and after Knox stiffed him tried very hard to get someone - anyone - to marry him so he could stay.

    (4) Before the Nencini verdict came out in early 2014, a panicked Sollecito took off to the north in a car and got cold feet (or was warned to stop) at the Austrian border and ignominiously came back.

    (5) Before the Fifth Chambers verdict came out in early 2015 a panicked Sollecito took off for Bari rather than remaining at the Supreme Court to find out what the verdict would be.

    What Italians mostly dont know is this. In late 2013 Sollecito’s first book - only in English - came out, and he was soon all over American TV once again sticking it to Knox.

    In the book his self-serving strategy was threefold: (1) Despite the title, point hard to Knox; (2) Point harder to Dr Mignini and the supposedly bungling, mean police; and (3) Point hardest to the official mechanisms, by lying on a grand scale, to make them out to be brutal and highly archaic at best.

    This series will lay out how Sollecito, lying and lying from what he thought would be a safe distance across the Atlantic, tried hard to make Italy look bad in the eyes of the world.

    A lot of posters contributed to the analysis of Sollecito’s 2012 English-language book on which much of the series will be based. Thanks especially to Sara, Kermit, Cardiol MD, and James Raper, who did the most work. 

    1. Sollecito’s First 20 False Claims

    We first posted a version of this analysis in May 2014. These twenty examples of felony claims all appear in the book’s preface which is only seven pages.

    Such claims continue throughout the book at approximately the same rate and they will be examined in future posts. 

    1. That Italian justice authorities took the easy way out

    This is the story of two ordinary people who stumbled upon an extraordinary circumstance, the brutal murder of a British student in Italy. Neither Amanda Knox nor I had anything to do with the crime, but we came perilously close to spending the rest of our lives in prison because the authorities found it easier, and more convenient, to take advantage of our youth and inexperience than to mount a proper investigation.  It’s that simple. And that absurd.

    No advantage was taken of them. The two stood out very sharply from all the others of similar age, and of similar inexperience (whatever that means). They did and said dozens of things in the early days that set them sharply apart.

    They were interrogated quite fairly, the Italian media was not especially hard, Dr Mignini never ever leaked, and they had lawyers and family handy at every turn after they were arrested. They each gave the authorities less than zero help - they tried to lead them off on wild goose chases, for example the false claim AK made against Patrick and dozens of other false claims, and apparently tried to finger yet another north African, Hicham Khiri, in a conversation they clearly knew was being recorded.

    A “proper” investigation was indeed done. Simply read through all the posts on the trial here in the first half of 2009, and the prosecutor’s excellent summations, and you will see what a smooth comprehensive job was done. And the Supreme Court concluded that THREE had to have been involved, from the recreation of the attack and all the wounds on Meredith’s body. Subsequent to Patrick, AK and RS and their lawyers never came within light-years of throwing real suspicion on anyone else.

    2. That the preventive custody was very harsh

    On November 1, 2007, Amanda and I were carefree students at the beginning of a cross-cultural love affair in a beautiful Umbrian hill town. Within days, we were thrown into solitary confinement in a filthy prison, without access to lawyers or loved ones, accused of acts so heinous and disturbing we may never be able to banish them from our thoughts, or our nightmares.

    Raffaele was sent to preventative prison on Tuesday November 6. Capanne Prison was almost brand-new then, and far from crowded. Cells contain TVs and private bathrooms.

    All questioning had been stopped early on 6 November until Sollecito could have a lawyer present. He himself wrote to his father in his “prison diary” on November 7:  “I may see you tomorrow, at least that is what I was told by Tiziano [Tiziano Tedeschi, his lawyer at the time], who I saw today and who defended me before the judge.”

    Mr Tedeschi made no complaint about any delay in the first meeting with his new client. In Italy, a judge must determine within 48 hours whether to hold or release detained suspects. Judge Matteini did so meticulously with Tedeschi present and refused Sollecito’s release.

    3. That the prosecution and Italian media demonized the pair

    In the newspapers and on the nightly news, we were turned into monsters, grotesque distortions of our true selves. It did not matter how thin the evidence was, or how quickly it became apparent that the culprit was someone else entirely. Our guilt was presumed, and everything the prosecution did and fed to the media stemmed from that false premise.

    In the real world, the prosecution fed nothing at all secretly to the media and publicly very little, none of it self-servingly biased. Italian reporting was sporadic and very mild compared to anything one can see said daily about possible perps in the US and UK newspapers and on US TV. Besides, any coverage, which was in part deliberate in the situation as dozens of students were fleeing Perugia, had no influence on anything, neither on the investigation nor the trial.

    The Italian system is set up so media can have less influence than almost any other media on any other justice system in the world. The Micheli and Massei sentencing reports show the judges were not unduly influenced even by the lawyers right in front of them, let alone by mild media reports 1 or 2 years before that.

    4. That four years were wasted showing where the prosecution went wrong.

    By the time we had dismantled the case and demonstrated its breathtaking absurdity [in the annulled Hellmann appeal] we had spent four of what should have been the best years of our lives behind bars.

    “We” meaning the defense lawyers did very little in the annulled Hellmann appeal that they hadn’t flailed uselessly against in the trial. Except of course maybe shopping for an inexperienced and pliable business judge, and for DNA consultants who they could then spoon-feed. Much of the hard evidence they simply kept well away from in the trial and annulled appeal. Such as the extensive evidence in the corridor and bathroom and Filomena’s room, which were all considered parts of the crime scene.

    On the other hand, RS’s claim could well apply to what Dr Galati and Cassation did for the Hellman sentencing report. Dismantled the appeal verdict, and demonstrated its breathtaking absurdity.

    5. That Knox was made a target because timid Italy was scared of her.

    Amanda and I certainly made our share of mistakes. At the beginning we were too trusting, spoke too frivolously and too soon, and remained oblivious to the danger we were courting even after the judicial noose began to tighten. Amanda behaved in ways that were culturally baffling to many Italians and attracted a torrent of gossip and criticism.

    An inaccurate and xenophobic remark originated by the American Nina Burleigh, who was having severe culture shock of her own and surrounded only by other foreigners with similar mindsets. What EXACTLY was so baffling about Knox to the very hip Italians? That Knox was pushy, obnoxious, humorless, rather lazy, rather grubby, and not especially funny or pretty or bright?  That she put off Patrick, Meredith, her other flatmates, the boys downstairs, the customers in the bar, and just about everybody else except for the distasteful druggie loner Sollecito?

    Read this post by the Italian-American Nicki in Milan. To quote from it “As many of us were expecting, Amanda’s testimony has backfired. She came across not as confident but arrogant, not as sweet but testy, not as true but a fake who has memorized a script, an actress who is playing a part but not well enough to fool the public….. Amanda Knox is not on trial because she is American and therefore too “emancipated”....Italians don’t much like Amanda primarily because they perceive her as a manipulative liar, who is suspected of having committed a heinous crime for which there is a whole stack of evidence.”

    6. That Knox and Meredith were really great, great friends.

    We were young and naive, unthinking and a little reckless. Of that much we were guilty.  But what we did not do—and could not have done, as the evidence clearly showed—was murder Meredith Kercher.

    Meredith was Amanda’s friend, a fellow English speaker in the house they shared with two Italian women just outside Perugia’s ancient city walls. She was twenty-one years old, intelligent, and beautiful. She and Amanda knew each other for a little over three weeks, long enough to feel their way into their new surroundings and appreciate each other’s interests and temperaments. I never heard about a single tense moment between them.

    Plenty of other people did know of tensions. Meredith’s family and friends all knew Meredith was finding the noisy dirty lazy loud unfocused Knox and her drugs and one-night-stands hard to take.  Her other flatmates found her hard to take. Her employer Patrick found her hard to take. His customers in the bar found her hard to take.  The Lifetime movie got this strident angle pretty straight.

    Remember, Meredith enrolled for a full academic load at the main university. Knox in sharp contrast took only one undemanding language course - which anyone could walk into - requiring maybe 10 hours of study a week.  They increasingly did less together. In fact after several weeks nobody was lining up to have anything to do with Amanda Knox.

    Seemingly unable to reverse herself, she was headed to being among the least popular of students in Perugia.  It should be recalled that the callous remarks by Amanda Knox about the death of her so-called friend Meredith included “Shit happens”, “She fucking bled to death”, and “‘I want to get on with the rest of my life”.

    7. That an intruder knew about the rent money and so murder ensued.

    Meredith, of course, suffered infinitely worse luck than we did: she came home, alone, on an ordinary Thursday night and had her throat slit by an intruder hoping to steal the household rent money.

    There is zero evidence that this was the case. Knox herself ended up with a similar amount of cash that she has never been able to explain. There is zero possibility that Guede would know that any money was lying around - or not lying around, as it was concealed in Meredith’s drawer.

    And take a look at the many images of the brightly lit house at night. There are several dozen other houses behind it in the dark which any smart burglar would have chosen first.  In 2008 two real break-ins occurred at the house - both were in the dark behind the house, which is by far the easiest place to break in.

    And how many burglars break into an occupied home between 8:00pm and 9:00pm at night? Approximately none. So much for the spurious lone-wolf theory, which Judge Micheli first ruled out even before trial.

    8. That the media got hysterical and portrayed heartless killers.

    But the roles could easily have been reversed. If Meredith’s Italian boyfriend had not gone away for the weekend and if Amanda had not started sleeping over at my house, she—not Meredith—might have been the one found in a pool of blood on her bedroom floor. That reality was quickly lost amid the hysteria of the media coverage. But it continued to hover over both of us—Amanda especially—as we sank into the legal quagmire and struggled in vain to overcome the public image of us as heartless killers.

    There was zero media hysteria. This silly claim was addressed above. Watch the Porta a Porta YouTubes and dozens of other Italian reports and try to find ONE that is not fair and cautious and mature.

    How precisely did the two struggle in vain to overcome their public image? By coming up repeatedly with stories which didnt even tally with others of their own, let alone with one another’s? They never between them made even one helpful statement which actually helped the police.  And even their respective parents strongly suspected or knew of their guilt and were all caught incriminatingly on tape.

    9. That Rudy Guede did it alone; ignore vast evidence that proves not.

    This should not have been a complicated case. The intruder was quickly identified as Rudy Guede, an African immigrant living in Perugia with a history of break-ins and petty crimes. His DNA was found all over Meredith’s room, and footprints made in her blood were found to match his shoes. Everything at the crime scene pointed to a lone assailant, and a single weapon. Guede repeatedly broke into houses by throwing a rock through a window, as happened here, and he had been caught by the authorities in the past with a knife similar to the one that inflicted Meredith’s fatal wounds.

    This is laughable. It has in fact been demonstrated in numerous ways that the attack involved multiple assailants and this was accepted by the Supreme Court.

    Sollecito’s own lawyers never forcefully argued this. They produced two non-credible witnesses in the appeal trial (Alessi and Aviello) to actually prove that Guede had some other accomplices or that several others did it. Also Amanda Knox if anything diverted attention AWAY from Guede as he did in turn from her. He wasn’t quickly identified precisely because Knox had rather credibly fingered Patrick.

    There is no proof Guede was an intruder. The trial court concluded Knox invited him in. Guede had zero proven history of break-ins or petty crimes or drug-dealing, and late in 2008 at his trial Judge Micheli became angry at such claims. Guede had no prior criminal record at all. He had only been back in Perugia for a few weeks, after an extended stay up north.  His DNA was not found “all over” Meredith’s room. A major surprise, in fact, was how few traces of him were found.

    The recreation of the crime scene and the autopsy both pointed AWAY FROM a lone assailant, not toward.  From Meredith’s wounds, it was quite evident that two and perhaps three knives had been used, and not a single weapon. What lone intruder carries or uses two or three knives?  And footprints in blood outside the door matched the feet of both RS and AK. This is why the Supreme Court confirmed Guede’s guilt only “in concorso” (with others).

    10. That the cops could have caught Guede fast, despite Knox’s frame

    Guede did not call the police, as Amanda and I did, or volunteer information, or agree to hours of questioning whenever asked. Rather, he fled to Germany as soon as the investigation began and stayed there until his arrest two and a half weeks later.

    Guede’s apprehension and eventual conviction on murder charges should have been the end of the story. But by the time Guede was identified, the police and the public prosecutor’s office had convinced themselves that the murder was, incredibly, the result of a sexual orgy gone wrong, in which Amanda and I had played leading roles. Their speculations ignited a media firestorm, inspiring sensationalist headlines across the world about the evil lurking behind our seemingly innocent faces.

    The authorities had no shred of evidence to substantiate this story line, only erroneous suppositions and wild imaginings. We had an alibi for the most likely time of death, and none of the initial forensic evidence tied us to the scene of the crime. Nothing in our backgrounds gave any hint of a propensity for violence or criminality. We were both accomplished, hardworking students known to our friends and families for our gentleness and even tempers.

    Four more untrue remarks. All three were convicted of a murder with a sex-crime element and nobody was wrongly “convinced”. Which alibi is Sollecito talking about now? He himself admits in chapter 1 (Love and Death) that they had no “real alibi”. They still have no alibis at all for the second half of the evening, neither of them, when Meredith’s murder indisputably occurred.

    Extensive forensic evidence within days tied them both to the scene. Not a single element of it has been discredited in the eyes of the Massei trial and Nencini appeal court. Not even one. Nothing was falsified.

    Neither of their backgrounds was squeaky clean. Both had long been into illegal drugs, the loner Sollecito had to be watched by his father and teachers, the increasingly disliked Knox had a history of doing and saying crass off-putting things. Both were lagging behind their brighter peers in their studies and Knox was taking a year off.

    11. That the prosecution fed the media a huge number of false claims.

    Yet the authorities stuck to their guns. They fed the media a steady diet of sensationalist stories of how Amanda, the promiscuous American she-devil, and I, her sex-and-drug-addled Italian helpmeet, had tried without success to drag Meredith into our depravity and punished her by plunging an outsize kitchen knife into her neck.

    Complete fiction. Again, in the real world, as the media reporters all confirm, the prosecution fed nothing at all secretly to the media, and publicly very little, none of it self-servingly biased.

    Italian reporting was sporadic and very mild compared to anything one can see daily on possible perps in the US and UK newspapers and on US TV crime shows. There is zero sign this mild coverage mattered to the courts. As the media reporters all confirm, they were fed next to nothing by the police or prosecution on the case,

    But whereas Mr Mignini famously never leaks, the defenses are widely claimed to have leaked throughout like sieves. So did Sollecito’s own family - they leaked an evidence video to Telenorba TV, for which they were considered for trial. Even we at TJMK and PMF received several offers of juicy leaks. Here is one example of where the Knox forces leaked - wrongly in fact - and then nastily slimed the prosecution and defenseless prison staff.

    12. That the authorities had lots and lots and lots of scenarios.

    It might have been funny if the consequences had not been so devastating. Listening to the tortured language of the prosecution—“one can hypothesize that . . . ,” “it is possible that . . . ,” “one can imagine that . . . ,” “this scenario is not incompatible with . . .”—it became clear that the authorities, like the media, were treating our case with the bizarre levity of an after-dinner game of Clue, or an Agatha Christie mystery. Everyone, even the judges in their black robes, had theories they were itching to air.

    Have Sollecito and Gumbel ever before been in any other court in Italy or the UK or the US?  Every judge and/or jury has to arrive at a scenario on lines not unlike this. That is the whole POINT of having courts - to weight the probabilities in what happened in the crime.  The only difference in Italy is that the judges have to think their verdict through for weeks, and then write it all out, and then see it scrutinized by a higher court. This is hardly a requirement to be sneered at.

    Gumble and Sollecito should have studied how US and UK juries arrive at their own scenarios. Very few US and UK lawyers think they do a better job. Ask those who watched the OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony trials and bitterly criticised the outcomes. And Italy has a vastly lower rate of false imprisonment than the US does.

    13. That Italy is a medieval country with a primitive justice system.

    It could have been Colonel Mustard in the drawing room with the revolver; instead it was Amanda and Raffaele in the bedroom with the kitchen knife. How was it conceivable that a democratic country known for its style and beauty and effortless charm—the Italy of the Renaissance and la dolce vita—could allow two young people to be catapulted to international notoriety and convicted of a horrific crime on the basis of nothing at all?

    This is not remotely what happened. There was very far from nothing at all. Convictions in the US and UK regularly result based on evidence 1/10 or 1/100 of that here - sometimes from one single evidence point. Any one or several of maybe 100 evidence points here could have convicted them in a US or UK court.

    Italy gives defendants every possible break, and the justice system is seriously loaded against victims and their families. Read here and here.

    14. That the prosecutors office and media were in a grim embrace.

    The answer has something to do with the grim embrace that developed between the prosecutor’s office and the sensationalist media. Like addicts constantly looking for the next fix, each fed the other’s insatiable appetite for titillation and attention. The casual cruelty of “Foxy Knoxy” and her Italian lover became too good a story line to abandon, even when it became apparent it was overheated and unsustainable. Our suffering was the price to be paid for the world’s continuing entertainment.

    WHAT grim embrace? WHAT addicts? WHAT fix? WHAT insatiable appetite? WHAT titillation and attention? This is clearly defamatory if it can’t be proven, and we can turn up no evidence that any of it is true. It has to be one of the most foolish lies in the entire book, it is so easy to disprove. These who are being accused of crimes here are career police and prosecutors secure in their jobs, and none have the slightest gain to make from false convictions.

    15. That in the justice system speculation and hearsay run rampant

    The meandering complexities of the Italian legal system, where speculation and hearsay are allowed to run rampant and time invariably slows to a maddening trickle, did little to help our cause.

    Total mischaracterization. First note that by comparison with any country in the world THERE IS NOT MUCH CRIME IN ITALY.  There is some minor corruption and still some minor mafia action, but thefts and burglaries and assaults are few and murders even fewer. The main crime if you can call it such is not lining up to pay taxes.  Italy’s murder rate is 1/6 that of the United States and its prison incarceration rate is 1/30 that of the United States, so where IS all this crime about which the claimed speculation and hearsay are running rampant?

    The legal process could have been fully over by the end of 2009 if (1) there was not the entitlement to two automatic appeals; in UK and US terms there was very little to appeal about;  and (2) the Hellmann appeal court had not been fixed to produce a corrupt outcome, as the displaced judge Sergio Matteini Chiari and Cassation and the Council of Magistrates have all made plain.

    And compared to American police and prosecutors, their Italian counterparts are famously taciturn under their unusually firm rules. There is media interest, for sure, as there should be when there are crimes, but that also is comparatively restrained. Watch the various Porta a Porta shows on YouTube and you will see how sedate crime discussion tends to be.

    The Constitution and judicial code set out to achieve the exact opposite of speculation and hearsay affecting justice, and they do so.  Creating this restraint is a primary reason for the judges’ sentencing reports and all the magistrates’ checks of investigations along the way.

    This whole series of dishonest claims about the the Italian system in the preface of the book and in a later chapter have clearly not been read through or okayed by even a single Italian lawyer.

    16. That in Italy proof beyond a reasonable doubt scarcely exists

    For reasons deeply embedded in the country’s history, the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt scarcely exists in Italy, and the very notion of undisputed fact is viewed with suspicion, if not outright aversion.

    So Gumbel and Sollecito are historians and legal experts now? It would be nice, wouldn’t it, if either were able to explain the remark. This may be an ignorant swipe at the Napoleonic Code on which the law of a lot of continental Europe is based. Ignored is that Italy carried out its own reforms to the Code in 1990 and more subsequently. Much of that reform, it should be pointed out, was procedural or structural rather than substantive law.

    There are two things wrong with “..the concept of reasonable doubt scarcely exists in Italy.”

    1. It is factually wrong. Italian jurists, the courts, and so on, are well acquainted with the concept as it has been a fundamental aspect of criminal proceedings in Italy as elsewhere for many decades if not centuries.

    2. It suggests that Italians are not intelligent enough to understand the concept anyway. That of course is an insult to Italians.  Actually they are no less intelligent than the rest of us elsewhere who strive to understand it.

    Until the 1990 Reforms the relationship between criminal and civil proceedings in Italy were governed by the principles of unity of jurisdiction and the prevailing status of criminal proceedings. Hence, if the facts were the same then criminal proceedings (to punish the guilty) and civil proceedings (to render liable the guilty for damages) were heard at the same time and still sometimes are, as in the Meredith Kercher case.

    What has changed (relevant to the above quote) is that civil cases can be and are more likely to be heard independently from the related criminal cases and, where not, the standard of proof in civil cases (the preponderance of evidence or, as we usually refer to it, the balance of probabilities) is to be applied to the civil case, and the civil case only, rather than be confused with or overriden by the criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt).

    Not an easy task, admittedly, to apply different standards to different tasks, based on the same facts, in the same proceedings, but Italian judges are trained to do this because that is their system. No judge would EVER confuse “beyond reasonable doubt” with “the balance of probabilities” when the issue at stake is depriving an individual of his freedom.

    17. That the Italian judiciary has vast, unfettered powers

    Few in Italian society wield as much unfettered power as the robed members of the judiciary, whose independence makes them answerable to nobody but themselves.

    Radically the opposite of the truth. The paranoid claim reads like it came from ex PM Berlusconi fearful of his own conviction or one of his parliamentary lackeys such as Girlanda.

    The checks and balances on judges in the Italian system are enormous, perhaps the toughest checks and balances in the world. Read here and here about them.

    All of the best judges in the world are independent and they all follow a demanding career path, not elected (as ex-Judge Heavey was) under zero criteria, or appointed under the political sway of politicians. We wonder if Gumbel and Sollecito have ever heard of the US Supreme Court? Do those judges answer to anybody? No? How unfettered. 

    18. That the courts are the most reviled institution in Italy.

    Many Italians retain a healthy skepticism about the reliability of their procedures and rulings. The courts—tainted by politics, clubbishness, pomposity, and excruciating delays—are the most reviled institution in the country.


    As our Sollecito Book pages make clear again and again and again, the Italian system is remarkably NOT tainted by politics, as even the most surperficial watcher of the trials of ex Prime Minister Sylvio Berlusconi would know.

    And on the issue of popularity we have previously posted this and this and also this.

    Our Italian poster Machiavelli (Yummi), who posted our deep analysis of the appeal to the Supreme Court by Dr Galati, has provided these hard facts:

    For comparison, in 2011 the percentage of Italians who declared they trust the justice system “a lot” or “enough” was 53.3%. By comparison, the percentage of Italians who declared they trust the government “a lot” or “enough”  were 14.7%, and those who trust the parliament were only 15%.

    In 2012, the percentage of Italians who trust the parliament is now only 9.5%, and those who trust the Mario Monti administration are only 21.1%.

    Over the eight years from 2004 to 2012 the percentage of Italians who trust the justice system was always bigger than those who trust parliament or government by at least ten points, and in some years we can see a spread of 20, 30, even 39 percentage points achieved by the judiciary over the parliament and government.

    However, some cases of corruption (such as our Hellmann-Zanetti case, but also several others indicated by the Rapporto Italia 2012) do hamper trust.

    The most trusted institutions in Italy above all are the Carabinieri (74% of Italians trust them) and the Polizia di Stato (71%).

    Which means the most trusted institutions are precisely those law enforcement instruments which are deployed to enforce the orders of prosecutors.

    19. That prosecutors can spin their cases into any shape they please.

    Because the Italian legal system is almost completely blind to precedent and relies on a tangle of impenetrable codes and procedures, prosecutors and judges have almost boundless freedom to spin their cases into any shape they please and create legal justifications on the fly. Often, they are more interested in constructing compelling narratives than in building up the evidence piece by piece, a task considered too prosaic and painstaking to be really interesting.

    Whoever wrote this either wasnt an Italian or a lawyer, and either way didnt have much of a clue. The entire Italian system under the post WWII constitution was designed to PREVENT what Sollecito & Gumbel claim it allows here.

    There are checks and balances and reviews every step of the way. Magistrates (initially Matteini here) determine what a prosecutor may do in developing and presenting a case. Parties may appeal to the Supreme Court AT ANY TIME as Knox’s lawyers did over her second written confession - which she herself had demanded to make in front of Dr Mignini after he finished warning her of her rights.

    Hard for Sollecito & Gumbel to believe, perhaps, but the defense is actually present in the same courtroom. They can raise points of order at any time. So can the defendants themselves, at any time, something maybe unique in the world.

    And judges actually have minds of their own. And then there are the unique written sentencing reports, and the two automatic appeals if any parties want to pursue them.

    Sollecito & Gumbel should have read the 2012 Galati appeal more closely. The Prosecution’s Appeal To The Supreme Court is available in English here.  Precedent has a section to itself - “The non-observance of the principles of law dictated by the Cassation Court in the matter of circumstantial cases (Article 606(b)) in relation to Article 192 paragraph 2 Criminal Procedure Code.”

    Well, that’s precedent, via the Court of Cassation no less! How surprising from Gumbel/Sollecito that they should make that claim about ignoring precedent when in fact there it is, going right to the heart of the flawed Hellmann/Zanetti judgement on circumstantial evidence!  What else is a Code but in effect a codification, a gathering together, a rationalisation, of best law - and precedent? 

    There is an absurd irony here, were they aware of it. Perhaps they are. Surely it is Hellmann and Zanetti who have displayed “a boundless freedom” in spinning the case “into any shape they please”, and who have “created legal justifications on the fly”?  As for prosecutors doing this, at least Dr Mignini followed the evidence, and American readers may recall the infamous Jim Garrison, the DA hero of Oliver Stone’s movie “JFK” but who in reality, unlike Dr Mignini, was a total and utter crackpot.

    And what issue exploded the Porta a Porta TV show in Italy in September 2012? It was Sollecito’s false claim that the prosecution had secretly tried to offer him a deal if he would roll over on Knox.  NOBODY including his own father and his own lawyers confirmed him. Evidence against both was overwhelming. Nobody needed such a deal, and Italian prosecutors are highly rules-bound against ever offering such deals.

    Sollecito was in effect accusing Dr Mignini of a felony with this much-repeated false claim in his book. (In her book Knox also accused Dr Mignini of a felony.)

    20. That the prosecutors and judges in Italy are far too close.

    Prosecutors and judges are not independent of each other, as they are in Britain or the United States, but belong to the same professional body of magistrates. So a certain coziness between them is inevitable, especially in smaller jurisdictions like Perugia.

    Yes, prosecutors and judges in Italy belong to the same professional body of magistrates. But then so does the defense lawyer Ms Bongiorno. The claim that there is no independence between prosecutors and judges in Italy, in fact a coziness between them, is a bit rich.

    Consider, say, the UK. It is true cases are prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service, a government body, but in serious cases the CPS will employ barristers from the Inns of Court. There is scarcely a judge in the UK, even up to the highest level, who was not and who is not still a member of one of the Inns of Court from whence barristers, for the prosecution or for the defence, ply their trade.

    You can’t walk past an Inn without seeing the names of judges on the roll call on the plaques outside. A judge is still a barrister, just fulfilling a different function, although, of course, now paid by the State.  The old school boy tie? Corruption? No, the fulfilling of different roles by members of the same body is called professionalism. 

    Judges and lawyers all belong to the American Bar Association in the US and attend the same conferences. No sign that this lack of “independence” ever affects trials.  This claimed excess of coziness is often ranted about online by the Knoxophile David Anderson who lives near Perugia. Nobody who pays him any attention can get where he derives this from. Maybe he heard it from Hellman?

    Perugia prosecutors and magistrates are all known to do a fine job, and the national Olympics & earthquake relief cases involving powerful Rome politicians were assigned for competent handling to where? To Perugia… Defense lawyer Ghirga and Prosecutor Mignini have the reputation of being good friends. And Mignini and Massei would both draw their salaries from the State. But so what? Do not judges and DAs in the the USA do likewise? Are Gumbel and Sollecito impugning the professionalism of the counterparts of Mignini and Massei all over the world? It sure reads like it.

     


    Sunday, February 15, 2015

    Sollecito v Italy & Guede: My Subtitled YouTubes Of Rudy Guede’s Interview with Leosini

    Posted by Eric Paroissien













    Friday, January 02, 2015

    The Serial-Burglar Arm Of The Rudy Guede Hoax: Testimony 2009 In Court Provided ZERO Proof

    Posted by Peter Quennell



    Maria Del Prato in the inner courtyard in Milan from which her pre-school opens off

    1. Summary Of The Hoax

    To the present day no UK or US media have ever reported properly this key segment of the 2009 trial.

    Had they ever done so the now-pervasive notion of Guede as sole perp - lone wolf - would never have gained the ground that it has. UK and US followers would understand why ALL courts said three were at the scene and the breakin was faked. 

    2. 2009 Trial Attempts To Incriminate Guede

    All the testimony about supposed break-ins by Guede was presented by the defense on 26 July and 27 July 2009.  These were two lackluster half-days for the defense. 

    3. Summary Of What It Amounted To

    That trial testimony fell far short of providing the numerous Rudy Guede demonizers with all they now claim. Here are the witnesses the defenses called. 

    1. Pre-school principal Maria Del Prato

    She came across as understanding and fair. Maria Del Prato conceded that Guede probably had a key loaned to him by one of her staff which explained why no break-in charges were lodged.  Milan police did not just let him go, they checked his record with Perugia police (he had none and police knew little or nothing of him) and knew where he was for a possible later charge.

    2. Christian Tramontano

    He had claimed someone threatened him in his house in the dark with a knife who looked like a shot of Guede in the papers two months later, was not even called, merely a statement read, probably because at a hearing in October 2008 Judge Micheli sharply denounced him as having made things up.

    3. Lawyers Matteo Palazzoli and Brocchi

    Matteo Palazzoli had first encountered the break-in scene during a Sunday night visit to his office and found his computer gone. He did not elaborate very much, and seemed glad to be gone.

    His colleague Lawyer Brocchi who had the least involvement talked the most - but he could be read as pointing a finger away from what he believed really happened for brownie points with the court.

    Here courtesy of Miriam’s translations is the key 2009 trial testimony here and here. There are more images here. 

    4. A Major Unfairness To Guede

    We have knocked chips off Guede in the past, but how this testimony (albeit mild) opened the gates to a wave of innuendo was simply unfair. HE WAS NOT EVEN IN COURT.

    Neither he nor his lawyers were there to cross-examine the witnesses or call more witnesses of their own and the prosecution did not ask even one question. Nobody asked what legal documents may have been involved.

    This has allowed supposition to grow unchallenged, though it looked like a red-herring by the defenses at the time.

    5. What Guede’s Team Could Have Brought Out

    Note what Guede if his team had been present could have brought out:

    1. Nobody in Italy is given precautionary custody simply for possessing several items none of which were reported as stolen which conceivably could have been passed to him by another perp. When those were later proven stolen Guede was charged and he was recently sentenced in Milan to another 16 months.

    2. The French window one floor above the ground in the dark around the back would have been easy to break into on a Saturday night according to Matteo Palazzoli by simply climbing up the grill over the French window below and then using the balcony to break through.

    This is very far from the supposed scenario for Guede breaking into Filomena’s window

      (1) during Perugia’s late rush-hour on a weekday evening with a lot of cars and people still around,

      (2) under a great deal of light both from the street lights and the carpark lights above,

      (3) bypassing several other much easier entrances all of them in deep dark,

      (4) while leaving no prints and no DNA anywhere outside the window or in the room,

      (5) on a day when as far as he knew all four girls were in town (in fact three of them still were).

    3. Zero fingerprints were found in the lawyers’ offices though a great many items had been touched.

    4. What appear to be the tools of a habitual burglar were left at the scene.

    5. The burglar alarm dial-out had been disabled by someone who knew the special trick to doing that.

    6. The copier was switched on and some quantity of copy paper and several USB drives with legal data were gone.

    7. A front window had been opened and then not fully closed, seemingly to pass things through to someone waiting with a car.

    Payback or warning by a legal opponent? Such things are not unknown. Neither lawyer ever systematically reported a theft to the police. No comprehensive investigation was ever begun.

    Paolo Brocchi claimed he didnt even know that one of his cellphones was gone. Matteo Palazzoli never gave the serial number of his computer to the police. Palazzoli could only weakly testify that Guede came by - to say he was not the real thief.

    Each seemed embarrassed to be put on the stand by a flailing defense and simply anxious to move on.


    Thursday, January 01, 2015

    Guede Hoax: Translation Of Lawyers Testimony #2 On Breakin Shows No Concrete Connection To Guede

    Posted by Peter Quennell



    Exit route was via one of those windows; weeks later, Guede would come knocking at that door.

    1. Overview Of The Post

    This post provides the translated testimony of lawyer Matteo Palazzoli.

    He was the owner of a Sony Vaio computer stolen from his office, which was possibly the same one that Guede was found in possession of. The previous posts on this aspect of the Guede hoax showed:

    • How similar to the back balcony route to a forced break-in of Meredith’s house was the supposed route into the Perugia lawyers’ offices.

    • How the testimony from the lawyer Paolo Briocchi on the office break-in pointed as much away from Rudy Guede as it did toward him.

    There will be an overall assessment in the next post.

    2. Testimony Of Matteo Palazzoli

    Translation of the difficult language here and in previous posts was kindly provided by Miriam. MP stands for Matteo Palazzoli, the lawyer whose office was broken into. GCM stands for Judge Giancarlo Massei. LM stands for Sollecito defense lawyer Luca Maori. MDG stands for Knox defense lawyer Maria Del Grosso.

    The witness, admonished pursuant to Article 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code, reads the oath.

    General information: Matteo Palazzoli, born in Umbertide, province of Perugia, October 9 1974, resident of Perugia.

    GCM:  Please proceed.

    LM:  Lawyer Maori, for the defense of Sollecito.  What is your profession?

    MP:  Lawyer.

    LM:  Where is your legal office?

    MP:  At via del Roscetto no. 3, from Febuary 2007, if I am not mistaken.

    LM:  Together with lawyer Brocchi.

    MP:  Together with lawyer Brocchi.

    LM:  Before you, Lawyer Brocchi told us of this theft you were subject to on the night between the 13th and 14th of October 2007.

    MP:  Yes.

    LM:  Can you give us information of what happened in that situation?

    MP:  I was coming back on Sunday October 14, after being away from Perugia for 2 days, and before coming back… because I live close to the office, I keep the car parked with a subscription at the parking lot of Sant’Antonio [opposite Meredith’s house], therefore I walk down via del Roscetto regularly to return home, which is in via Imbriani [further down the hill behind the law offices]. In these circumstances, I sincerely don’t reacll the reason, I stopped at the office before returning home. I think it was 6:30, 7.00 pm, of Sunday afternoon, I don’t recall the exact time.

    I went to the office, and upon entering the office, I noticed right away that something was not right, because to begin with it was October, and it was rather warm, I remember, and strangely the heaters were turned on and it was rather hot inside the office. The heaters were turned on and I immediately noticed upon turning on the light that the bathroom light was on, the restroom of the office. At that moment I didn’t notice anything else.

    Then I turned my head to the right in respect to the office entrance , and I immediately noticed my jacket, a black jacket, and a jacket of Lawyer Brocchi’s laid out on the floor. Honestly I asked myself the reason for this. I went to the French window of the office that gives out to an inner courtyard of the building, and opening the inner shutters, I noticed the glass had been broken, and that the jackets had probably been laid on the floor to cover the broken glass.

    At this point I ran to my office, that is in front of Lawyer Brocchi’s , and I immediately noticed, cautiously, that the only thing that was missing… besides the binders being completely opened, and the dossiers, in there turn, also were opened with papers strewn throughout the office, I noticed that my computer was no longer there, it was not where it should have been, and that the window of my office that gives out to via del Roscetto [a window in the image at top] that at first glance appeared to be closed, in reality was open. Therefore, it had been reclosed but not completely closed, probably,  don’t know why.. whoever entered, exited through my window, not closing it completely on the way out, I honestly don’t know the reason.

    I did another round of the legal office, and I noticed again upon entering the restroom, the light on in the restroom. I went into the office of Lawyer Brocchi, and I remember that inside his office, on the desk of Lawyer Brocchi, there was a suitcase of his and on top were positioned, with a certain precision, certain objects, that I seem to remember were screwdrivers, I am frankly not sure if there were screwdrivers.

    After having gone into Lawyer Brocchi’s office I turned and went into the waiting room that is there close to the conference room, and I noticed that there was a small pile of glass, that I don’t know where it came from, because the window of the waiting room… that is, no other window, if I remember correctly,  of the office was broken, in the office the only window that had been broken was the French window that gives onto the inner courtyard.

    The window of the waiting room had not been broken and yet still, there was this small pile of glass, furthermore well arranged, in the waiting room. The copying machine was turned on, I don’t know for what reason,  several reams of paper of the copying machine were missing.

    LM:  The person who entered had drunk beverages that were in the legal office?

    MP:  Yes, I remember that it was a bottle of orange drink, if I am not in error, it was left in the waiting room.

    LM:  Listen, you spoke of this computer that was taken on this occasion. Can you tell us what type of computer it was?

    MP:  It was a Vaio, the outside cover was white. The distinctive trait is that differently… the distinctive feature of that computer is that it has a 16:9 screen that is high resolution.

    LM:  It’s a Sony.

    MP:  It is a Sony Vaio, that is a brand of Sony. It has a particular graphics, it is only one of a few computer that doesn’t change the type of color depending on how one roatates the screen. It was a laptop, in any case.

    LM:  This laptop did you have any news of where it was… was it ever found? Was it given back to you?

    MP:  In these days I have had ways to reconstruct, in my mind, the events and the only thing I have not had a way to… it happened in the succeeding days, I don’t remember exactly when, that while I was coming back from a client outside the legal office, Lawyer Brocchi called me to tell me that the police or carabinieri called from Milan saying that they had found our things, commenting: “you are always lucky, you lose everything, they steal everything, but you always recover everything”, “Okay”, I said.

    I arrived back at the office and he told me about the call in detail, that it was… the police station, I sincerely don’t remember, of Milan anyway, they had called and they had found us because on the cellphone of Lawyer Brocchi… which in the immediacy of the event, we had not noticed had been taken because it was an out of commission cellphone and not used by Lawyer Brocchi, thus probably he did not remember in the immediacy of the event it had been taken, he did not realize at that moment.

    Opening the cellphone, the message, if I am not in error,  “welcome Lawyer Brocchi” had appeared. Thus they were able to find us, and substantially tell Lawyer Brocchi that they had found his cellphone and my computer. Now, I said before, in these days before today’s judicial hearing I was able to gather my thoughts and furthermore I was never able to verify that the cellphone [note: he presumably means his laptop] that was found was effectively mine, because when Lawyer Brocchi and I went to the police station of Perugia to do the report, I did not have at hand, because my accountant had not given it to me, the invoice that indicated the specific model of the commuter. Thus, today I would not be able to say, if not…

    LM:  Anyway the computer was not given back to you?

    MP:  No.

    LM:  Before you spoke of this telephone call by the Milan police station.

    MP:  Made to Lawyer Brocchi.

    LM:  Do you know if those [investigators] attached to the police station in Milan had discovered the perpetrator of the theft?

    MP:  I sincerely don’t know, they certainly did not tell us. That is, we were told only that our things had been found, or rather, Lawyer Brocchi related to me that the police station of Milan had told him that the things we reported stolen had been found.

    LM:  Lawyer, do you know Rudy Hermann Guede?

    MP:  No.

    LM:  Have you heard of him?

    MP:  I have heard of him in relation to the renowned incident of this proceeding.

    LM: Do you know that Hermann Rudy Guede was found by the police station of Milan, a few days before these matters, with your computer?

    MP:  I don’t know that he was found with… or rather, at the time that Lawyer Brocchi related to me that the police station of Milan had called him, the police station did not specify the individual that was found with the computer. I think that in that circumstance they had specified that it was found on a boy that was committing a similar crime, if I am not in error, in a kindergarten in Milan.

    LM:  Was it related to you by your assistant Doctor Morini, I believe that is his name, and by Lawyer Brocchi of an encounter that took place on October 29 with this Rudy Guede?

    MP:  Yes, it was related… somehow in this case…when these things happen, unfortunately I am never there.

    LM:  You were not present, it was only related to you.

    MP:  It was related to me that a boy had come to the legal office, and a conversation had intervened between…

    LM:  What kind of boy?

    MP:  A colored boy, I gathered, had come to the legal office and held a conversation with Doctor Morini and probably even with Lawyer Brocchi, and declared himself absolutely extraneous to the matter and declared that he bought my computer legally , if I am not in error at the train station of Milan, I sincerely don’t know. This was related to me by my colleagues.

    LM:  In any case, you exclude having had your computer returned?

    MP:  No, absolutely.

    LM:  That, by your knowledge, is in Perugia?

    MP:  I think I remember having done a request of release [to Milan] that unfortunately was rejected.

    LM:  If you do it here in Perugia, probably you will have a better result. Another question, before you spoke of the fact that when you entered the legal office on the evening of October 14th you saw lights on. The light that was on, where was it situated?

    MP:  At the instant I entered the legal office, it was dark obviously, inside the office, and I had not yet turned on the light, I noticed the shining of the bathroom light on.

    LM:  Had the bathroom been used?

    MP:  The bathroom… honestly this I can’t tell you, that is I can’t know if it was used, from evident signs I think not, but, that is a simple supposition on my part , that does not have much value.

    LM:  Thank you.

    GCM:  There were no signs of it having been used.

    MP:  Yes, no signs of use, no odor.

    GCM:  This is what the lawyer was asking. Other questions? For the prosecution? There are no questions. Excuse me, probably just a peculiarity, the window that was broken, if you can give us a description? Are there inner shutters, outer shutters?

    MP:  It is a French window that gives out to a small terrace that overlooks an inner courtyard of the building, and below our window, right in alignment, there is a door covered with a metal mesh, so much so that we supposed that whoever entered inside the legal office, one of the possible hypothesis, climbed that metal mesh, because it is a mesh, with squares not more than fifteen centimeters, thus perfectly usable for this purpose. It is a French window that has inner shutters. It doesn’t have…I don’t remember, I think it has… because there was a period when our legal office, for reasons of restoration, eliminated all the outer shutters. So I don’t remember if in that moment it had or not the outer shutters, I think not, but I would say something I don’t remember exactly.

    GCM:  I also wanted to ask you, there were only the two jackets on the glass? Where there other items of clothing that indicated a search in wardrobes, or only these two jackets? 

    MP:  Honestly I would not be able to remember.

    GCM:  You remember of these two jackets, that one was yours.

    MP:  Yes because I don’t think there were other clothingsd in the office. I don’t remember if there were others… besides the toga of Lawyer Brocchi, but it was left…

    GCM:  I wanted to ask you, these jackets where [normally] were they? On a coat rack?

    MP:  They were on a coat rack that is to the right of the entrance to the legal office, they were on a coat rack, a bluish jacket of Lawyer…

    GCM:  Not in a wardrobe?

    MP:  No, no, not in a wardrobe, on a coatrack.

    GCM:  A coatrack.

    MP:  A coatrack, yes.

    GCM:  I also wanted to ask you, you spoke of a small pile of glass.

    MP:  Yes.

    GCM:  That is, what was it, a small gathered pile or scattered?

    MP:  A small gathered pile of glass.

    GCM:  Purposely put there?

    MP:  I don’t know that.

    GCM:  A little gathered pile, not scattered..

    MP:  Not scattered glass as the ones…

    GCM:  Not scattered glass but a small pile.

    MP:  A small pile of glass.

    GCM:  Originating from the broken window?

    MP:  Probably yes even because there was no other broken window if not that one and there were no other bottle or other things inside the legal office.

    GCM:  The computer, can you describe it? Seen as you said: “you gathered your thoughts” you remember something…

    MP:  If I can see it, I will be able to say if it is mine..

    GCM:  It’s not that the invoice has…

    MP:  No, my computer is a Sony Vaio with a white cover, but the model is not…

    GCM:  Okay.

    LM:  With regard to the question by the President…

    GCM:  Please proceed.

    LM:  In connection to the glass, the glass of the broken window, was this glass scattered?

    MP:  In part scattered, I gather, seeing as there weren’t others…that the others clustered inside the waiting room were from that glass, but not…

    LM:  So there was glass scattered both inside the room where the window was broken, and in adjacent rooms?

    MP:  Let’s agree that the scattered glass, covered by the jackets, was in the corridor that leads to the administrative office, which is to the right of the entrance and is in front of the French window from where the individuals had…

    LM:  So, in conclusion, there was a scattering of glass…

    MP:  Yes.

    LM:  … let’s say with enough range…

    MP:  More than where the jackets were located.

    LM:  Thank you.

    MDG:  May I, President, just one question?

    GCM:  Yes, please proceed, Lawyer.

    MDG:  Do you remember if you had inserted a password on your computer.

    GCM:  Okay, maybe the last questions, on the computer.

    MDG:  On the computer model, President.

    MP:  No.

    MDG:  It was not inserted?

    MP:  No.

    MDG:  Thank you.

    GCM:  The witness is excused.

    There are no other questions; the witness is dismissed.

     


    Friday, December 26, 2014

    Guede Hoax: Translation Of Lawyers Testimony #1 On Breakin Shows No Concrete Connection To Guede

    Posted by Peter Quennell



    Christmas in Milan where Rudy had an ambiguous encounter in a pre-school in October 2007


    Our previous post showed the giant scale and surreal flavor, and the hard facts left out of the innuendo, of the crackpots of the Knox-Mellas campaign.

    Innuendo will get them precisely nowhere. All the courts that have processed the case have warned about this, except for the hapless Judge Hellmann’s, and in March 2013 Cassation was especially sharp in warning that unless there is EVIDENCE to the contrary the hard facts presented to the panels of judges must be respected.

    For evidentiary reasons exclusively, Rudy Guede has never been charged with breaking and entering. Guede got no breaks, ever, contrary to myriad claims.

    The one questionable location where he was found was the nursery school in Milan. As he apparently used a key from one of the staff, any breakin trial would have been dead on arrival. No law required that he be detained. (He was however later charged with being in possession of stolen property,  and just a few days ago his sentence was extended by 16 months.)

    The previous post in this series showed how similar to the BACK BALCONY route to a forced break-in of Meredith’s house was the supposed route into the Perugia lawyers’ offices. It had nothing in common with Filomena’s window, contrary to myriad claims.

    This post and the next in this series show how the evidentiary proof that it was Guede (and not someone with a grudge or a trial opponent) who broke into the Perugia lawyers’ office is ambiguous and contradictory. Some signs point away from Guede, not least that photocopies apparently made of legal documentation (the copier was on and copy paper missing) would have required the use of a car.

    This post is on the testimony of the lawyer Brocchi (owner of the cellphone) and the third post is on the testimony of the lawyer Palazolli (owner of the Sony Vaio computer). Brocchi was quite talkative, despite his minor role, and so we will hold our highlights and interpretation for the next post.

    The extensive translation of the difficult language here and in the post still to come was kindly provided by Miriam.

    The witness, admonished pursuant to Article 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code, reads the oath.

    General Information: Paolo Brocchi born in Rome, March 2, 1968

    GCM: Please proceed.

    LM:  Good Morning, lawyer Maori, for the defense of Sollecito.

    PB: Good morning.

    LM: It is an unnecessary question, but I must ask it. The first question is this: what profession do you hold?

    PB: Lawyer.

    LM: Where is your legal office?

    PB: In via del Roscetto no.3 in Perugia.

    LM: Did your office undergo a burglary in 2007, in October 2007?

    PB: Yes.

    LM: Can you tell us how this burglary took place, how the thieves got in, and what was taken?

    PB: Certainly, the burglary was discovered by my colleague lawyer Palazzoli, the owner of the office, he told me about it on a Sunday afternoon, because the theft took place….. It was done between the night of 13th and 14th of October 2007, a night between Saturday and Sunday. The burglary was discovered by my colleague, the lawyer Palazzoli, on Sunday afternoon, because he entered the office to look for a professional file, and upon entering he discovered the burglary. The person or persons that entered inside the office, from what we were able to reconstruct together with members of the Squadra Mobile that intervened for us at the office, they entered through a window situated in the secretary’s office that was subjected to broken glass, the glass of this window was broken with the aid of a piece of porphyry, a big rock that we found there at the spot. The window was broken, then these persons or person turned the handle. The glass clearly was spread everywhere, because it was a rather thick glass. After which, on top of these pieces of glass we found our clothes. For the most part the glass was scattered on the floor and on top of the glass were our jackets, mine and my colleague’s Palazzoli, that had been hanging on the clothes hanger in the corridor right in front of the window.

    LM: Excuse me if I interrupt you, to reconstruct the dynamics of the event exactly . It would seem   that the 13th of October was a Saturday.

    PB:  From what I remember, yes.

    LM: Your colleague had remained in the office until….........

    PB: No, I stayed in the office. Saturday I remained in the office because I had a client on Saturday   afternoon, that was something anomalous, but it was for an urgent discussion. I called for a meeting that Saturday morning, then he arrived in the afternoon, and I left the office at 8.30 pm that Saturday.

    LM: 8.30 pm that Saturday and after, the following Sunday, the evening…...

    PB: The day after, Sunday, I was called on the telephone by lawyer Palazzoli, who told me “Look somebody came into the office, I have already called the Carabinieri”, who then because of the jurisdiction of the old town center, as we found out, alerted the Squadra Mobile of the State Police.

    LM: Does your office have an alarm?

    PB:  The office was fitted out with an alarm, but that evening it was not activated, because, as I reconstruct the event, it had just been installed. That evening I left at 8.30 pm. I remember perfectly that I did not activate the alarm system. The strange thing that I can highlight in connection here is that I noticed the alarm system the next day, when we entered, was not damaged, the bright light was functioning even if it was dis-activated, and the person or persons that entered did not damage the alarm, they only dis-activated the telephonic combination, thus with this they manifested a minimum confidence, a certain competence in the subject matter of alarms, of electronics, because to dis-activate a telephonic combination without damaging the alarm, I would not be capable, even being the owner, thus I would not have this competence.

    LM:  One other thing. You spoke then about a window that …..

    PB:  Yes, apparently

    LM:  Was that the only break in?

    BB:  Yes

    LM:  Is it a window that gives onto the main street or onto a private court yard?

    PB:  No, this window gives out to a private court yard that is than protected from the public street by an exterior gate. So it is probable…. I don’t know if can be possible…. because close to that window there are other windows of other apartments, there are… there is a window that is about one meter from the balcony of my office, so everything is possible. But this person or persons if they came from the public street would have to open a gate that gives on private property and then, with the help of I don’t know which tools, climb up for three, four meters on a vertical wall to then arrive to the terrace ,where was located my office, where it is still located, first up to this window and then through this window enter inside my office, if this was the way in.

    LM:  However this break in took place in this window, three/four meters high.

    PB:  More or less

    LM:  Did you find a ladder close by?

    PB:  No

    LM:  Did you find other tools?

    PB:  No. I remember that we inspected with the Squadra Mobile crew. I should say that the property below us has a door, an armored mesh and a particularly able person could have climbed up. Could have, I don’t know, this is just an assumption.

    LM:  Anyhow it was not easy to climb up.

    PB:  Absolutely not.

    LM:  Before, you spoke about this rock, this porphyry..

    PB:  Yes

    LM:  Where was it found, inside or outside?

    PB:  Strangely, right on the little terrace, evidently the person or persons that entered with the help of this very heavy porphyry because a double glass had to be broken, it was not a thin glass, but it was that type of glass utilized mainly for thermal insulation, certainly not for security reasons, evidently it needed a heavy impact in order to somehow succeed in the intent, otherwise a small piece of rock would evidently have been sufficient.

    LM:  What was taken from inside the office?

    PB:  So, at first we noticed that the office was in a state of general disarray : all the archive was turned upside down, all the files of the offices were piled up in a heap. But from the first inventory that we did there at the moment, this was missing: a new computer belonging to the lawyer Palazzoli, a note book the brand of which I absolutely do not remember [actually a Sony], a USB flash drive used to save data, a portable Canon printer which was mine, and then a few days later, when I was contacted by a crew of the Police of Milan, agent Spesi Rita, I realized that they had also stolen a cell phone, that anyhow was not working properly, that furthermore was included in the process of investigation (SDI) of the Police Force. Therefore there was also this cell phone, that beforehad I had quit using and didn’t even remember about, that was in the drawer of my desk.

    LM:  Lawyer, were money and checks stolen too?

    PB: No, there were none.

    LM: On this I have to challenge, that you on the complaint of the burglary indicated also checks from the Banca delle Marche [were stolen].

    PB: No I will explain the reasoning. Those checks at the first moment appeared to us not present. There was a block that was finished, but then after checking with the bank, those checks had been annulled, so in reality they hadn’t been stolen. The verification that we did at the bank the Monday after, highlighted that I had annulled those checks and the bank had trace of it, so nobody took anything.

    LM:  Another thing before speaking of the recovery of the computer, you told us of the small havoc done inside your office.

    PB:  Yes.

    LM:  You spoke of the ransacking, in addition to, as you said before, of the broken glass with your clothes on top. Was also the photo-copy machine utilized?

    PB:  I am not able to say that. It was easily usable because it was not code protected, but this I am not able to…

    LM:  Did they turn on the heating?

    PB:  Yes, when we entered the heating system was on, as matter of fact there was a torrid temperature inside the office, because it remained on, I think, more than 24 hours, in a month, October, that was not particularly cold. Furthermore I noticed that this person or persons that entered inside my office even made use of drinks that were in a cabinet, leaving…. they even opened the cabinet of the first aid meticulously looking for everything that was inside, but more than anything else disinfectants and blood pressure gauge, this type of things, but they really did an accurate selection of the material present inside the first aid cabinet.

    LM: Returning to the computer, the property of…..

    PB: Of the lawyer Palazzoli, yes.

    LM: Was it discovered at a later date?

    PB: Well, we never saw it. I say, that the 27th of October 2007, around noon, it was a Saturday, I was in the office in a anomalous way because generally I had the first 3 hours at school and the last 3 hours are normally always….. making 6 hours Saturday morning. But that morning I left early and I was in the office. A telephone call came in on the land line, a call from the police station Venezia Garibaldi from the Milan Police, the agent Rita Spesi, who told me that they had found an individual, of whom I was not given general information, nor the gender, I was only told that certain goods were on this individual, that if I remember correctly they were found inside a kindergarten, a school, an institute of learning, and in this instance, among goods that were in possession of this individual or better held by this individual, this person also had this cellphone. Turning it on, my name appeared, and from here the police officer by way of a search of the SDI system of investigation, saw my complaint of theft of October 15th 2007, and so she asked me if proveably those goods were my property.

    LM:  Therefore the telephone and computer?

    PB:  Telephone without doubt, the computer was described to me, it was not mine, I manifested doubts in the sense that…... well I had never seen it, or used it, because it was my colleague’s, who had just bought it, a short time ago he had just bought it. On the computer I manifested doubts. On the telephone, on the telephone however by way of the names of the address menu, the clients and friends of mine, I was able to confirm with certainty that at least my SIM card was on that phone.

    LM:  It is a Sony model…..no excuse me…..

    PB: No, the telephone is a Nokia.

    LM: It is a Nokia, model 6310.

    PB: Nokia, for sure, the model now not….....

    LM: Like this one, so to….....

    PB: Yes, exactly.

    LM: 6310.

    PB: It is the same color, if I remember correctly.

    LM: However this is not yours, it is mine.

    PB: No, fine.

    LM:  Was the name of the person that was stopped given to you by agent Rita Spessi?

    PB:  No, absolutely not.

    LM:  Did you then find out the name of this person?

    PB:  No, this happened on October 27th when the police officer calls me. All ends with this telephone call in which I stated I recognized at least the cell phone. On October 29th, a Monday afternoon I am in the office and on the phone with some clients. October 29th, I may be mistaken, but I believe I mentally reconstructed the facts in this way, I did not take notes, I must be honest. October 29th my attention - I was on the phone - my attention was drawn by a commotion in the lobby, the common reception area outside the office. I hear voices in the corridor, I am still on the phone, afterward I get closer to see that an assistant of the office, Dott. Luciano Morini, is speaking with someone. Before I can realize what is happening, he tells me “Look Paolo, here is a person that says that he was found with merchandise, goods, objects that were reported stolen by you and your colleague Palazzoli, but that he bought them in Milan close to the train station in central Milan”. At which I go to the corridor and I see, at the entrance of the lobby, a colored person that has a basketball in his hands and is dressed in sport clothes. These things surprised me, because we were at the end of October and it was kind of cold, it struck me quite a bit seeing this person in sport clothes, a tank top like those used by basketball players, and a basketball. I recognized the basketball because I played basketball for twenty years, so I know how to recognize one.  At that point I say: “Look I don’t know who you are”, he answered: “I don’t know who you are either”, I replied: “ Look we are only interested in having our belongings returned” and that was all. At that point I went back to the office. I don’t know if the person stayed in front of the office, and anyhow I close the door and there it ended. A few weeks later, may be a month later, I’m not sure, some time later I see on the newspapers photographs of a person that was associated with the matters of this proceeding, from which I recognized the person that presented himself that afternoon on October 29th, before the matters that brought to this proceeding, at the office to say that, yes he was found at that location in Milan by the crew of the Squadra Mobile, of the police station Venezia Garibaldi, that he did not…. tell me but tell to my colleague Morini, that he did not take anything from anybody but those things he obtained by purchasing them.

    LM:  Who is this person? Can you give us a name and surname?

    PB: Doctor Luciano Morini that…....

    LM: No, no, I say…....you told us of your assistant. You said that this colored person that you did not know, that you saw for the first time October 29th 2007, then at a later stage had the means to see by the newspaper who it was.

    PB: Yes.

    LM:  Can you give us the name and surname of this person?

    PB: I believe that I recognized in that person this Mr. Rudy Hermann Guede, that is not a defendant   in this proceeding, but is involved in the other one…..

    LM: Always in reference to October 29th , at the moment this person came to your studio, you said : “This person arrived , and spoke with my colleague Morini”.

    PB:  Yes.

    LM: And he told you: “I do not know you”. These are the exact words that you said before?

    PB: When I was on the landing, I said….....

    LM: That which Guede said to you.

    PB: That which I said to him, because I spoke first and said: “Look I do not know who you are”. He responds: “ I don’t know who you are either”, furthermore in a perfect Italian, with a Perugian accent, something that surprised me, because been a person…… but everything is possible. To which I told him, “look let’s cut it short we are not interested. We are only interested in getting our goods back ”, end.

    LM:  But naturally you knew the subject of the discussion between….

    PB:  Because a moment before Dr. Morini related to me “look there is a person outside that says that he bought goods that you and your colleague reported stolen, he bought them in Milan”.

    LM:  One last thing. Concerning the computer of your colleague Pazzoli, do you remember the brand, the model?

    PB:  No, I’m not able to answer.

    LM:  Thank you.

    GCM:  Please proceed.

    LG:  Excuse me Lawyer Brocchi, I am Ghirga. Your office is on which street?

    PB:  Via del Roscetto, 3.

    LG:  First…. You already told us the height, can you repeat it?

    PB:  The office is on a raised floor, technically, it is not a first floor, is a raised ground floor, that means that from the entrance of the building you go up ten steps to enter the condominium, then on the left end side there is the entrance to the office.

    LG:  An what about this terrace window?

    PB:  It is on the other side of the building.

    LG:  From the outside how much can it…

    PB:  Let’s say that are a few meters, may be three, four, but I am not able …..because I never measured it.

    LG:  But you were speaking of an access from another street that intersects Via del Roscetto?

    PB:  Exactly there is an intersection, Via del Lupo, going downhill.

    LG:  Via del Lupo

    PB:  Via del Lupo, if I remember correctly, it goes down till you reach a dead end, it comes to a courtyard behind the building and then there is another courtyard that is private property enclosed by a gate. If these person or persons entered through here they would have had to open that gate to get inside to what I described before to get into the office.

    LG:  Thank you, I wanted to clarify that.

    GCM:  Mr. Prosecutor, please proceed.

    PM:  (unintelligible - no microphone) ?

    PB:  In effect I don’t know. Seeing as I was alerted to these happenings by agent Rita Spessi of the police station Venezia Garibaldi, sometime later, together with my colleague, we filed an application for the repossession of these goods at the central penal record office of the Procura di Milano, via Manara. After 24 hours an agent, an operator, or a clerk of the central penal record office, calls me on the telephone and tells me: “Look, Lawyer, we saw the application of release, but to us form 21, does not result in any procedure”. To which I said: “How can it be that no form 21 procedure shows up ? The agents would have done a CNR, or not? At least by the end of their duty, having found a person in possession of stolen goods should have reported…”, “Look , there are no results of this procedure”

    PM:  (unintelligible - no microphone) ?

    PB:  Form 21, subject known, in the sense that in the Procura della Repubblica there are various forms, 21, 45, 44, relative documents, etc.

    PM:  (unintelligible - no microphone) ?

    PB:  No, I looked for it as a form 21, but even then they…..I even asked: “Be patient, I will look for it on the other forms”, to which he said: “We cannot find it”. Given that some time had passed this caused me some surprise. That’s it.

    PM:  But they notified you (unintelligible - no microphone) ?

    PB:  No, never.

    PM:  So then this procedure in any case is not a charge (inaudible - outside the microphone)?

    PB:  This I don’t know. I only say that the application of release, I filed it, and that the central penal record office of the Procura called telling me that they could not find the application filed by me and my colleague as the offended parties and no other relative documents regarding this procedure.

    PM:  When did this happen?

    PB:  2008, last year in the spring, months and months after…..

    PM:  Did you by any chance verify if there was (unintelligible audible-outside the microphone)?

    PB:  No, no.

    PM:  (unintelligible - no microphone) ?

    LM:  I oppose this question by the Public Prosecutor because I would like to make it known to the court that we know that there is a penal proceeding, the Public Prosecutor D’Amico in Milan even has it. We asked for the acquisition, and we have right here……

    GCM:  Excuse me lawyer, what is the motive for your opposition?

    LM:  Because the Public Prosecutor is asking if there is a penal proceeding, when in reality……

    GMC:  Excuse me Lawyer, but the Public prosecutor is asking questions to the witness on what he knows. That if evidences comes out from other sources, they will be acquired. The objection is rejected. Please Public Prosecutor.

    PM:  (unintelligible - no microphone) ?

    PB:  Yes, it is a palace of the 15 century

    PM:  Do you know, by chance, which was the path (unintelligible – no microphone)?

    PB:  I can presume it, having found the glasses in the inside, that….

    Note: in this moment the PM microphone is turned on

    PM:  Therefore before I could not be heard.

    GCM:  The answers have been…

    PM:  The answers were…

    GCM:  Yes.

    PM:  I understand.

    GCM:  The other questions… excuse me, the Public Prosecutor was asking if something to you results…

    PM:  If there is a proceeding, and you say there is not one.

    PB:  No, I don’t say there isn’t one, It does not result from me because the the central penal record office of the Procura di Milan, calling me on the telephone, referred to me the day after, that up to that date there was no registration. Now, everything is possible, that they it registered it later, I don’t know.

    PM:  You did not have any news, in any case…

    PB:  Never, never.

    PM:  Did you receive an extension of the investigation?

    PB:  Never, never.

    PM:  Let’s go back to the position of this… then this office is on the ground floor…

    PB:  Raised ground floor.

    PM:  … raised ground floor. From what point do you arrive?

    PB:  On via della Roscetto there are 2 windows on the raised ground floor, on the street front, that are the rooms of my colleague Palazzoli and mine. Then there are…

    PM:  What is the distance from the ground?

    PB:  From via della Roscetto it is minimum 3 meters, yes 3 meters, because I am tall… well it’s 2 or 3 meters. Then going down via del Lupo, there is a slope, until this public courtyard, because via del Lupo is a dead end. Thereafter, from this side the height increases, let’s say, it increases slightly after this small slope, therefore the ground goes up and there is an internal court yard that is accessible from the public courtyard through an iron gate. Going through this gate you arrive at this private courtyard, than there is an armored door with a mesh, so that one with the mesh is on the ground floor, looking up you see this balcony, this little terrace that is outside is my office, that is situated ….. more than three meters, between three and four meters from ground level.

    PM:  So, this door with the mesh is a door and not a window.

    PB:  No, it is a door

    PM:  Therefore all the way to the ground.

    PB:  Yes

    PM:  How high is it?

    PB:  More than two meters for sure.

    PM:  So after this door, there is another meter to arrive… or a meter and a half, two meters?

    PB:  I presume at least another meter.

    PM:  Another meter to arrive to the balcony.

    PB:  At least.

    PM:  Where was the porphyry rock found?

    PB:  On the balcony, on the outside.

    PM:  You said that inside … can you describe what you found? How was the…..

    PB:  The situation.

    PM:  So the rock was outside.

    PB:  The rock was outside, the glass was inside, the glass of the window in part on the corridor and they were covered with our clothes, mine and those of Lawyer Palazzoli, placed right on top of the glass.

    PM:  They were on top of the glass.

    PB:  On top of the glass, and the thing surprised us, “maybe” we said “to not make noise passing over them”, I don’t know, it is only a supposition. After which they were in the room of the photocopier other pieces of fragments of glass always coming from that window, the only one broken, they were situated on a small rug that was right in front of a workplace, a computer. Then right in front of this there were drinks, real close, open, partially consumed. Then we went into the other room, where the filing cabinet is, it was completely turned upside down. All the drawers were open, all the files were taken and the papers all mixed up on the floor, there were a mountain of paper, an entire archive practically mixed up, that many things we were never able to find, some later, some first, others later. Therefore this was the situation. Then inside my room, on my desk, there was a leather suitcase belonging to me, on top of this suitcase in a very orderly way were placed some screwdrivers, pliers, a hammer, facing the window, all perfectly aligned and facing the window. Even here all the papers in disarray. A chest of drawers was opened, inside were files, all the records of the law practice funds, all the annual quotas of the inscriptions, all things that we found eventually with a lot of effort, mixed one on top of the other. Even here was another filing cabinet of my dossiers that was opened and all the papers mixed up. Then inside of the administrative office there were, there are all the folders with the contracts of the intensity bills, with the deed to the office, all upside down. There was the placement of the [printer] that was… let’s say there had been activity, because we found receipts scattered close to the machine, so there had been…at the least this person or persons had gone to satisfy themselves of what that instrument was. This was…

    PM:  Listen, was the cell phone given back to you?

    PB:  No, I asked for the release, I deposited …

    PM:  So it is in possession of the police or the procura?

    PB:  Office of the body of evidence, I presume.

    PM:  Fine. I don’t have any other questions.

    GCM:  Questions from the civil parties? None, President. The defense can complete it’s questioning.

    LM:  I would like to deposit a record that naturally is in the dossier of the Public Prosecutor and on the basis of this record then ask questions of the witness.

    GCM:  Maybe put this record at…

    LM:  It’s about.. this can be useful to the lawyer because the number of the penal procedure that charges Rudy Guede is indicated and a warning effected on February 1, 2008 by the Procuratore della Repubblica, the assistant D’Amico, that is carrying out the investigation with regard on Rudy Guede for the crime of theft, receiving stolen good, and for the crime of carrying an illegal weapon, law 110 of ’75. This information was also given to the Procura della Repubblica of Peruga, to Dr Mignini, with communication via fax.

    PB:  When was the procedure registered? Ah excuse me,I can’t…

    GCM:  Let’s see the document. So the parties have seen this document?

    LM:  There is an error in the writing of Dr Mignini (“Dr Minnini”) but it can be understood that it is his fax and and it was even addressed …

    GCM:  Even the defense of Knox knows this…?

    LG:  (unintelligible no microphone) ?

    GCM:  The question in relation to this document?

    LM:  The question is this, Doctor D’ Amico makes aware that all of the confiscated material and thus the computer and the Nokia cell phone, had already on the date of February 1, 2008, prior to February 1, 2008, been passed on to the police station of Perugia.

    PB:  So it is in Perugia.

    LM:  The question is this, I would like to know, did you request in the first days of the year 2008 to the police station the return of…

    PB:  No, I did so to the Procura di Milan, believing that it was held in the body of evidence of the Procura di Milano, because those people told me they were found in Milan and that it was probable evidence of a criminal activity. Therefore, I thought to make a request of release to the Procura di Milano.

    LM:  Reading the letter sent by Dr D’ Amico , for the Procura di Perugia, both the computer and the cell phone are indicated. Can you recognize the computer, property of your colleague?

    PB:  I say that the cell phone without doubt was a Nokia; the 27th of October 2007 is true because it was Saturday; the Sony Vaio I cannot be certain of the brand, because I absolutely don’t remember it, because it was not even mine, , therefore I don’t know. The attempted aggravated theft, 56, 624, 625, 648…

    GCM:  Only on the objects.

    PB:  Yes. No, the objects… I can only say about the cell phone.

    GCM:  So only the cell phone.

    LM:  I ask for the acquisition so as to demonstrate that, indeed, there is a penal proceeding.

    GCM:  Agreed. Other questions?

    PB:  So it is pending in Milan. The strange thing that I can say to the president is this…  I see that it includes the form 21/2007. So I don’t understand why the Penal Central Record Office told me that it was not pending…

    GCM:  Excuse me layer, let’s go back to the testimonial questioning, therefore on the circumstantial facts.

    LM:  Let’s go back to the reconstruction of the entry path in your office by the thief. To the question by the Public prosecutor you explained, as you explained to me, that this window is at the height of about 3/4meters from the ground floor.

    PB:  From via del Lupo, yes

    LM:  Then you refer to a door, an iron door which is close…

    PB:  Yes, I confirm.

    LM:  And this iron door at what distance is from the window?

    PB:  It is perpendicular just under the window.

    LM:  So therefore there were, let’s say, coarseness on this door that could allow an eventual…

    PB:  A fit person, not I; a fit person, not someone like me, could have climbed up with the risk of plummeting to the ground, because there is clearly no protection, there is nothing but a vertical wall.

    LM:  I do understand. One last thing, the window from which the thieves entered as you indicated, is higher than the other windows?

    PB:  No, because the office is on the same level and it is exactly…you mean compared to the office or as per the window height?

    LM:  Compared to the street level and the other windows.

    PB:  No, at this point, when you get to little terrace you are practically at the level of the other windows.

    LM:  One last thing, when that man on the 29th of October that man, Rudy Guede, came to your office…

    PB:  No, not in the office, he was on…

    LM:  On the landing?

    PB:  Not even, he was in the entrance… on the steps between the street and the entrance of the office…part of the lobby. He did not enter the office.

    LM:  His intention was to come inside the office, to come to you?

    PB:  I don’t know. As a matter of fact he didn’t know who I was, because, when he rang he rang on Legal Office, because evidently somebody had told him that those goods had been… but I repeat, I did not speak with him, therefore no… they are all things told to me by Dott. Morini, so they are not of my direct knowledge.

    LM:  Thank you.

    GCM:  When did this take place?

    PB:  This happened Monday afternoon around 5, late afternoon on October 29th 2007

    GCM:  So how many days after the theft?

    PB:  The theft was October 13th, this on the 29th .

    GCM:  If there no other question the witness is excused.

    There are no other questions; the witness is dismissed.

    GCM:  The communication from the Procura della Repubblica, Tribunale Ordinario of Milano dated the 1st of February 2008 is acquired in order to be used. Who is next?

    LM:  Lawyer Palazzoli



    Thursday, December 11, 2014

    Why All The Desperate Attempts To Prove Rudy Guede Was A Burglar Have Fallen Flat

    Posted by Peter Quennell




    1. The Knox-Sollecito State Of Play

    On average we get an email or two from readers in Italy every day.

    Maybe half are from Italians and half are from foreigners who are resident there. This is from an appreciative American who is married to an Italian and now lives in Milan.

    I go back to Perugia and my friends there as often as I can - everything there is very special to me. Perhaps this sounds a little strange but, to me, the city seems to have lost it’s innocence with Meredith’s murder. I still haven’t met anybody in Italy - from North to South (or from Switzerland either) who believes that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent.

    No-one in Italy any longer seems to believe that AK and RS or of course Guede were not involved. The courts have made their case.

    There has simply been too much documentation, too much commentary broadcast on TV, too many disturbing facts coming to light like Knox having sex for drugs with a drug kingpin right up to the night of her arrest.

    The incessant bickering of the two has become a bore. Trials against Sforza, Aviello, and Sollecito proceed and more charges against Amanda Knox and Curt and Edda Mellas remain.  Since this time last year neither of the two has won even one point.

    2. More Proof Undermines The Guede Hoax

    Can you figure out what the image at the top depicts?

    This is the north end of the massif from the east. Right at the center is the law office of Dr Paolo Brocchi, whose office was burgled and whose laptop turned up in the possession of Rudy Guede in Milan. Meredith’s house is visible at top-right and Patrick’s bar, the English girl’s house and the courts are all off to the left.

    At the bottom of the image below in the center is a narrow dark ally. Whoever broke in seems to have done so via that ally and a narrow balcony on the second floor of the law offices. 






    The killer-groupies refer to Rudy Guede as the FORGOTTEN killer though there is no logical reason why. He doesnt hog the limelight but he is convicted and he is doing his time.

    The killer-groupies claim Guede was a drug dealer (untrue), a petty thief (unproven), a knife wielder (untrue), who threatened a man (untrue), a police snitch (untrue) who killed Meredith alone during a burglary which went wrong (untrue). Quite a list of false claims. 

    There is in fact zero evidence proving Guede acted alone. Meredith’s missing money was equivalent to money Knox could not explain.  Read the 45 posts here for all the proof the killer-groupies ignore.

    Absolutely key to the verdict of the trial court were the TWO recreations of the attack on Meredith. Each pointed to three attackers. Both were presented in closed court. 

    Please follow the images below to see how a burglar broke into Dr Brocchi’s office two and a half weeks before Meredith was killed.

    The front door of the law office is at street level. Because the ground slopes down at the rear, the law office is one level above ground level. That is where the glass in the French doors was broken and the break-in may have occurred. 




    Above and below: images of law office at the street level from the front,






    Whether it was Guede or not (there are good reasons for thinking it was not) he or she broke in around the back, up that alley, in the dark, where there is a quite easy reach up to the floor of a narrow balcony outside the French doors.



    Above and below, law office from back, balcony is at hard left not visible here





    Above and below, law office from back, balcony is visible one floor up from ground level





    Above law office from back, balcony is visible one floor up from ground level



    What does that climb resemble? See the final image below. It fairly precisely resembles the climb in the dark onto Meredith’s balcony, also at the back, a route which two separate sets of burglars used in 2009.

    It does NOT resemble at all the climb into Filomena’s room, much higher, in bright light, which to this day not one person has been able to emulate, and which would actually resemble a climb to the office windows at the front in bright streetlight . 

    Those who claim that climbing into Filomena’s window was anyone’s known “modus operandi” are not telling the truth.




    Above, Meredith’s house from the east with balcony used by burglars at the back


    There were no fingerprints in the office and to this day nobody can say for certain what the burglary was really about.

    Only that certain legal papers had been accessed and it is held probable in Perugia that someone was trying to interfere with a legal case. Two other offices at the back were bypassed. 

    Neither Dr Brocchi nor Ms Maria Del Prato who encountered Guede in her nursery school in Milan pressed charges against him for assault or theft. Their testimonies at trial were low-key and puzzling but certainly did not leave Guede in a worse light. Neither had an axe to grind with him.

    So the Milan police and courts finally acted against Guede merely for being in possession of a couple of items of stolen property. Nothing more.

    If Guede had no already been convicted he would have served no prison time.

    But as we recently reported he gets an additional 16 months in prison and his work-release is denied.  Guede’s final appeal to Cassation has just been turned down.

    The killer-groupies should move along. Demonizing Guede with false claims and lying to justice departments (their new angle) will never ensure Knox remains free.


    Wednesday, November 05, 2014

    Denial Of Parole For Rudy Guede Could Be Yet More Bad News For Knox And Sollecito

    Posted by Peter Quennell



    Above and below: Mammagialla prison at Virterbo north of Rome where Guede is


    Rudy Guede has been in prison at Viterbo for seven years less only several weeks now.

    Despite his claims via closed-circuit TV that he has had an exemplary record and has nearly finished a college degree, the Italian parole oversight board in Rome has just declined his work release application.

    Rudy Guede has been treated fairly, and does seem to have behaved himself, and there is zero evidence he was on a crime wave or dealt drugs or acted as a snitch for the Perugia police.

    Despite that, he has never been given any breaks in the past seven years except as described here by the current system. 

    That post in fact reflects the view of a number of pro-victim Italian judges and prosecutors who personally incline toward the UK and US practice of plea bargaining under which the accused puts realistic evidence on the table and rolls over on accomplices and shows real remorse, in return for which lesser charges are arrived at.

    The grounds for refusing work-release parole were not published, but if this is a way of pressuring Guede into further pressuring Knox and Sollecito? Go for it.







    Wednesday, September 24, 2014

    Analysis #2 Of Testimony Of Dr Chiacchiera, Organized Crime Section: Discounting Any Lone Wolf

    Posted by Cardiol MD



    Dr Chiacchiera (talking) with his team explaining reason for charges in another case

    Overview Of This Series

    In 2007 Dr Chiacchiera was the Director of the Organized Crime Section and the Deputy Director of the Flying Squad.

    He was one of the most senior and experienced law enforcement officers to testify at the trial.  His testimony and his cross examination by the defenses occupied a lot of time of the court late in February 2009. He covered the following ground.

      (1) He found Knox and Sollecito uncooperative when he asked them questions.

      (2) Saw evidence contradicting any lone burglar theory and indicating that the “break-In” to Romanelli’s room was faked.

      (3) Phone records and the police investigation into the accused phone activity the night of the murder.

      (4) Discovery of pornographic magazines at Sollecito’s house.

      (5) Details of how the large knife, Exhibit 36, was collected from Sollecito’s and the evidence that it is the murder knife.

    All the translation is by the ever-dedicated main poster ZiaK. This series is highlighting some key portions. Here is the full 50-page transcript which will be posted in the trial testimony area of McCall’s great Wiki.

    This post continues analysis of the evidence that the lone burglar/lone wolf theory was not credible to those that were first on the crime scene and that the “break-In” to Filomena Romanelli’s room was to them obviously faked.

    (GCM=Giancarlo Massei; MC=Manuela Comodi; MaCh=Marco Chiacchiera; GB=Giulia Bongiorno; DD=Donatella Donati; CP=Carlo Pacelli; LG=Luciano Ghirga; CDV=Carlo Dalla Vedova; FM=Francesco Maresca)

    Public Prosecutor Comodi [MC] Leads Testimony

    Judge Massei [GCM}:  Excuse me a moment, just to give some guidelines, but of the evaluations that the witness is expressing, obviously it’s not that they can be taken account of, however we will acquire them [for the trial files] in order to understand the investigation activities, the appropriateness of the investigations that were carried out, directed in one way or in another, there you go. However, maybe, … there you go, yes, maybe if we can manage to keep with the bare essentials this will help everybody.

    {Court proceedings seem to have been diverted into a free-for-all colloquy, with multiple participants chiming-in, and creating confusion. Court-President, GCM, now politely intervenes, apparently trying to restore order, ruling that the professional evaluations made by the witness, testified-to by the witness, should be admitted for the trial files. The appropriateness of the witness's evaluations can be dealt with separately and later.}

    Manuela Comodi [MC}:  Well, in short, they were called … they are the only ones who can describe the whole progression of the investigations - Dr Profazio and Dr Chiacciera – because they are directors, they are the only ones who will come to describe for me, thus, what was the progression of the investigations. Clearly, in order to pass from one investigative act to another rather than … and the choice of the subsequent investigative acts. It’s clear that they have to describe, in order to make a complete reasoning, even the lines of thought that, as Dr Chiacchiera said, it sometimes happens that they make. However, one point: apart from the break-in, apart from the broken window, there are … did you acquire further elements that corroborated the idea that there had been a burglary? Nothing from Romanelli’s room had been carried off? Valuable things had been taken?

    {Examiner acknowledges Court's admonition, argues importance of her witness's testimony, and segués into triple-Q addressed to witness re elements corroborating idea of burglary.}

    Dr Chiacchiera [MaCh]:  This ... in fact, in the progress ...

    {Witness begins to answer, but is interrupted by Examiner}

    MC:  Was a declaration/complaint of theft made then, with a list of the things taken?

    {Examiner interrupts witness with new double-Q}

    MaCh:  In the logical progression, if I may in some way still, in summary, say what ….

    {Witness begins narrative response but is interrupted by Court}

    GCM:  Say the objective facts, if you have ….

    {Court interrupts witness, beginning to admonish him to respond by testifying to objective facts, but is itself interrupted by witness}

    MaCh:  Nothing disappeared, so a burglar would have had difficulty …

    {Witness answers 3rd Q of Examiner's above triple Q, but then launches into a narrative beginning: "so…", but Court interrupts}

    GCM:  Excuse me, nothing had disappeared? Before all else, what thing .... you knew what things were in that room that did not disappear?

    {Court interrupts, questioning basis for witness's statement that "Nothing disappeared"}

    MaCh:  Yes, because, shall we say, the investigation elements that then subsequently emerged, allowed us to deduce that from Romanelli’s room absolutely nothing disappeared. There was a complete mess/chaos, but nothing disappeared from Romanelli’s room. And this is another element to [lead us] to obviously deduce that the desired hypothesis of a burglar and of a theft was objectively … But then the burglar does not [sic] close the door and throw away the key. The burglar does not cover the victim. The burglar …

    {Witness answers Court's Q, with narrative explanation including reference to "the key", and Court interrupts}

    GCM:  Excuse me. They key. What is this detail about the key? What is it?

    {Court asks Q simple Q re "the key" - with apparent transcriptional error: "They key"}

    MaCh:  There was no key.

    {Witness answers Court's Q}

    GCM:  There was no key where?

    {Court asks simple Q}

    MaCh:  Those who entered into the inside of the house first found the door closed. A closed door that then aroused the suspicions and that then gave concern and then it was decided to … to break [it] down.

    {Witness responds to Court's Q with narrative explanation}

    GCM:  Excuse me, on [sic] Romanelli’s room there was no key?

    {Court asks another simple Q}

    MaCh:  No, I’m talking of Meredith’s room, Mr President; Meredith’s room was locked by key.
    This is another … how to say, the investigative deductions that we drew from these details that emerged, also from the declarations that we gathered.

    {Witness responds to Court's Q, and informatively amplifies A}

    MC:  Was it normal that Meredith closed herself [sic. i.e. her room] by key?

    {Examiner asks witness a simple Q}

    MaCh:  No.

    {Witness gives simple A}

    MC:  And did you find the key of Meredith’s room?

    {Examiner asks witness a simple Q}

    MaCh:  No.

    {Witness gives simple A}

    MC:  So it was closed by key, but there was no key inside?

    {Examiner summarises witness's testimony re key and poses a simple Q}

    MaCh:  But there was no key inside, so that it was necessary to break down the door in order to enter. Also the almost inexplicable detail of the presence of two cellphones in a garden of a house, doesn’t tend to favour the thesis of someone who enters and who accidentally, so to speak, finds a person and then kills them, because [he] is forced to kill them because they have seen [his] face.

    {Witness responds to Q in form of confirming-repetition and amplifies A in expanded narrative-form}

    MC:  But is via Sperandio far from via della Pergola?

    {Examiner poses vague Q re proximity of 2 streets}

    MaCh:  No. And there we tried to deduce. And via Sperandio, as I said earlier, Doctoressa, is not far from the house. We discussed [this] to understand why these telephones went and ended up there …

    {Witness answers simply, and respectfully, introducing " the house" on one of the streets, seguéing into subject of the mobile telephones and is interrupted by the Court}

    GCM:  Excuse me. When you say it is not far from the house, can you specify at what distance? How one reaches it?

    {The Court's interruption is also vague, with double-Q, referring to an unspecified "it"}

    MaCh:  Not far from the house means that, by following a route that any Perugian knows, Mr President, one passes through a park and one arrives, let’s say, near the gateway of Porta Sant’Angelo. So for this reason, as the crow flies, how much would it be, but less [sic] … three hundred, four hundred metres. But to reach it by foot from via della Pergola to via Sperandio I think that it doesn’t take more than 5, [or] 7 minutes.

    {Witness responds to Court in explanatory narrative form

    MC: But do you have to pass by via Garibaldi?

    {Examiner asks simple Q}

    MaCh:  Yes. But you can also pass through the park – there’s a park that then comes out right in front.

    {Witness answers Q, and amplifies his response}

    MC:  Of the villa?

    {Examiner seeks clarification of witness's response}

    MaCh:  In front of the villa, at the entry to the villa. Looking from the street that crosses with the provincial [road], the one that, shall we say, borders the villa, whoever is looking at it, I repeat, I – who am 44 years old, am Perugian – I did not know that there was a garden behind there.

    {Witness clarifies his response, amplifying further}

    MC:  And how far away is via Sperandio from via Garibaldi, corso Garibaldi?

    {Examiner asks apparently simple Q}

    MaCh:  it’s parallel. It’s very close, very very close. It’s 200 metres away, as the crow flies. I think even much less, because they are almost parallel, let’s say. Even that is something that in some way made us understand that there was an interest in getting rid of those cellphones, clearly, by whoever did that thing there.

    {Witness gives detailed response;
    See: "Just seeing police could panic the killers into instant dumping of the telephones, without even needing to know why the police were where the police were (There is no need to invoke any awareness by the phone-dumper[s] of the reason the Police were near Mrs. Lana’s place - the hoax-call.). So if the killers saw flashing police-lights, or any other sign of police near Mrs. Lana’s place, that sign could be enough to explain panic phone-dumping - then and there (not considering whether the phones were switched-on or switched-off)." In TJMK: "Updating Our Scenarios And Timelines #2: An Integrated Comparison Of The Timing of the Phone-Events." 6/28/2013}

    MC:  When you arrived for the first time in via della Pergola, did you enter the room of the crime?

    {Examiner asks simple Q}

    MaCh:  Immediately, no. I went in afterwards, when Dr Mignini also arrived; and later with Dr Lalli. Then I had, how to say, occasionally entered when the crime-scene inspection of the Forensic Police, of the colleagues arrived from Rome, was already begun, so late. I didn’t stop long inside the house, I say the truth, also because the measures/orders that I issued immediately were those, yes, of deducing, [of] drawing out all the investigative elements that might emerge in the immediate surroundings [and/or immediately after the facts] to seek to immediately direct the investigation activity, but also to “freeze” [sic. i.e. to solidify, or to make concrete] another aspect, which was that of hearing/questioning all the people who might tell us details on Meredith’s stay in Perugia, in general, but above all on her final hours, on her visits/visitors, everything about those who Meredith had known in some way and … This was the thing that we considered logical to do precisely in relation to this, to these first investigative deductions that we drew from the [above]-described crime-scene.

    {Witness gives detailed narrative reply}

    MC:  And so that same day you were present when they began to hear/question…

    {Examiner begins preamble to presumed Q, but is interrupted}

    MaCh:  Yes.

    {Witness interrupts Examiner with witness's answer to assumed Q}

    MC:  … the people [who were] acquainted with the facts.

    {Examiner completes interrupted Q-in-the-form-of-a-statement, which omits Q-mark}

    MaCh:  I was present. I did not participate personally in the examination [of witnesses], but I was present, in the sense that both with [my] colleague Profazio and with [my] other colleague from the central operative service…

    {Witness responds with narrative description of circumstances, but is interrupted}

    MC:  from Rome.

    {Examiner interrupts with her assumed next part of witness's response}

    MaCh:  from Rome. We began to put the pieces together, excuse my [use of] the expression; that is to say all the … all the elements that emerged from the examination of witnesses, were checked, were gradually verified/cross-checked.  Both with cross-checks that enlarged the group of witnesses, of the people to be heard/questioned, and with the checking of the alibis of many people, [as well as] with a technical activity that was carried out.

    {Witness confirms Examiner's assumption, and completes his narrative description of circumstances}

    MC:  That is to say?

    {Examiner enquires as to witness's reference to indefinite "technical activity"}

    MaCh:  A technical activity. A bugging activity was carried out. There was also an activity carried out also for the cross-checking of the phone [activity] printouts. There was an activity to understand also the cross-checking of the [phone] cells. There was a very wide-range activity carried out. Without excluding, I repeat, all also [sic] ... shall we say, the minor hypotheses. For example, the news arrived of a Maghrebi who had been in a rush to wash his own clothes in a launderette, not too far from the scene of the crime. This piece of information was excluded for a very simple reason, because from the first results of the investigative inquiries, he had arrived there in the early afternoon, but instead, in the early afternoon of the day before her death, Meredith was still alive [sic]. Because from the witness examinations we had determined that the last person who had seen her alive, saw her in the late afternoon. After which, we also did another series of checks relative to the one [sic] that there was a strange telephone call that the people who found the cellphones in the famous villa, the beautiful one on via Sperandio, had received in the evening. However, we had, how to say, understood that it was a case of a boy who had made a call from Terni and of a strange coincidence, but absolutely irrelevant for the investigation activity. Indeed, we made checks on all the hospitals in order to evaluate, to check, whether maybe there were [patients] who had presented blade/cutting wounds that in some way might have been compatible with a wound, let’s say, or at any rate with a reaction by the victim. Only one had presented, it was a [person] from Foligno who, [while] cutting salami, had cut their hand during the trip back from an away-game with Foligno – he was a football fan. Nothing else. So no investigative hypothesis was rejected. It was, obviously, because this is how it is done, and thus I believe that it is logic, we began to discuss/think in a certain way, because we had deduced from all this scen, another series of further elements, that is to say that the person ….

    {Witness responds with prolonged narrative re "technical activity" and seems to pause}

    MC:  Speak. Don’t be afraid to say it.

    {Examiner urges witness to continue}

    MaCh:  No, no. I’m not afraid.

    {Witness argues with Examiner}

    MC:  That is, let’s say, when was it that the investigations turned to, [started] to focus on today’s defendants?

    {Examiner asks simple Q}

    MaCh:  When on the evening of … they did not focus on today’s defendants, that is to say, progressively the analysis of the investigative elements made us … made us start, even us, to suspect. Because going into a house, finding a [sic] door of Meredith’s room closed, a [sic] door of the apartment opened, faeces in the toilet [bowl], while I take a shower, a series of bloody prints…

    {Witness responds in narrative form and is interrupted}

    MC:  However the faeces were in which of the two bathrooms?

    {Examiner interrupts witness with clarifying Q}

    MaCh:  Of the bathrooms. Me, if I take a shower in a bathroom where there are faeces, instinctively I flush the toilet, in short.

    {Witness makes non-responsive subjective statement and is interrupted}

    MC:  Yes, but the faeces were in the other bathroom.

    {Examiner engages witness in argument}

    MaCh:  Yes, yes, I understood. However, in short, in some way it comes instinctively, no?, to flush the toilet? The fact is that ….

    {Witness joins argument and is interrupted}

    GCM:  Excuse me, do you know how many bathrooms there were in the house?

    {Court interrupts argument with simple Q}

    MaCh:  Two.

    {Witness ignores actual Q and responds with answer to assumed follow-up Q}

    GCM:  Two bathrooms. Excuse me, please. Do you know that a shower was taken?

    {Court asks another simple Q, using vernacular ref. to whether a person used the shower, rather than that the the shower device was taken away.}

    MaCh:  Yes.

    {Witness answers Court's actual Q}

    GCM:  How do you know?

    {Court asks simple follow-on Q}

    MaCh:  I know because it is a thing that I cannot, I believe, report because it was ….

    {Witness seems to answer in non-responsive, subjective narrative form, and is interrupted}

    GCM:  But you checked…?

    {Court seeks objective answer to his simple Q}

    MaCh:  I am trying to be very very careful.

    {Witness hints that he has reasons for apparent evasion}

    Giulia Bongiorno [GB]:  Mr President, we are talking of nothing.

    {Sollecito's lawyer chimes in with distracting comment}

    GCM:  Excuse me, Attorney.

    {Court appears to admonish GCM not to chime-in without specified legal-objection}

    MaCh:  Well, the main point [is] that very slowly we began to understand that there were strong inconsistencies in the revelations that were made. And there were behaviours that on the part of above all, indeed exclusively, of Sollecito and Knox, appeared to us as [being], at the very least, particular. Behaviours both immediately after the event – a sort of impatience/irritability shown [with regard to] the investigation activity that we were carrying out, and obviously we could not but ask [NdT: i.e. “we had to ask”] those who were close to Meredith [about] elements that we considered useful, even necessary, in order to continue the investigation activity.

    {Witness launches into apparent justification for his evasiveness}

    MC:  Excuse me if I interrupt you. I’ll just make a few precise questions, thus: you checked, let’s say, let’s call them alibis, even if it’s a term that’s very so [sic] from American TV films, but in any case [it’s] understandable… Did you check the alibis of the people closest, let’s say, to Meredith?

    {Examiner, after preamble, asks relatively simple Q}

    MaCh:  Yes.

    {Witness answers Q as phrased}

    MC:  In particular, did you check the alibis of the young men from the [apartment on] the floor below?

    {Examiner asks simple Q}

    MaCh:  Yes.

    {Witness answers Q as phrased}

    MC:  Results?

    {Examiner poses Q in casual form}

    MaCh:  Positive for them, in the sense that they were at home, in their own home, that is to say their respective houses, because they were here for reasons of study, so they were not present in Perugia during the days when …

    {Witness responds with allusive casual A, begins to amplify, but is interrupted}

    MC:  Because they had left for …

    {Examiner interrupts with suggestion for next part of witness's response}

    MaCh:  Yes, for the All Souls’ Day long-weekend, let’s call it that.

    {Withess reacts to Examiner's suggestion by stating reason for upcoming week-end absence, but not stating week-end destination}

    MC:  Did you check the alibi of Mezzetti and of Romanelli?

    {Examiner asks double Q}

    MaCh:  Yes.

    {Witness answers for both Qs}

    MC:  Results?

    {Examiner poses Q in casual form}

    MaCh:  The result in this case also [is that] Mezzetti and Romanelli were not there, so …

    {Witness gives clear Answer, apparently begins explanation, but is interrupted}

    GCM:  Excuse me, can you say what checks you did?

    {Court interrupts witness's testimony to ask Q re witness's method}

    MaCh:  We carried out a whole series of checks that brought us to evaluate, establish, that these persons were not present in the premises that evening.

    {Witness ignores Court's Q as phrased and answers anticipated next Q}

    MC:  Let’s say, I imagine that you heard/questioned them.

    {Examiner makes statement-in-form-of-Q with ?-mark omitted}

    MaCh:  Yes.

    {Witness answers presumed Q}

    MC:  Did they tell you where they were that evening, what they did that evening…?

    {Examiner seems to interrupt and asks double-Q}

    MaCh:  And in effect, we assessed/considered that …

    {Witness ignores Q-as-phrased and is apparently interrupted}

    MC:  And you ascertained that in effect …

    {Examiner apparently interrupts A and continues his interrupted multiple Q}

    MaCh:  That it was true what they had told us. I can report on the circumstance.

    {Witness seems to continue his interrupted answer and offers to expand his narrative.
    Q &A cycle is confused and confusing because of repeated multiple Qs, instead of orderly single Q & A}

    MC:  Did you check the alibi of Amanda Knox and of Raffaele Sollecito? Was there a comparison between the declarations of Amanda Knox and of Raffaele Sollecito with regard to the night of the murder, and what you were able to compare, shall we say, objectively, through the other declarations, through the phone records?

    {Examiner asks multiple Qs}

    MaCh:  Through the phone records and through the checks [that were], shall we say, objective, it was found that what Sollecito had declared was not truthful because there was a phone call that was never received [i.e. answered] by Sollecito at 23:00 hours. Because it turned out that there was no interaction with the computer, but I believe that this … as declared [sic]. But above all there was an absolute incongruity of the ….

    {Witness summarizing findings wrt phone records, is interrupted}

    GCM:  There now. Excuse me. Maybe we will not ask the question in these terms: following the declarations, on which you cannot report, that you got from and that were given by Amanda Knox and Sollecito Raffaele, what type of investigations you carried out…

    {Court interrupts to restrict Qs but is interrupted}

    MaCh:  We carried out ...

    {Witness interrupts Court's interruption and is interrupted}

    GCM:  ... and the outcome of these investigations. There now. This is where we’re at.

    {Court completes it's interruption, seeming to believe he has made himself clear, but confusion still reigns}

    MaCh:  Well, in summary ...

    {Witness begins a summary, but is interrupted}

    GCM:  Following the declarations given by them, you had … With regard to Sollecito Raffaele, what did you do and what [information] emerged?

    {Court interrupts witness with double-Q}

    MaCh:  It emerged that, unlike …

    {Witness begins to answer Court's 2nd Q, but Court interrupts}

    GCM:  What did you do, first?

    {Court repeats1st Q}

    MaCh:  We did an analysis of the telephone traffic, and from the analysis of the telephone traffic it emerged that Sollecito had absolutely not received/answered the 23:00 hours phone call as he had declared. From the analysis of the telephone traffic, there then emerged a very strange detail, in the sense that the cellphones …

    {Witness answers 1st Q, begins answering 2nd Q, and is interrupted by Sollecito's lawyer}

    GB:  (overlapping voices) … continue with the opinions/judgements, with all the opinions/judgements.

    {Sollecito's lawyer seems to demand comprehensive testimony}

    GCM:  That which emerged.

    {Court makes seemingly cryptic statement which is probably a Q relating to witness's interrupted A to Court's 2nd Q above: "It emerged that, unlike …" }

    MaCh:  A detail/particular emerged ... unlike what …. (overlapped voices).

    {Witness resumes testimony but is interrupted, multiple voices are heard}

    GCM:  Excuse me. What emerged?

    {Court asks witness to clarify what witness was saying}
    _____________________________________________

    Here ends the Analysis of the Evidence #2, discussing that the lone burglar theory is not credible, and that “Break-In” to Romanelli’s room was faked.

    The next Post:  Analysis of the Evidence #3, will Analyse the Phone records and the police investigation into the accused phone activity the night of the murder.

     


    Sunday, September 14, 2014

    Analysis #1 Of Testimony Of Marco Chiacchiera, Director, Organized Crime Section, Flying Squad

    Posted by Cardiol MD



    Dr Chiacchiera with Dr Comodi explaining reason for charges in another case

    Overview Of This Series

    Yet another vital translation which will be posted in the trial testimony areaof McCall’s great Wiki. This again is translated by the ever-dedicated main posterr ZiaK.

    Although I graduated as a medical doctor I also graduated as a lawyer, and was often in courtrooms. For this post and the rest of the Chiacchiera series I am wearing my lawyer’s hat to point out what strikes me in Prosecutor Comodi’s questions,  Marco Chiacchiera’s testimony, and the cross-examinations by defense lawyers.

    Prior Preparations And Procedures

    Under the Italian Code, before the beginning of the trial phase in Italy, the parties file a brief, detailing all evidence they want to present – the parties have to indicate by name every witness and precisely what these will be asked. The aims include creation of a Record of Admissible Facts.

    Also under the Italian Code, both the defendant and the prosecutor can cross-examine each other’s witnesses. The Judge may choose not to admit any testimony that appears patently superfluous, reject irrelevant or improper or irregular questions – such as leading questions, and Inadmissible Hearsay – and also ask questions to the witnesses and experts.

    Ground Covered In Dr Chiacchiera’s Testimony

      (1) He found Knox and Sollecito uncooperative when he asked them questions.

      (2) Saw evidence contradicting any lone burglar theory and indicating that the “break-In” to Romanelli’s room was faked.

      (3) Phone records and the police investigation into the accused phone activity the night of the murder.

      (4) Discovery of pornographic magazines at Sollecito’s house.

      (5) Details of how the large knife, Exhibit 36, was collected from Sollecito’s and the evidence that it is the murder knife.


    My Assessment Of This Court Exchange

    It is immediately obvious to me that this witness is a skilled witness; as such, and given his deep hands-on involvement in the immediate investigation this witness’s testimony is credible.  My assessment therefore is that this was a very good and unflinching witness and that Dr Comodi shows no signs of leading the witness or seeking other than a truthful record.

    I have seen prosecutors examine witnesses differently but dont believe the resultant record would have been superior. This would have stood up well in any American court.

    (GCM=Giancarlo Massei; MC=Manuela Comodi; MaCh=Marco Chiacchiera; GB=Giulia Bongiorno; DD=Donatella Donati; CP=Carlo Pacelli; LG=Luciano Ghirga; CDV=Carlo Dalla Vedova; FM=Francesco Maresca)

    Public Prosecutor Comodi [MC]

    MC:  Dr Chiacchiera, you carried out your duties where, when, at what moment of the events?

    MaCh:  I was and am the director of the Organized Crime Section of the Flying Squad and I am the vice-director of the Flying Squad. The Organized Crime Section is a branch of the Flying Squad that deals with … the term, I think that in this place [i.e. the court] it is enough to say that it deals with organized crime. However, I am also the vice-director of the Flying Squad, for which [reason] I deal with, in the case of need, everything that is necessary [for] the various aspects.

    {Witness supplies 5 items of relevant information that Examiner should elicit at beginning of examination.}

    MC:  Can you tell the Court how you became aware of events, who called you, when you became involved?

    {Examiner asks another triple-question}

    MaCh:  Yes.

    {Witness simply answers question as worded by Examiner}

    MC:  For now, start to tell us, then maybe I will intervene [NdT: i.e. interrupt with further questions] if necessary.

    {Examiner, asking no Q, instructs witness, suggesting provisional forbearance if witness does not make interruptions necessary.}

    MaCh:  On the fateful day, at around 12:33, I had gone to the cemetery with my mother. The operations room called me immediately after the discovery of the body.

    {Witness begins appropriate narrative response, but Examiner interrupts}

    MC:  So the 113? [NdT: 113 is the Italian State Police emergency number]

    {Examiner interrupts witness with a Q, suggesting witness's receipt of call from an emergency number, but suggests wrong source-number}

    MaCh:  110. The operations room of the Questura called me, and informed me of the happenings in an initially obviously very summarized manner. They said to me that there was a suspicious death, a young woman who lived in via della Pergola. I rushed to the place directly in my mother’s car. I didn’t stop by at the Questura, I didn’t go to get the service [i.e. police] car. I got myself taken to via della Pergola. We took about 15 minutes from the cemetery to there, ten fifteen minutes. In the meantime, I phoned the deputy Commissioner Napoleoni, in the temporary absence of the director, Dr Profazio, who arrived later, who was … he was enjoying a period of leave, and with deputy Commissioner Napoleoni we arrived almost at the same time. We arrived almost simultaneously at the premises. Forensics, too, arrived almost at the same time at the premises.

    {Witness supplies correct source-number and resumes interrupted narrative response}

    MC:  The Perugia Forensics?

    {Examiner questions witness's correction, as if to verify and to ensure accuracy of court's record}

    MaCh:  The Perugia Forensics, I highlight, yes.

    {Witness emphatically agrees with Examiner's question}

    MC:​[They were] alerted by you, or ...?

    {Examiner pauses mid-Q, inviting witness to guess complete Q, or is interrupted}

    MaCh:​Alerted by the operations room, and also alerted by me.
    ,
    {Witness responds to invitation, or interrupts with A to assumed complete Q}

    MC:​So you arrive, and who do you find?

    {Examiner's 1st simple Q.}

    MaCh: ​I found there ... there was already deputy Commissioner Napoleoni, there were also a few of Meredith’s co-tenants. There was Amanda Knox, there was Raffaele Sollecito. There were two young men who were, I believe, the friend of the boyfriend of one of the co-tenants. In short, there were a few people who had already been inside the house. There was the Postal Police.

    {Witness answers Q in reasonable detail}

    MC:​In the person of…?

    {Examiner seeks more detail re specific Postal Police Personnel}

    MaCh: ​Battistelli and another of Battistelli’s colleagues. Inspector Battistelli, with whom there was immediately a discussion in order to understand what were the reasons for his intervention there, because it is not normal to find the Postal [police] in a crime of this sort. And he explained to me immediately what was the reason for his intervention. The origin of the, shall we way of his intervention, was due to the discovery of a pair of cellphones in a period of time, I believe, of an hour, [or] two, I don’t recall clearly, that were one in the name of one of Meredith’s co-tenants and one in the name of, later it [sic] … I mean the SIM [card], obviously, the cellphones’ SIMs, the cards, they were in the name of a co-tenant and the other in Meredith’s [name]. The co-tenant, however, then told us, we then ascertained that both of the cellphones in fact were used by Meredith. And already that was, how shall we say, a first detail on which we began to reflect because, in fact, that was an element than in some way made us [become] immediately occupied/involved from an investigative point of view.

    {Witness responds to Q and includes relevant amplifying narrative, anticipating probable future Qs re cellphones}

    MC: ​So, excuse me, also if the Court already, shall we say, knows this, because others have reported it, on this point however, where were the cellphones found?

    {Examiner seems to interrupt with simple Q to clarify specific relevant fact not yet reached}

    MaCh:​Inside the garden of a villa that is in via Sperandio.

    {Witness responds appropriately}

    MC:​In via Sperandio.

    {Probably a Q, but implicitly inviting more specificity}

    MaCh: ​A villa that ... I am Perugian, [and] honestly, I didn’t even know there was a villa there. I’m Perugian, and I swear that I would have sworn [sic] that behind there was a wood.

    {Witness flounders, seems unable to be more specific}

    MC:​A field

    {Probably a Q, but implicitly inviting more specificity}

    MaCh: ​It [was] the first time that I went in behind there. Instead, I see a marvelous old mansion with an enormous garden that gives ... that is almost adjacent to the street – the street that leads towards Ponte Rio. Anyone from Perugia understands me maybe.

    {Witness seems to be in informal conversational mode}

    MC: ​From the structure of the fencing/enclosure, could you tell, shall we say, whether it was possible to throw these cellphones from the street, or whether it was necessary to enter the garden itself?

    {Examiner engages witness, and asks Q to clarify how cellphones got into that garden}

    MaCh: ​Yes, obviously, we checked that. In fact, immediately, in short, the detail that seemed, how shall we say, of great investigative interest was that [very point], besides other details that I will go [into] a bit [sic], so to speak, also to give the impression of what the immediate impact was that we saw in the moment when we found ourselves in a situation of this type. So, deputy Napoleoni immediately entered inside the house in order to check it for herself. I did it [entered] shortly afterwards, also because [as] you will imagine that in that moment whoever was there had to notify all those who [sic], amongst whom Dr Mignini who was the Public Prosecutor on duty, and immediately give orders so that the correct checks are carried out. Because it was not just a crime scene that had to be analysed immediately: there also had to be, how shall we say, correlated with the information that we had got from via Sperandio – because the entry of the Postal [police in the case] originated with via Sperandio. And so we immediately asked ourselves: “Ah, what are these cellphones belonging to poor Meredith doing inside the garden of a villa?” And then And then immediately after, we asked ourselves, obviously, what might be the profile of the possible, or probable, murderer, and we discussed/talked about the crime scene. The crime scene immediately seemed fairly strange to us, if you wish [NdT: literally “if we wish” in Italian, but meaning the same as “shall we say”, “if you wish”, “so to speak” etc.]

    {Witness responds to Q with detailed narrative}

    MC:​Why?

    {Examiner asks ambiguous Q, probably wrt crime scene seeming "fairly strange "}

    MaCh:​Because the door did not show… the entry door to the villa did not show signs of break-in. The we checked …

    {Witness seems to decipher ambiguity correctly, begins narrative response, but is interrupted by Examiner}

    MC:​We are not talking about the villa on via Sperandio obviously?

    {Examiner interrupts with Q, apparently not comprehending Witness's narratives}

    MaCh: ​For the love of god! It was called a “villa” … (overlap of voices), let’s say the house, of the house on via della Pergola there was no forcing/break-in. We found a forcing on the window. The window is this one, on the side of the house. I don’t know if you’ve seen the house? Anyhow, it is this one on the side of the house that can be seen immediately when you come down the slope from the gate. Logically reconstructing the thing, a hypothetical prowler [NdT: literally “ill-intentioned person”] who entered the house, breaking the glass with a rock - because inside the room, which was Romanelli’s room, which was the, shall we say, hypothetical arena of the entry, was completely in utter chaos. For that reason, what should we have hypothesized? That the hypothetical prowler took a rock, managed to throw the rock; the shutters, the external ones, the external shutters were not …

    {Witness is exasperated at Examiner's apparent incomprehension, is repeating his previous testimony, but is interrupted by Examiner}

    MC:​The dark-green wooden ones?

    {Examiner interrupts with Leading Q re colour of external shutters. Now begins a confused and confusing colloquy. The arrangement of Filomena Romanelli’s window, with Outside, and Inside Shutters, the Broken-Glass-Frame in-between, and the glass-splinters on the window-sill is complicated and needs a picture-exhibit that the witness can refer-to; this is apparently not provided, leading to the confusions}

    MaCh:​The dark-green wooden ones were half shut, for which reason [he] must have had an aim like “Pecos Bill” [NdT: a cartoon Wild West cowboy], takes aim and throws that rock, smashes the window. After, he climbs up and does a turn on the little slope, and has to clamber up towards the window on the smooth surface, it seems to me, that from the ground up to the window there are two and a half metres-three [metres]. And then would have said: “bah, in short” [sic]. Yeah, well, the thing seemed to us…. in short, the first hypothesis that the investigator normally does, finds a level of unlikelihood of this kind of happening. After which, we looked at the house and we saw that an entry of a potential prowler [ill-intentioned person], still reasoning on the hypothesis…

    {Witness amplifies narrative response but is interrupted by Examiner}

    MC:​Of theft.

    {Examiner inappropriately interrupts, incorrectly guessing what witness was about to say}

    MaCh: ​Of theft ending badly. Of theft that then degenerates because the burglar in some way thinks that he will find no-one in the house and instead finds a person, and then it degenerates … We saw that there were easier means of entry, without wishing to bore you, but behind the house there was the possibility of climbing in a much easier way, without being seen by people that might have passed in the road. Let’s remember that, in short, it was not very late; quite the contrary. Normally people passed there, for which reason, if [he] had done it, the thing would probably have been seen. That thing there, as an hypothesis, we didn’t immediately discount it, that’s clear, because it’s a good rule to never discount any hypothesis. But we immediately considered that it was not a priority.

    {Witness corrects Examiner's wrong guess, amplifies and seems to end narrative response}

    MC:​Dr Chiacchiera, I interrupt you. (The witness is shown an exhibit.)

    {Examiner, seems to acknowledge her habit of interruptions without actually interrupting, while introducing an unspecified exhibit. This introduction seems very informal, because Exhibits are normally identified by an assigned title.}

    MaCh:​Ah! I didn’t remember it as being so big.

    {Witness recognizes unspecified exhibit}

    MC:​Precisely! You saw it? This is the rock that ...

    {Examiner engages witness, stating it is "the rock".}

    MaCh:​Yes, but it has been some time I have not, how shall we say, yes, I saw it. Absolutely.
    However, it’s big, it’s huge.

    {Witness engages Examiner, commenting on how large the rock exhibit is}

    MC:​Do you consider that it could be this?

    {Examiner ambiguously (what are "it" & "this "?) asks witness's opinion}

    MaCh:​I believe so.

    {Witness seems to overlook ambiguity of Q with vague A)

    MC:​I try …

    {Examiner begins to speak but is interrupted}

    Judge Massei [GCM]:​How?

    {Court interrupts as if to ask Q how Examiner 'tries'}

    MC:​It is this. Yes, it is this one that was collected, yes, that was found.

    {Witness seems to confirm that exhibited rock is the rock found in Filomena’s room}

    GCM:​So the rock is shown. [NdT: an “aside” for the court records?]

    {Court formally announces admission of rock-exhibit, seemingly trying to reduce confusion caused by informal dialogue}

    MaCh:​Inside the room where we then found the rock…
    ??:​But what was the question about the rock?

    {Witness amplifies that rock had been found in a room, but enquires re rock Q, exposing confusion caused by informal dialogue}

    GCM:​If this was the rock. And the witness said ...

    {Court begins explanation to confused witness}

    MaCh:​I said yes. Yes.

    {Witness interrupts Court - confusion reigns}

    GCM:​You saw it? You saw the rock?

    {Court asks witness 2 Qs, trying to clarify that 'it' refers to 'the rock' that witness saw.}

    MaCh:​Yes.

    {Witness confirms that witness had previously seen the rock introduced into court as an unlisted exhibit.}

    GCM:​When you saw it, where was it?

    {Court proceeds to clarify confusion re where the rock was when witness originally saw the rock}

    MaCh:​The rock [was] in the room of Romanelli.

    {Witness specifically testifies, for witness's first time, that when witness originally saw the rock, the rock was in Filomena Romanelli’s room}

    GCM:​How far from the window? Can you say?

    {Court continues to seek clarification using double-Q.}

    MaCh: ​A few centimetres [NdT: “un palmo” = “a hand’s width”] from the window sill, under the window, from the wall where the window is.

    {Witness testifies clearly in answer to Court's 1st Q of above double-Q.}

    GCM:​So from the internal perimeter wall, from where the window gives onto it, a “hand’s breadth”. So 20 centimetres…

    {Court apparently begins to seek verification of witness's testimony, but is interrupted}

    MaCh:​Mr President ....

    {Witness begins to Interrupt Court}

    GCM:​... away from it approximately.

    {Court finishes his interrupted statement}

    MaCh:​Yes.

    {Witness agrees with Court's completed statement}

    GCM:​And this is the rock. You remember it.

    {Court states his understanding in form of Qs.}

    MaCh:​Yes, yes, yes, yes. That is the rock.

    {Witness impatiently agrees with Court's understanding}

    MC:​At least as far as size and colour [are concerned], it corresponds thus to the one that was collected [as evidence].

    {Examiner makes statements in form of Q, seeking verification of resemblance of exhibit-rock to original rock}

    MaCh:​At least as far as size and colour [are concerned], it absolutely corresponds. If it was collected, I think that ...

    {Witness begins narrative agreement with statements of Examiner, but is apparently interrupted by Examiner}

    MC: ​Very well. WITNESS [sic? Should be MaCh?] and Romanelli’s room was a complete shambles. The clothes were on the floor, the glass was strangely on top of the clothes, the [glass] shards were strangely on top of the … on the windowsill, let’s put it that way.

    {Apparent Transcriptional confusion attributing to interrupted witness narrative the interrupting .statement of Examiner}

    MC:​The outside one.

    {Examiner seems to amplify statement of Examiner wrt which window-shutter witness had been referring-to}

    MaCh: ​The outside one, precisely. The one that is between the shutters and the shutters [sic. NdT: “imposte” in Italian, but this can also mean shutters, or flap, as in the inner “scuri” shutters, or he may mean the window-frame itself, with the window-panes, given his following description], the green shutters and the shutters, the broken ones in short, where the glass is. The shutters – the wooden ones. The rock was a bit too close with regard to the wall if I [were to] throw it from least two metres. Unless it was lobbed [i.e. thrown in a high arc]. But in that case it’s rather unlikely that it would smash the glass. For that reason, I repeat, in the context of immediate likelihood, this one …

    {Witness agrees with Examiner that he was referring to "The outside one", continuing with narrative of reasoning, but is interrupted by Examiner…}

    MC:​Yes, it’s true. These are considerations. However they are considerations, shall we say, that refer [sic], because they are reasoning/lines of thought that are formed in the “immediacy” of the events [NdT: i.e. “in the immediate aftermath”. NOTE: throughout the text, a number of speakers use “immediatezza” (lit. “immediacy”) to convey a number of meanings, from “in the immediate aftermath”, or “in the immediate surroundings”, or “very soon after”, etc. I will translate them appropriately according to the context, without further explanation of the use of “immediatezza”], in order to proceed in one direction rather than another.

    {Examiner, interrupting witness, apparently agreeing with witness's reasoning. While Examiner is apparently stating his own argumentative reservations re the possible evolution-in-time of witness's changing lines of reasoning, he is interrupted by Giulia Bongiorno, Sollecito defense lawyer:}

    Giulia Bongiorno [GB]: ​I never like to interrupt an examination [of a witness], however if one wanted, between the Public Prosecutor’s hypotheses, to do that [sic] of demonstrating that from a ballistic point of view it is not possible, then the ballistic expert should be called.

    {GB interrupts Examiner to comment that Witness and Examiner are expressing opinions on Ballistics that require the testimony of a Ballistic Expert.}

    MC:​But in fact, his considerations are not the considerations of an expert: they are the considerations of an investigator who made certain deductions in the immediacy of the events.

    {Examiner argues that witness's testimony is that of an investigator's temporal train of thought.}

    MaCh:​It happens to us too, at times, to reason/think rationally …

    {Witness joins colloquy, amplifying Examiner's argument.}

    GCM:​These reasonings/deductions, then determined your investigative activity in one direction rather than in an …?

    {Court seems to invite further amplification by witness}

    MaCh: ​Yes, obviously, Mr President. I was trying to ... (overlap of voices) it is a premiss/basis to be able to then, how shall we say, reach – I won’t say conclusions – but in order to try to understand what our way of broaching the thing was, there and then. We had, I reassert, reasoned immediately also on via Sperandio. So the first thing, I may say, [was] the unlikelihood, or at any rate it was not the top priority hypothesis, the one of a prowler/ill-intentioned person entering. The open door without signs of break-in. But above all, a young woman who is [sic] probably killed in her own room, nude or almost nude, with a wound of that type, in a lake of blood, covered with a duvet. I repeat, the door was not smashed/wrecked, there’s a broken … a window broken with a thrown rock, how can I say, it’s obvious that we immediately found this situation as … (overlap of voices).

    MaCh:​… particular.

    {Witness further amplifies narrative}

    GCM:​You formed these considerations, and what did they lead you to?

    {Court asks simple Q.}

    MaCh: ​That very probably the author or authors knew the person, or at any rate that the author or authors did not enter … did not enter from the window-pane of that window.

    {Witness responds with his conclusion that the authors of the faked break-in did not enter from the window-pane of that window.}

    GCM: ​Excuse me a moment, just to give some guidelines, but of the evaluations that the witness is expressing, obviously it’s not that they can be taken account of, however we will acquire them [for the trial files] in order to understand the investigation activities, the appropriateness of the investigations that were carried out, directed in one way or in another, there you go. However, maybe, … there you go, yes, maybe if we can manage to keep with the bare essentials this will help everybody.

    {Court proceedings seem to have been diverted into a free-for-all colloquy, with multiple participants chiming-in, and creating confusion. Court-President, GCM, now politely intervenes, apparently trying to restore order, ruling that the professional evaluations made by the witness, testified-to by the witness, should be admitted for the trial files. The appropriateness of the witness's evaluations can be dealt with separately and later.}
    _________________________________________________

    This segment of Chiacchiera’s Testimony re the Crime Scene, which he believed had been remodeled by the criminals to dupe Investigators into believing that there had been a burglary, committed by a single criminal, is paused here because it is so prolonged.

    Analysis of Chiacchiera’s Testimony will continue in a future post.

     


    Tuesday, April 29, 2014

    Why Knox & Sollecito Appeal Against Guilty Verdict May Fail: Multiple Wounds = Multiple Attackers

    Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



    [Florence Palace of Justice where Knox & Sollecito appeal against 2009 verdict is rejected]

    Fourth report

    [This list will be added to] The best of the English language media coverage is here.

    Barbie Nadeau

    Third report

    No especially accurate reports in English have appeared yet and the erroneous “new trial” is still surfacing. Andrea Vogt tweets that she will be posting an analysis soon.

    The mischievous defense-inspired “sex game gone wrong” and “satanic theory” mantras are still widely showing up in the duped media, but are nailed hopefully finally in this new report.

    Judge Nencini has closely followed and endorsed the “from all angles” Massei trial analysis, but with the inclusion of some more credible explanations from Prosecutor Crini which Judge Micheli had also espoused back in 2008.

    In particular, Rudy Guede is not now highly improbably seen as the one initiating the attack on Meredith, and sex was not at all the primary driving force for the attack (the prosecution never ever said it was). Knox carried the big knife from Sollecito’s for a purpose.

    The bad blood between the girls resulting from Knox’s crude, brash, very lazy, drug-oriented behavior was well known in Meredith’s circle. All of them had backed away from her, as also had her employer and the patrons in his bar.

    There was a probable theft of money by Knox who was unable to account for a sum similar to what Meredith would have stashed away for the rent and that is seen as the probable spark for the explosive argument and attack.

    Second report

    Bullet points from the Italian media.

    • The big knife from Sollecito’s house held by Amanda Knox caused the fatal wound to Meredith while the other was held by Raffaele Sollecito.

    • There is strong “multiple and consistent” evidence of all three in the house immediately following the murder.  All three worked to suppress Meredith.

    • There was an escalating quarrel between Knox and Meredith leading to a progressive aggression and murder with sexual components.

    • Between Amanda and Meredith there was no mutual sympathy and Meredith harbored serious reservations about the behavior of AK.

    • The biological trace found on the bra clasp that Meredith Kercher was wearing the night she was murdered was left by Raffaele Sollecito
    First report

    From Il Messagero kindly translated by Miriam:.

    FLORENCE -  The knife that was seized at Raffaele Sollecito house is the knife that killed Meredith Kercher, and the blow was delivered by Amanda Knox.  So writes the President of the Court of Appeal of Florence, Alessandro Nencini, in the motivation report of the sentence that was passed on Jan. 30th that saw Amanda Knox sentenced to 28 and a half years and Raffaele Sollecito to 25 years.

    Over 330 pages in which the court covers the appeal and explains the conviction. Starting with the knife considered “not incompatible with the wound that was carried out on Meredith Kercher. “In the present case, writes Nencini what counts is the accessibility of the weapon by the accused, it’s concrete portability from house to house, it’s compatibility with the wound, and the presence of Meredith’s DNA on the blade. All of these elements ascertained by the court lead to the conclusion that the knifed evidenced as no. 36 was one of the knifes used in the attack, and was the knife that Knox used to strike the fatal blow to Meredith’s throat.”

    The court retains to have sufficient evidence of “certain reliability” of Rudy Guede (convicted to 16 years) Amanda and Raffaele in the house where Mez was killed, on the night between the 1st and November 2, 2007 in 7 Via della Pergola “in the immediate phases following the murder.” The Court then tells how she was immobilized and Mez “was not able to put up some valid resistance because she was dominated by multiple assailants and cut at the same time with the blades of several knives.”

    Rejected therefore the defense’s strategy of both of the convicted, that have always maintained that the killer was only one.: the Ivorian Rudy Guede.



    [Judge Massei at crime scene; report says why Knox & Sollecito appeal against his 2009 verdict has failed]




    [The Supreme Court in Rome is expected later this year to confirm this outcome]


    Friday, April 11, 2014

    Why “Buyer Beware” Re Amanda Knox Could Be A Very Good Idea For The Innocence Project

    Posted by The TJMK Main Posters




    1. Innocence Project Conference

    The annual national conference of Barry Sheck’s Innocence Project is to take place on Friday and Saturday in Portland, Oregon.

    Dozens of American who claim they were unfairly treated by the American justice system will share their stories and give pointers for measures that paid off for them.

    We tend to believe them. We have long highlighted that in terms of fairness and carefulness the American system and Italian system are poles apart.

    At this conference Amanda Knox will try to get the Project’s support.

    However. Knox may be the least useful convicted perp on the planet for the Innocence Project to get behind or learn anything from.

    • First, the Italian system is not remotely as she and her colleague Sollecito describe it. It is in fact a system the United States is starting to emulate. If widely adopted the Innocence Project would have a very light load and most of those at the conference would not even have had cause to be there.

    • Second, the case against Knox and Sollecito is an overwhelming one with far more and far stronger evidence points than UK and US courts normally require for conviction. The 2011 appeal was automatic; in the US and UK grounds for allowing an appeal would have been considered lacking. (The Supreme Court ordered the 2013 appeal.)

    • Third, the Knox-Mellases have run a despicable multi-million-dollar PR campaign. That has proved not only ineffectual but massively damaging to many good people, and a source of tension between two countries. The blood money Knox and Sollecito have achieved from their dishonest books and endless money-grubbing create a new world record for illegally profiting from a crime.

    • Fourth, a drooling and irresponsible academic who represents the Innocence Project in Idaho, who may be beholden to the mafias, and who criminally inserted himself into the appeal process in Italy, claims to be beating the drum for Knox at the conference.

    Barry Scheck and REAL victims everywhere would really be best served by taking these wise precautions

    (1) kicking the foolish grandstanding mafia tool Greg Hampikian out of the Innocence Project,

    (2) learning things from the very impressive Italian system, which could help many REAL victims,

    (3) deny Knox yet another forum to frame Italians, mislead Americans, and make even more illegal blood-money .

    For Barry Scheck and genuine justice and REAL victims everywhere, distancing themselves from Knox would be the smart outcome.  Let her stick to autographing this in the lobby.


    Tuesday, February 11, 2014

    The Much-Demonized Rudy Guede Is Back In The News And Increasingly Threatening

    Posted by Peter Quennell





    Rudy Guede has long DELIBERATELY been demonized so that the attack on Meredith can be assigned to him alone.

    This description of Guede’s early days in the Ivory Coast and Perugia in the excellent Darkness Descending by Paul Russell and Graham Johnson remains the ONLY one that fully checks out. Certainly not that by the dishonest PR shill Nina Burleigh.

    Guede wasn’t especially an angel, and some in Perugia were iffy about him. But he had real friends, and up north he held a real job with a real career future, until that prospect imploded and sent him haplessly back to Perugia.

    Late in October 2008 Judge Micheli discounted all that Guede ever said about his role in the attack on Meredith in various conversations and statements, and sentenced Guede to 30 years.

    But Judge Micheli also concluded that there was no firm evidence either that Guede acted alone or that Guede was a drifter, drug dealer, knife wielder or burglar (Micheli was very sharp with one witness who claimed Guede may - may - have broken into his house).

    In 2009 through his lawyers Guede enquired of the prosecution whether he might testify at the Knox-Sollecito trial.

    But the prosecutions’ hands were already tied by the indictments and they (rightly) believed they had a really strong case regardless of anything Guede could add.

    At the 2009 trial the defenses pussyfooted around and never settled for a firm position on Guede. They floundered in their subdued attempts to prove that Guede or somebody else unknown was the so-called Lone Wolf.

    The Lone Wolf theory is really a zombie theory with so many stakes through its heart that no court will ever take it seriously.

    Guede’s steadfast fallback position before and since was that he was only in the house on the night of the attack because Meredith invited him to come in and they began love-making.

    At his late-2009 first appeal and also at Sollecito’s and Knox’s 2011 appeal before Judge Hellmann, he increasingly firmly pointed the finger at Knox and Sollecito as the murderers.

    Guede had been initially inclined to let sleeping dogs lie after he was mysteriously beaten up in the sex offenders wing of Viterbo prison, where prisoners are meant to be kept very safe.

    But Judge Massei’s scenario of the attack on Meredith in his March 2010 Sentencing Report, with Rudy Guede as the lead instigator, really bothered him.

    And in mid 2010 he became even more bothered when claims were made by a fellow prisoner the baby killer Mario Alessi that Guede confided that he really had committed the murder, along with two others. Not with Knox and Sollecito.

    A very angry Rudy Guede in turn wrote a letter denying this which very rapidly went public.

    In 2011 there was a tense confrontation in the Hellmann court (which several times descended into chaos) when this letter, in which by now Guede firmly accuses Knox and Sollecito, was read out for him.

    Guede stuck to this position on the stand, and he was not required to face full cross-examination by the shrill, frustrated defenses because he was already convicted and no longer the one on trial. 

    Seemingly fed up with all the dirty tricks against him and the now-incessant Knox and Sollecito mantras in the media that Guede had acted alone, he has come out with another letter.

    Italy’s AGI News Service has posted this letter to an unidentified recipient, along with this report.

    (AGI) Perugia, February 11 “Against me are being repeated false imaginated reconstructions of the crime for the sole purpose of wanting to denigrate my figure and person, systematically and in a negative way, in the public eye and not just in Italy.”

    He apparently also posted what he wrote in his own hand on the Facebook page “Legal processes and their surroundings”...

    The letter is on a sheet of notebook paper handwritten and signed by Guede.

    “To my regret I am again forced to take a pen and paper and write for the sake of the truth.. to all those thousands of people who still believe in justice.”

    “They can not access all the pleadings and components of this sad and extremely complex legal case which was dramatically painful for those who lived it . My sentence and judicial reasoning have been for too long subject to a continuous and willful manipulation and alteration of the data of the proceedings.”

    “Against me are made continuous false and imaginary reconstructions for the sole purpose of wanting to denigrate my figure and person, systematically and in a negative way in the public eye and not just the Italian.”

    “In the final judgment, as far as I’m concerned about these false and imaginative reconstructions, is that I was acquitted of theft and simulation of crime, a fact that I never hear mentioned in the various journalistic reconstructions.”

    “I also want to point out I do not accept in any way to be passed off and continually held up as a drifter, a thief, a homeless man, seeing my person and my dignity offended continually, denigrated and stereotyped by facts and things that do not realte to me… when I had a beautiful family and precious squeaky clean and friendly relations in Perugia.”

    Fast-forward to today, where reports say that Guede is getting close to day-release for study purposes and may only be months away from making more evidence against Sollecito and Knox public.

    Our posting lawyer TomM has looked at the issue of Guede being allowed out to study, and finds it regular and humane in this assessment.

    I respect the Italian system of criminal justice. Just as I recognize that the Italian courts have much better information than anyone posting on the internet relating to the culpability of the defendants in this case, I also think that the people who oversee Guede’s stay in prison are better informed as to his fitness to be reintegrated into society. That he would be allowed out during work days to become better educated, returning to his prison cell at the end of the day seems to me a more enlightened approach than what we do here.

    We used to have training programs in prisons. I don’t know that they were “cushy”, but they did work, so that when these convicts were released they were equipped with a marketable skill and rarely re-offended. But, the public thinks these were too cushy, so more Draconian circumstances and longer sentences are now the norm. It used to be people were sent to prison as punishment, now they are sent for punishment.

    Sometimes when a prisoner who has spent his or her entire adult life in prison completes the sentence imposed, they have to be physically dragged from their cells, so ill-prepared are they for anything other than doing time. With no skills, social or job-related, they re-offend—surprise, surprise. Sometimes re-offense is for the purpose of being returned a world that, for all its dangers is, to them, relative safety.

    While it is certainly true that prison doesn’t have much impact on sociopaths, the one thing they are attached to is money. Taking away their money does impact their behavior, so there is an alternative to killing them.


    Monday, January 20, 2014

    Appeal Session #9: Sollecito Team Concludes, Prosecutor Crini Rebutts Defenses’ Claims

    Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



    [Above: Sun hits the facade of of one of the most modern courtrooms in Europe]

    5. Andre Vogt’s Excellent Post-Court Reporting In The Week

    From Amanda Knox’s fugitive fears: she’s right to be worried

    Sources close to defence lawyers confide that they, too, fear it may not go their way.

    It didn’t help that Knox ignored her lawyers’ pleas to travel from Seattle and attend court in Florence - she sent an email instead - nor that she repeatedly requested to meet the Kerchers, only to be sternly rebutted by their lawyer, who suggested she act more like a defendant.

    Then she started a new blog and began blithely responding to comments – most recently posting an admission that she had once faked a break-in as an April Fool’s prank before she left for Italy (a staged burglary is a key part of the case against her).

    Have the wheels come off Knox’s public relations machine now that she’s safe in Seattle? She may need them again soon, because this appeal differs radically from the first one in 2011 which resulted in her acquittal, but which was harshly criticised and eventually annulled by Italy’s Supreme Court earlier this year.

    There are three good reasons why this trial is different – and why Knox has reason to be nervous:

    First, her co-defendant Raffaele Sollecito’s lawyers have distanced his defence from Knox’s.  “He may have brushed her hair and cleaned her ears, but he would not have killed for the love of Amanda,” his lawyer Giulia Bongiorno told jurors in closing arguments earlier this month. “Turn off Amanda,” she said. “Raffaele is not Amanda’s other half.”

    Second, the uncompromising Perugia prosecutor Giuliano Mignini has stayed away from Florence. Without him in court as a convenient villain, the “innocent American abroad being railroaded by a rogue prosecutor” narrative no longer holds water. The Florentine prosecutor, Alessandro Crini, has distanced the state’s case from the always controversial kitchen knife that may or may not have been the murder weapon. He’s also given less credence to the ‘sex game gone wrong’ theory that was central to the prosecution case in the first trial. Instead he’s considered all the evidence as a whole. There might have been a fight about missing money and hygiene, he said, but motive doesn’t matter: murders happen all the time for banal reasons. And convictions happen on much less evidence.

    Third, the strict Florence judge, Alessandro Nencini, has curbed all antics by lawyers, public and media. There are no perp walks with popping flashbulbs this time. However the appeal ends, no one can argue that this trial wasn’t professionally managed.

    4. Tweets by freelance reporter Andrea Vogt

    14. Sollecito defense on bra clasp: For us, the condition of the room and conduct of the forensic police tells us there was contamination.

    13. Judge interrupted Sollecito lawyer with a booming “No!” saying wiretapped conversations of Sollecito family not to be discussed this trial.

    12. Maresca: Whatever you decide, we believe justice will be done & all elements considered in depth. We will serenely accept your decision.

    11. Kercher attorney Maresca: Perugians reacted angrily to amanda knox acquittal because it was scandalous: acquittal was decided in advance.

    10. Fabbiani, attorney for Meredith’s brother, urges court to look beyond motive. Perna for her sister: one person alone did not kill Meredith.

    9. Lumumba attorney Pacelli concludes with this phrase to the jury: “Convict liar Amanda, the diabolical slanderer.”

    8. Presiding Judge Nencini has cut Pacelli’s amanda knox monologue short. Says going off track. Pacelli promises to finish in 5 min.

    7. Lumumba’s attorney Pacelli is delivering a vitriolic rebuttal on amandaknox - mixing his unbridled contempt w/her own statements.

    6. Prosecutor asks (in case of conviction) cautionary measures so defendants can’t flee. Options are: passport, house arrest or arrest.

    5. Prosecutor Crini: a lack of motive does not equal proof of innocence.

    4. Trial back in session after “pausa caffe” during which Sollecito and his accusers were in tiny court coffee bar at same time. Only in Italy!

    3. Sollecito attorney: The only things certain are the death of Meredith Kercher and the presence of Rudy Guede in the house that night.

    2. Sollecito attorney: This case is an anomaly. Various judges interpreted facts differently over the years. There’s reasonable doubt.

    1. In court, Sollecito attorney Maori contesting prosecutor’s arguments point by point. Knife, bathmat, alibi, witnesses. Afternoon rebuttals.

    3. Tweets by our main poster Machiavelli

    [At this point Machiavelli signed off]

    62. Crini: Nencini asks the clerk’s officer to write down formally the exact terms of prosecution request to issue cautionary measures [if verdict guilty]

    61. Crini says his conclusions are unchanged. Prosecution suggests arrest decrees are issued immediately if defendant(s) is(are) guilty

    60. Crini points out the crime and motive originate from group dynamic.

    59. Crini: Bongiorno had pointed out that anyway Sollecito should be accounted only for what he had done (implicit: not what Knox did)

    58. Crini: The excessive and too quick reaction to a situation of rising argument is typical of group reaction.

    57. Crini: Argument about cleaning was also reported by Meredith to her father John Kercher

    56. Crini: Massive rejection of English [girls] testimonies is “weak” on the part of defence; tensions and dislikes in the house are recorded on paper

    55. Crini: Movite cannot be assessed preliminarily as if it was a piece of evidence to be discussed

    54. Crini: if you need to prove a crime, it is opportune to detect a motive, but a motive is only a plausible conjecture not basis for deduction

    53. Crini: Bongiorno called all English girls ‘unreliable’ (because English, maybe coached by lawyers etc.)

    52. Crini calls ‘amusing’ Bongiorno comparing her client with captain Schettino

    51. Crini: Some thoughts about the motive.

    50. Crini: It makes no sense to say the large kitchen knife is ‘incompatible’ with the big wound.

    49. Crini: To the court: can you imagine a ‘surgical operation’ with a small knife producing a wound with clear margins on a live struggling victim?

    48. Crini: it is difficult to produce an 8x8 cm large wound with a small 8cm long knife, it would produce at best a wound with irregular margin

    47. Crini: The blade hypothesized by defence from the bed sheet stain is anyway larger; these are anyway conjectures. Datum is compatibility

    46. Crini: thinking you can preemptively deduce the size of the blade from bed sheet stain is ‘unrealistic’

    45. Crini: The “double knife theory” is based on the small size of the right wound, experts point to a likely much smaller knife with thin blade.

    44. Crini: no defence wounds, no fight bruises, nothing under nails, bruises indicate forced restraint of victim; how she was immobilized

    43. Crini: Massei court did not decide about attribution of pillowcase shoeprints, Crini objects Vinci’s finding, thinks prints are too small

    42. Crini: Knox defence: says when Guede leaves palm print on pillowcase leaves a signature

    41. Crini: Bongiorno called the murder scene “flooded” with Guede’s DNA. Crini points out his traces in room indicating he had free hands (no weapon)

    40. Crini: The defences also dealt thoroughly with the use of the knife, wounds, blade size

    39. Crini: The dynamic of the crime. Maori attributed all traces to Rudy Gede alone

    38. Crini: All alleles of the victim were found in a scratch on the knife blade. Human DNA is normally not on knife blades

    37. Crini: Vecchiotti admitted there was a scratch on the blade

    36. Crini: The same defence experts did not object to the attribution Y haplotype of Guede found in the victim’s vagina

    35. Crini: Calls Vecchiotti’s reasoning on bra clasp “a priori”, dismissed for reasons totally general and vague. Doesn’t read Y haplot. and X together

    34. Crini: Points out a passage where Vecchiotti’s report misquotes police findings inserting the word “only”, built a strawman

    33. Crini says let’s look at the Conti-Vecchiotti report, to see what it says, if you can subscribe with the report.

    32. Crini: Tagliabracci in 2008 objected to quotes of prof. Gill calling them “too recent”

    31. Crini: Objections referred to Low Copy Number are obsolete, and also partly undermined by the RIS report

    30. Crini: Calls “embarassing” Bongiorno when alleges the police was wrong in attributing stains to cat’s blood

    29. Crini: Disproves Bongiorno’s allegation that the clasp was stepped over.

    28. Crini: Novelli rules out there was contamination in laboratory, as well as tertiary transfer in situ.

    27. Crini is “pleased” the defence did not attempt to allege laboratory DNA contamination. Points out findings by Novelli

    26. Crini: report says had there been internet surfing or writing activity, this would have resulted as obvious.

    25. Crini cites arguments about computer expert reports, hearings of 14 Mar 2009 and Dec 2010 say further investigation is unnecessary

    24. Crini: Maori omits to quote pieces of Curatolo’s testimony.

    23. Crini will deal with Maori’s “theory of alibi” only very briefly

    22. Crini says defence arguments on bathmat print are conjectures. Rinaldi is actually same person who correctly attributed shoeprint

    21. Crini: Bathmat print: compatibility assessment can be done on what is measurable

    20. Crini: Guede knew the hous and apartments, would have chosen logical entries and logical behaviour, Crini calls burglary theory ‘not credible’

    19. Crini: alleged small wounds on Guede’s hand, inconsistent with absence of his blood on scene

    18. Crini: Talks about Bongiorno’s criticism to staged burglary scenario - the scenario of Guede already inside apartment

    17. Crini says police report timings, records of CCTV video camera and phone calls are ‘consistent’

    16. Crini does not see corroboration of alleged 7-minute late clock error of CCTV. The 13.29 call was from Carabinieri HQ and don’t change anthg

    15. Crini tris to “strain” the timing of police arival to favor the defence, to see if scenario fits. Considers possible CCTV time error

    14. Crini: Sollecito calls Carabinieri too late, also because last phone call to Romaneli was at 12.38

    13. Crini: Call to Sollecito’s sister, and then Sollecito’s call to Carabinieri at 12.51-45. Crini: this timing is late independently from Battistelli

    12. Crini: Battistelli arrives on foot about 10 minutes eariler than postal police car

    11. Crini wants to look better at some arguments about Sollecito’s declarations to postal police. Battistelli recalls 12.35 consistent with CCTV

    10. Crini talks about Sollecito ‘sidetracking’, talking about statements to postal police

    9. Crini: Knox’s Calunnia also contains details that have external corroboration and she could not have deduced from simple burglary scenario

    8. Crini: A Calunnia is itself incriminating (require strong defence explanation), but Knox’s Calunnia also contains furth incrimiating details

    7. Crini: Knox maintained her calunnia against Patrick over a period of several days. Crini points out the logicality of Cassazione argument.

    6. Crini: Knox statements: ‘Patrick had sex with Meredith’ and ‘there was a loud scream’ were new elements, unrelated to known facts and not retracted

    5. Crini: On calunnia, Crini points out that there was an argumentation about Knox defence about usability of Knox’s statement. argument is wrong

    4. Crini: Theoretically all defense points could be replied to, Knox’s Calunnia, Sollecito statements to police, the staged theft, the mat print; DNA evidence

    3. Crini says he will talk briefly only about a few selected points, without repeating himself, and without discussing old arguments again

    2. [After the break] Prosecutor General Crini begins to reply.

    1. [After the break] Sollecito entering the court, asked what he expect, says “no comment”

    2. Tweets by reporter Barbie Latza Nadeau

    44. Judge especially hard on Sollecito sub lawyer, reprimanding her for introducing new arguments when she is only supposed to be refuting.

    43. Sollecito sub lawyer argues no DNA from Meredith Kercher on bra clasp w/Sollecito’s DNA, failing to mention she was wearing the bra..

    42. Six years of Kercher trials and some lawyers still pronounce the K in Knox.. “ka-nox” as Sollecito’s sub lawyer just did.

    41. Kercher lawyers finished, now Sollecito lawyers up for rebuttal, but both his principal lawyers had to leave early.

    40. Kercher atty Maresca: Perugians reacted angrily to Amanda Knox acquittal because it was scandalous: acquittal was decided in advance.

    39. Kercher lawyers ask court to consider all the previous testimony they say proves more than one person killed Meredith Kercher.

    38. Lumumba lawyer says his client has not received any of the €22k he is owed by Amanda Knox even though the slander conviction is final.

    37. Judge reprimands Lumumba lawyer for veering off course, he is only to discuss slander aspect of case, not murder itself.

    36. Lumumba’s atty Pacelli is delivering a vitriolic rebuttal on Amanda Knox - mixing his unbridled contempt w/her own statements.

    35. Lumumba keeps referring to Amanda Knox as “the American”, says she had a penchant for drugs, alcohol, sex.

    34. Lumumba lawyer calls Amanda Knox a “diabolical slanderer” …

    33. Lumumba lawyer says Amanda Knox substituted Patrick for Rudy Guede.

    32. Court back in session with Lumumba lawyer up. Sollecito back in court after break.

    31. Prosecutor Crini: a lack of motive does not equal proof of innocence. Amanda Knox

    30. Prosecutor focused on knife, says traces of Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox are valid.

    29. Sollecito staring at prosecutor as he delivers rebuttal, jury taking notes, judge listening intently, journalists trying to stay awake.

    28. Prosecutor in new Amanda Knox appeal says motive in murder is never simple and clear, like murder itself is complex.

    27. MeredithKercher lawyer says her brother and sister plan to come for verdict Jan 30.

    26. Prosecutor just referred to Amanda Knox as “la nostra Knox” as he tries to refute defense arguments.

    25. Trial back in session after “pausa caffe” during which Sollecito and his accusers were in tiny court coffee bar at same time.

    24. Prosecutor making brief rebuttal, pushing Sollecito and Amanda Knox back together after Sollecito lawyer clearly tried to separate them

    23. Sollecito just told group of reporters he was not sure if he would come for verdict.

    22. Sollecito lawyer finished. Judge asks lawyers how much time they need for rebuttals. 15 minute

    21. Sollecito lawyer says his client is not guilty. Does not mention Amanda Knox in final moments of closing arguments.

    20. Sollecito atty: This case is an anomaly. Various judges interpreted facts differently over the years. There’s reasonable doubt.

    19. Sollecito lawyer tells the court they can only accept that Meredith Kercher was murdered and that Rudy Guede is the lone killer.

    18. Sollecito lawyer G Bongiorno has just arrived in court with three male assistants.

    17. Sollecito lawyer says Sollecito was never with Guede, Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox. Says testimony that they were was false.

    16. Sollecito lawyer working to discredit witnesses. Says store owner who says he saw

    15. Judge in response to Sollecito lawyer asking if jury is tired: if we are tired now we will have to kill ourselves by the end of the day.

    14. Sollecito in court today. Will he come for verdict on 30th?

    13. Sollecito lawyer lays out why homeless man in park who testified he saw Amanda Knox and Sollecito arguing night of murder is unreliable.

    12. Patrick Lumumba also absent from court today.

    11. Judge in Amanda Knox new appeal rarely looks at Sollecito lawyer, writing notes, scrolling tablet, but minimal eye contact.

    10. Sollecito lawyer on mass media tangent, says the “super witnesses” for prosecution in earlier trials were all for show.

    9. Judge in Amanda Knox 2nd appeal asks for clarification on hard to follow techie evidence.

    8. Sollecito lawyer showing computer records for Raf’s computer access, says access was human, not automated. Jury squinting at slides.

    7. Sollecito lawyer moves on to Raf’s computer, how computers belonging to Amanda Knox, Meredith Kercher were all “accidentally” destroyed.

    6. Sollecito lawyer back on break in. Frequent reference to Guede “the real assassin”. No mention of Amanda Knox at all yet.

    5. Sollecito lawyer focusing on staged break in.

    4. Sollecito lawyer G Bongiorno not in court this morning.

    3. Sollecito lawyer Maori says luminal also picks up fruit juice, not just blood. Judge taking notes.

    2. Sollecito lawyer showing slides of famous footprint on bathroom rug in Meredith Kercher blood.

    1. Sollecito lawyer now summing up in Florence, then rebuttals. Verdict expected Jan 30.

    1. Tweets by reporter for La Nazione

    46. Lawyer Colotti (Sollecito) : “In a process based on circumstantial evidence motive is the glue of the whole thing.”

    45. Lawyer Colotti (Sollecito defense) begins.

    44. Sollecito defense : “The Meredith’s bra clasp was contaminated as evidence “

    43. Sollecito defense : “It was Rudy Guede who entered through the window after breaking the glass “

    42. Sollecito defense : “There was no misdirection in statements of Sollecito “

    41. Now it’s up to the defense again, Sollecito team begin their final responses

    40. Lawyer Maresca (Kerchers) : “On the blade there are traces of the victim “”

    39. Lawyer Maresca (Kerchers) : “Hellmann appeal, the acquittal was a pre-cooked judgment“

    38. Lawyer Francesco Maresca (Kercher family) begins

    37. Lawyer Perna (Kerchers) “Wounds on the body victim compatible with the knife found at Sollecito’s house “

    36. Lawyer Perna (Kercher family) begins

    35. Lawyer Vieri Fabiani , one of the lawyers for the plaintiffs, the Kercher family

    34. Lawyer Pacelli (Lumumba) : “Judges, sentence the liar Amanda , the devilish slanderer “

    33. Lawyer Pacelli (Lumumba) : “Meredith could not stand Amanda“

    32. Lawyer Pacelli (Lumumba) : “Amanda is on Lumumba’s mind constantly “

    31. Lawyer Pacelli (Lumumba) : “Amanda hoped Lumumba slander would not be discovered “

    30. Lawyer Pacelli (Lumumba) : “the defense of Amanda was rancorous and non-existent “

    29. Lawyer Carlo Pacelli (for the plaintiff Lumumba) begins.

    28. Crini: “If Sollecito and Knox are condemned then precautionary measures should be decided to ensure execution of the sentence”

    27. Crini: “There were tensions in the house for reasons of hygiene ”

    26. Crini: “The absence of sure motive is not a defensive threshold “

    25. Crini : “At the scene there was no contamination “

    24. Crini : the prosecutor carries on his indictment reaffirming the validity of the clues

    23. Crini : the prosecutor continues rebuttal,  the Tuscany Attorney General Dr Tindari Baglione enters the court

    22. Crini : “Slander of Lumumba in itself is an important element “

    21. Crini : the Prosecutor General starts his rebuttal

    20. Sollecito’s father::”That’s understandable , too much stress”

    19. Sollecito :”I do not know if I’ll be in the courtroom on the day of judgment

    18. This ends the argument of Maori (defense of Sollecito )

    17. Maori: ”The only possible verdict is an acquittal”# meredithnazione

    16. Maori: ”In the various processes motive , time, and the murder weapon changed ontinuously”

    15. Maori: ”The witnesses who say that Raffaele and Rudy knew each other, said things false”

    14. Maori:”The witness Quintavalle for many days after the murder of Amanda did not speak”

    13. Maori: ”The witness Quintavalle speaks thirteen months after the fact”

    12. Maori: ”The witness Curatolo is unreliable , wrong date and report things that are false”

    11. Maori: ”Some witnesses have had access to financial sinecures”

    10. Maori: ”The witnesses are characters created by the mass media”

    9. Maori: ”At 21.26 Sollecito opened from his PC the cartooon Naruto”

    8. Maori: ”At 21.10 there was interaction Sollecito with his pc”

    7. Maori: ”Analysis of the computer shows that Sollecito ‘s alibi is true”

    6. Maori: ”No simulation , glass window broken by a stone from the outside. No glass outside”

    5. Maori:”No simulation of theft. Blinds on window with broken glass were not closed”

    4. Maori: ”The bloody footprint on the bath mat is not Sollecito’s foot”

    3. Maori: ”Meredith was killed at 21”

    2. Maori: ”The kitchen knife is the murder weapon . Wounds are not compatible”

    1. The hearing begins : now it’s up to the lawyer Maori



    [Below: previous image of Attorney General Dr Tindari Baglione who is in court to hear Dr Crini]


    Saturday, December 14, 2013

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

    Posted by Cardiol MD



    [Above, we can see Filomena’s grey door, at hard left; ahead are Meredith’s & Knox’s bedrooms]


    Do please bear in mind that this appeal was initiated by Knox and Sollecito, and the verdict, sentence and sentencing report they dispute is Judge’s Massei’s from the 2009 trial.

    The subject of one of Dr Crini’s focuses - whether or not Filomena’s door was open at the various times Knox and Sollecito stated they went to the women’s apartment on the morning-after – is a crucial one, relevant to proving Knox’s and Sollecito’s lies and obfuscations.

    Wasn’t the staged break-in to Filomena Romanelli’s room glaringly obvious? In the early morning of November 2nd, 2007? In spite of the Knox/Sollecito obfuscations?  There is much information in Massei on this question, pointing to many very obvious obfuscations.

    Now, for the legal requirements of beyond-reasonable-doubt (BRD) actual, literal quotations are needed. Much relevant information can easily get ‘lost in translation’ not only at the superficial level of paraphrase, as in “They said that…..”, but also at the more subtle level of the formats used for quotations.

    Some of the Massei Report as translated consists of the actual oral quotations of witness statements, some are quotations of the content of written documents, but some consist only of paraphrases of both oral statements and of written documents.

    For some quotations, especially nested-quotations the translation uses various formats, beginning either with a comma or an apostrophe, ending with an apostrophe, and, in my copy, some back-slashes.

    This mixture can be confusing to some readers, and Knox and Sollecito are seasoned veterans of exploiting such translational losses. That is a major factor in their continuing obstruction of justice: using chronic obfuscation.

    He said, “She yelled, ‘I’m going to kill you.’ “


    This quotation-format has been substituted in this post where it seems appropriate. It is hoped that when this format is used only to indicate editorial irony it will be self-evident.

    John Follain and Will Savive also make a number of relevant references, and so do some Wiki articles whose authors are too modest to identify themselves though ‘Underhill’ has been mentioned as a co-ordinator.






    Of course, the members of the Florence Appellate Court have access-to, have probably already read, thousands of pages of evidence, including the actual verbatim witness-transcripts, and that Court will make up its own mind independent of what is written elsewhere.

    Here are some of the Massei ‘door’ instances - this is a selection of a relevant 6 out of a grand total of 192 instances:

    Massei Page 28: [Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito – said that they were waiting for the carabinieri whom they had called since “coming back to the cottage in the morning because they had been away for the night” and finding “the entrance [15] door open and then the window broken” (see declarations by Battistelli, hearing of February 7, 2009, page 64).]


    Access to the Court Records would help us better-understand this passage, but Follain (Page 67, Kindle location 939), indicates that Battistelli is actually quoting Sollecito, substituting ‘they’ for ‘we’, so it seems that Sollecito was already obfuscating the facts, encouraging the inference that their shocking observations began only when both he and Knox arrived together and discovered together both the open apartment entrance-door, and from inside Filomena’s room, the broken-window, so we are all being steered away, by Sollecito, from the true answer to our question.

    Massei Pages 29-30: [Around midday(Nov, 2nd, 2007), at ten past twelve, when they had not yet arrived at the car park of the Fair, and she(Filomena) was in the car with her friend Paola Grande, she received a phone call: it was Amanda letting her know that there was something strange. She had arrived and had found the door open: she had had a shower and it had seemed to her that there was some blood; moreover she said that she was going [17] to Raffaele’s place (declarations of Romanelli page 31, hearing of February 7, 2009).
    To her (Filomena’s) question about where Meredith was, she had answered that she did not know.]


    Filomena had apparently not been told by Knox, in this 1st phone-call, about the broken pane, the stone, and the bedroom-disarray, as if Knox was not yet aware of these stunning facts. The obfuscation continues.

    Massei Page 30: [Marco Zaroli, who was without a car because Ms. Romanelli had taken it, had called his friend Luca Altieri and they had gone together to the house in Via della Pergola, where they arrived around 1:00 pm, at almost the same time as Filomena Romanelli and Paola Grande. In the house there were the also the two present accused and – as we have seen – Inspector Battistelli and Assistant Marzi. The presence of the latter two was linked by Ms. Romanelli to what Amanda had told her about the open door, the broken pane, her own room in a mess.]


    When Knox first told Ms. Romanelli about her visit, she had omitted reference to Laura’s and Filomena’s doors, whether they were open, whether they were openable, whether Knox opened them, and whether Knox looked inside and saw the broken pane, the stone, and the bedroom-disarray. It is implausible that Knox tried only Meredith’s door and not the others.

    It is also implausible that Knox even took a shower at the women’s apartment, colder as it was than Sollecito’s. Amy Frost testified that hours after the body was discovered Amanda Knox told her that she never took the shower, because when she noticed the blood that had stopped her from showering.

    The Postal Police commented that Knox also emanated an unpleasant, ‘post-shower’ odour, inconsistent with Amanda having recently had a shower anywhere, implying Knox was lying about taking the shower.

    Knox is steering Ms. Romanelli away from these crucial facts which logically demanded that their ‘discoverer’ flee (again), and call the Police. Knox is obfuscating by selective piece-meal feeding-of-the-facts to Filomena.

    Massei Page 38: [On the day of November 2, 2007 at police headquarters, Amanda was also there and she said that that night she had been with her boyfriend Raffaele and that the next morning at around 11:00 am she had gone back home to get changed. She had found the entrance door open and this seemed strange to her: she had gone into the house and into her room and she had taken a shower and had seen drops of blood.

    She said that after the shower she got dressed and noticed that Meredith’s door was locked. She went into the other bathroom and said that there were faeces in the toilet. Then she went into another room and noticed that the window had been broken and that there was glass inside. She told these things to her and the other girls present. Then she related that she had gone back to Raffaele’s house and had rung Filomena. She remembered that on that occasion at police headquarters Raffaele was very calm, silent.]




    When Knox first called Filomena, Knox had omitted any mention of the most significant information - the (staged) break-in, as if she had not ‘noticed’ it.

    Now, later, paraphrasing, Massei states: “Then she went into another room and noticed that the window had been broken and that there was glass inside.”

    Had Massei not paraphrased, but had written “Then I went into Filomena’s room and ‘noticed’ that her window had been broken and that there was glass inside.”, we could use it as BRD evidence.

    The actual, verbatim quote should be among the many thousands of Court Records relied upon by Massei; Nencini’s Court should use such Record in reaching its decision.

    Massei Page 65: [Upon returning home, she [Amanda] noticed that the door was wide open. She thought someone had gone to take the trash out or gone to the floor below, closing the door behind them but not locking it. She asked loudly whether anyone was at home, but no one answered. The door to Meredith’s room was closed, and this meant she was sleeping. She undressed in her own room and took a shower in the bathroom, (the one) nearest to (both) her room and to Meredith’s.

    When she got out of the shower, she realised that on the little bath mat where she had placed her feet, there was blood and also, there were drops of blood on the sink and the faucet. She left the bathroom and went to get dressed in her own room. Then, she went in the other bathroom to dry her hair, where there was a blow dryer. It was at this time that she noticed feces in the toilet, which surprised her. She then took the mop and returned to Raffaele’s home, locking the door (on the way out.)

    She told Raffaele what she had seen and he suggested that she call one of her friends. She then called Filomena Romanelli, who said that she had been out with her boyfriend and that Laura Mezzetti was also away, in Rome with her family. She then realised that the only one to have spent the night in Via della Pergola was Meredith, about whom, however, nothing was known. Filomena seemed worried, so Amanda (Page 66) told her that she would call Meredith, who would then call her back.

    She then called the two cellphones that Meredith had, but without getting any response (from her). She then returned home, this time with [55] Raffaele. Upon returning home, she opened the door to Filomena Romanelli’s room and saw that the window was open and completely broken: there was chaos, ‚but her computer was in its place on the desk.‛ Convinced that there had been a burglary, she went into the other rooms: Laura’s room was in order, and nothing was missing from her own room.

    However, Meredith’s door was closed. She began to knock and to call out, without receiving any answer. She was then seized with panic and went on the balcony to see if she was able to see anything, but she couldn’t see anything. She went down to the apartment below to ask someone, but no one was there. She therefore went back inside and Raffaele said that he wanted to try to break down the door of Meredith’s room, but he wasn’t able to. It was then that they decided to call the police, which is what Raffaele did. She let Filomena know about this, asking her to come home.]

    Now, only after returning “home, this time with [55] Raffaele.” does Knox allege that she had then “opened the door to Filomena Romanelli’s room and saw that the window was open and completely broken: there was chaos, ‚but her computer was in its place on the desk.”

    Knox continues to obfuscate by selective piece-meal feeding-of-the-facts.

    Massei Page 66: [While they were waiting, two police officers arrived (at the scene) and she showed them all that she had seen. Then Filomena arrived with her boyfriend and two other friends, and they broke down the door of Meredith’s room.]

    True.  There are a number of other Massei references to Filomena’s door and room, but they are basically repetitive of information already in the above references.

    This seems to be enough for Nencini’s Court to reach its verdicts re Knox and Sollecito.


    [Below: the area from which Knox would have been looking at Filomena’s door]


    Sunday, November 10, 2013

    The Crime-Scene Clean-Up: How Rudy Guede’s Diary Provides Even More Proof That It Happened

    Posted by pat az





    This post is crossposted from my own place. Here is one of my previous crime scene analyses on TJMK.

    Rudy Guede was ultimately declared convicted by the Supreme Court in 2010 of participating in the 2007 murder of Meredith Kercher.

    The prosecution claims the two other participants are Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Knox and Sollecito are currently appealing their conviction of the same crime.

    The case against the three of them involves a suspected clean up of the hallway in the apartment after the crime. Meredith’s blood was found in the bathroom, and half a footprint in her blood was found on the bathroom mat. However, there was no visible blood between Meredith’s bedroom and the bathroom.

    The only visible blood in the hallway were faint partial shoe prints that led directly out the front door of the apartment.

    After the murder was discovered, the media reported almost daily on developments in the case. The day of the murder, the press reported on the blood found in the bathroom and the bedroom.

    But until police used luminol at the apartment on December 18th, the media didn’t report on any significant blood found in the hallway.  Between November 2nd and December 18th, only one person stated that significant amounts of blood had been in the hallway.

    Rudy Guede.

    Rudy Guede actually wrote about it in his diary between Nov 20th and Dec 6th, after being captured in Germany.






    The police arrived at the apartment on November 2nd. According to media reports, the blood they spotted immediately was only in the bathroom and Meredith’s bedroom.  When the scene was more closely examined, after the discovery of the body, police found visible blood patterns on the floor left by Guede’s left shoe as he left the apartment.

    None of the people who arrived in the apartment on the afternoon of November 2nd reported seeing them; these footprints are not in any of the stories of the events of Nov 2nd told by Amanda Knox nor Raffaele Sollecito. So, while these prints were visible, they were not substantially obvious.

    On December 18th 2007 investigators applied Luminol in the hallway and other bedrooms. This forensic chemical is used to detect blood which has been cleaned away. The Luminol revealed several footprints in the hallway between the bedrooms of Knox and Meredith. Example below. Some of these footprints were leading towards Meredith’s door.



    They also discovered prints in Filomena’s room which contained Meredith’s DNA and Amanda Knox’s DNA. They also revealed a footprint in Amanda Knox’s bedroom. (The defense unsuccessfully contested the investigator’s conclusions that these prints were made with blood).

    On November 19 2007, an international arrest warrant was issued for Rudy Guede. He was arrested in Germany on November 20th. Guede remained in Germany until his extradition on December 3rd.

    During his stay in jail in Germany, Guede wrote a long statement that was published and translated. Guede’s writings are similar to to Knox’s jail writings in many ways - they both try to write out their own detailed version of events, while pointing blame elsewhere. 

    But Guede’s comments may in fact be confirmation of a clean-up after the murder of Meredith Kercher (emphasis added):

    I am asking myself how is it possible that Amanda could have slept in all that mess, and took a shower with all that blood in the bathroom and corridor? (Guede, Germany Diary, P21)

    The police did not find evidence of any other blood until December 18th, AFTER Guede returned from Germany. As indicated above, the luminol revealed multiple footprints in the hallway, in Knox’s bedroom, and in Filomena’s bedroom. The image below shows these results in blue. Guede’s partial footprints are shown in red.






    The conclusion is inescapable: Guede knew there would be significant evidence of blood in the hallway, before the police themselves found that evidence.

    How did Guede know there would be more blood found in the hallway, before the police found that evidence on December 18th? And why wasn’t that blood there on the morning of November 2nd?

    The courts believe the blood in the hallway was cleaned after the murder of Meredith Kercher. And the Micheli and Massei courts believed only one person had the motivation to hide this evidence: Amanda Knox.

    Here is a summary of Judge Micheli’s October 2008 indictment finding.

    In Judge Massei’s December 2009 trial finding for the original conviction of Knox and Sollecito, he also writes about the clean-up that the judges believed to have happened:

    Further confirmation is constituted by the fact that, after Meredith’s murder, it is clear that some traces were definitely eliminated, a cleaning activity was certainly carried out. In fact, the bare foot which, stained with blood, left its footprint on the sky-blue mat in the bathroom, could only have reached that mat by taking steps which should have left other footprints on the floor, also marked out in blood just like (in fact, most likely, with even more [blood], since they were created before the footprint printed on the mat) the one found on the mat itself. Of such other very visible footprints of a bloody bare foot, on the contrary, there is no trace. (Massei, Dec 09; PMF translation)

    In defense of Guede, Knox, and Sollecito, some might try to claim that Guede heard about blood in the hallway in the news. Rudy Guede was arrested 18 days following the murder of Meredith Kercher. During that time he had access to read the news and watch reports.

    I have searched for articles in the period between November 2nd and December 18 which mention blood. All of the articles I have found so far discuss blood in the bedroom or the bathroom. One or two discuss footprints leading to the front door.

    None of them discuss blood in the hallway that would justify a statement from Guede of “tutto quel sangue nel bagno e sul corridoghe” (all that blood in the bathroom and in the corridor)

    Guede himself said he went between the bedroom and the bathroom, so may have tracked blood into the bathroom and therefore known blood would be found in the hallway.

    Even that knowledge however confirms a clean-up, as there was not a trail of blood between the bathroom and Meredith’s room that justifies the footprint on the bathmat and blood found in the bathroom.

    I have my own questions as a result of Guede’s knowledge of blood in the hallway:

    Could the attack have started in the hallway? Could the first blood shed have been on the hallway tiles?

    The prosecution and courts argue that Amanda Knox had a role in the attack and murder. Knox and her supporters are very adamant that there is no trace of Knox in Meredith’s bedroom. While the courts argue otherwise, could Knox’s role have been limited to the hallway?

    Sadly, we may never know the full truth of what happened on the evening of November 1st, 2007.

    My timeline of media reports on blood

    • Nov 2nd: Meredith Kercher found. Blood found in bathroom.
    • Nov 5th: Police analyzing traces of blood from apartment below.
    • Nov 5th:  A “trail of blood” is on the inside handle of the door to the apartment.
    • Nov 7th: reports of Amanda Knox’s statements, includes finding blood in the bathroom.
    • Nov 14th: Police use of Luminol at Sollectio’s house. First reports on the knife seized by police from Sollecito’s house.
    • Nov 19th: Analysis of blood in bedroom (pillow, bra, etc).
    • Nov 22nd: Guede’s prints in blood.
    • Nov 27th: Amanda Knox’s blood on bathroom tap.
    • Nov 28th: Blood in bathroom.
    • Dec 5th: Reports of Guede’s letter to father: “there was so much blood”.

    My timeline of main events involving Guede

    • Nov 2nd, 2am – 4:30 am: Guede seen by witnesses at Domus nightclub.
    • Nov 3: Guede leaves Perugia for Germany
    • Nov 11: Guede’s cell phone tracked in Milan (Corriere)
    • Nov 12: Newspaper reports a 4th suspect.
    • Nov 19: Guede identified as suspect in newspapers
    • Nov 19: Guede skype conversation with friend.
    • Nov 20: Patrick released from prison.
    • Nov 20: Guede arrested while trying to return to italy on train in Germany.
    • Nov 21: Guede interrogated by German police; Guede admits to being at apartment, blames an italian man for murder.
    • Nov 20-Dec 5: Guede writes diary in German prison.
    • Dec 3:  Germany grants Guede’s extradition back to Italy.
    • Dec 6: Guede returns to Perugia.
    • Dec 7: Guede interrogated by Magistrate.
    • Dec 14: Guede ordered to remain in prison.
    • Dec 17: Knox is questioned by Mignini.
    • Dec 18: Police use luminol in apartment and find footprints in hallway and in Filomena’s bedroom.

    Tuesday, October 08, 2013

    Questions For Knox and Sollecito: Why Claim Rudy Guede Did It Alone When So Much Proof Against?

    Posted by Marcello




    1. Problems Of Your “Guede did it alone” Mantra

    Your attempts to frame Guede for the entire attack sound racist, and they fly in the face of a multitude of hard facts.

    Why are you and your more untethered supporters arguing to the media that Rudy Guede alone attacked Meredith (he could not have), that he was a drifter (he wasnt), a burglar (he wasnt), and drug dealer (he wasnt), and that his DNA traces are “all over Meredith’s room” (they werent)?

    There are surprisingly few DNA traces of Guede in there, and outside Meredith’s door there is only evidence of (1) his prior use of the south bathroom, and (2) his shoeprints headed straight for the front door.

    There is zero evidence that Rudy Guede was ever in the shared bathroom (the one with Sollectio’s bloody footprint on the bathmat) and zero evidence he was in Filomena’s room (the one with the broken window and the mixed DNA of Meredith and Knox). 

    2. Evidence Against You Is Far, Far Stronger

    Explain if you can about Sollecito’s bloody footprint. Explain if you can about the evidence of cleanup. Explain this and this about your multiple contradictory alibis.

    Explain if you can why YOUR own witnesses Alessi and Aviello were such disasters for your side in court. Explain your cell phone actions (or non-actions) and the timing and content of your phone calls, and your computer actions (or non actions).

    Explain why in Sollecito’s book he claims he sent several emails throughout the night; but there zero records of such emails with his email provider. Explain why both Sollecito and Knox framed Dr Mignini.

    There are three compelling reasons above all why the Massei court and the Supreme Court will remain totally unbending on the point that Guede did NOT attack Meredith alone, and that it had to be a pack attack on Meredith.

    • One is the full day of closed court testimony at trial by crime-scene experts from Rome who accounted for every point of evidence in Meredith’s room with a depiction of a 15 minute pack attack involving three people. This seriously upset the jury and your own defense was left essentially speechless.

    • One is the prosecution’s video shown in closed court during Summations of the recreation of the attack on Meredith, which accounted for every point of evidence with a 15 minute pack attack involving three people.  This seriously upset the jury and your own defense was left essentially speechless
    • .
    • One is that the entry of an attacker via Filomena’s room is so absolutely unbelievable. Your own defense always knew this, and barely tried to make that sale (hence the witnesses Alessi and Aviello).

    There are seven other routes for a burglar to enter the house, all of them faster and quieter and five of them darker. You can see five in these images below: two via the east windows, three up onto the balcony and into the house via the louvre door or the kitchen window.

    All seven routes would be obvious to any burglar, long before he walked all the way around the base of the house to beneath Filomena’s window (which he did several times in your scenario). 

    3. The Numerous Questions From Which You Hide

    On or after 6 November you have both promised to appear in the appeal court in Florence. You are apparently too nervous to face cross-examination under oath, but you have said you intend to try to explain things.

      1) Rudy Guede had been to the apartment at least twice already on prior occasions and knew the boys who lived in the lower story. Why did Guede choose to NOT break-in to the lower story where he knew (or could ascertain) that all four boys were away on holiday, and therefore could break-in and rummage with some certainty of not getting caught?

      2) Why did Guede choose to break-in to the upper story of the villa when he surely knew Knox and Kercher would be staying at the villa for the holidays and could have returned at any time to “catch him in-the-act”?

      3) Why did Guede not check the cottage to make sure no one was there before attempting the break-in? Surely he would have verified that no one was present by circling the cottage and checking if any lights were on in the windows.

      4) If Guede did circle the cottage to make sure no one was there before attempting the break-in, why would he then choose the most visible and more difficult path of entry through a second story window, as opposed to the more hidden and easier path of break-in at the back of the villa, which he would have noticed while circling the villa?

      5) Why would Guede choose to break-in through a second story window that was highly exposed to the headlights of passing cars on the street as well as exposed to night lighting from the carpark?

      6) Ms. Romanelli testified that she had nearly closed the exterior shutters. Assuming her memory is correct, there is no way a burglar could easily verify if the windows were latched and if the inner scuri were latched to the window panes, which would make access to the window latch impractical unless one was armed with a core drill or an ax. Why would Guede, who was certainly familiar with such windows, choose to attempt the break-in through a window that he could not easily verify would allow him quick access?

      7) Assuming the shutters were closed, Guede would have to climb up the wall and open the shutters before smashing the window with the rock. The night of the murder, the grass was wet from rain the previous day. Why was there no evidence of disturbed grass or mud on the walls?

      8) Guede had Nike sneakers, not rock climbing shoes. How did he manage the climb up the wall with that type of footwear?

      9) If the shutters were closed, or somewhat closed, how did Guede manage to lift himself up to the sill with only an inch of sill available to grab onto?

      10) Assuming Guede opened the shutters, how did Guede verify if the inner scuri where not latched to the window panes, which would prevent access to the window latch? There was no light inside Ms. Romanelli’s room to reveal that the scuri were ajar.

      11) Assuming Guede managed to check that the inner scuro behind the right-hand window was not latched, how did he manage to break the glass with a 9 lb rock with one hand while hanging on to the sill with the other?

      12) Assuming Guede managed check that the right-hand inner scuro was not latched, how did he break the glass with the rock without having glass shards fly into his face?

      13) If Guede climbed down to the lob the 9 lb rock at the window from 3 meters below, how would he do so to avoid glass shards raining down on him?

      14) If Guede climbed down to the lob the rock at the window from below, why would he choose a 9 lb 20 cm wide rock to lob up to a window 3 meters above him, with little chance of striking the window in the correct fashion?

      15) If Guede climbed down again and climbed back up to the carpark (up a steep slope with slippery wet grass and weeds) to lob the 9 lb 20 cm wide rock from the car park, why is there no evidence of this second climb down on the walls?

      16) Why did Guede choose a 9 lb 20 cm wide rock to throw from the car park, given that a large, heavy rock would be difficult to lob with any precision? Especially considering that the width of the glass in the window pane is only 28 cm wide, surely anyone, experienced or not, would have chosen a smaller, lighter rock to throw with greater precision.

      17) If Guede lobbed a 9 lb 20 cm rock from the car park, such a lob would require some velocity and therefore force. Guede would have been roughly 11-12 feet away from the window, in order for the lob to clear the wood railing at the carpark. If the rock was thrown with some velocity, why is the upper 1/2 of the glass in the window pane intact, without any fracture cracks at all?

      18) If Guede lobbed a 9 lb 20 cm rock from the car park, such a lob would require some velocity and therefore force. Why is there so little damage to the scuro the rock hit, so little damage to the terrazzo flooring impacted by the rock, and so little damage to the rock itself, which surely would have fractured more on impact with a hard terrazzo floor?

      19) Why was there no evidence of glass shards found in the grass below the window?

      20) If Guede climbed the wall to open the shutters, climbed down and up to the car park to throw the rock, then climbed back down and up again to the window, how does he manage to hoist himself onto the sill without cutting himself on the glass that was found on the sill?

      21) If Guede climbed the wall to open the shutters, hoisted himself onto the sill, tapped the glass with a 9 lb rock to lightly break the glass in a manner more consistent with how the window was broken, why did he throw the rock into the room, rather than let it fall into the grass below?

      22) Why was no dirt, grass, muddy shoeprints or similar trace evidence found on the window sill?

      23) Why was no dirt, grass, muddy shoeprints or similar trace evidence found in Romanelli’s room?

      24) If Guede climbed the wall to open the shutters, climbed down and up to the car park to throw the rock, then climbed back down and up again to the window again, hoisted himself onto the sill without cutting himself on the glass that was found on the sill, unlatched the window and stepped inside Filomena’s room, how did he manage to get glass on top of Romanelli’s clothing that was found under the window sill?

      25) Why would Guede, who would have spent a good 10 minutes trying to break and enter with the climbing up and down from the carpark, waste valuable time throwing clothes from the closet? Why not simply open the closet doors and rifle through the clothes without creating more of mess?

      26) Why did he disregard Romanelli’s laptop, which was in plain view?

      27) Why did Guede check the closet before checking the drawers of the nightstand, where surely more valuable objects like jewelry would be found?

      28) Why were none of the other rooms disturbed during the break-in?

      29) Assuming Ms. Kercher arrived to the cottage after Guede’s break-in, presumably when Guede was in the bathroom, why did she not notice the break-in, call the police and run out of the cottage?

      30) Assuming Guede was in the bathroom when Ms. Kercher returned, why go to the extent of attacking Ms. Kercher in her room rather than try to sneak out the front door, or through the window he had just broken, to avoid if not identification, at least more serious criminal charges?

      31) Assuming Ms. Kercher was at the cottage while Guede broke-in, why did she not call the police the moment she heard the rock crash through the glass, loudly thud to the terrazzo floor and investigate what was happening in Romanelli’s room while Guede was climbing back down from the car park and climbing back up to the window?

      32) Assuming Ms. Kercher was at the cottage while Guede broke-in, Guede could have been on the sill already because he had tapped the glass with the 9 lb rock to break it. Therefore perhaps Guede was already partially inside Romanelli’s room when he was discovered by Ms. Kercher. In this case Guede follows Ms. Kercher to her room in an attempt to dissuade her from calling the police and the assault ensues. But then, if this scenario is correct, when does Guede have time to rifle through Romanelli’s clothing and effects?

      33) Why is there a luminol revealed footprint in Romanelli’s room that has mixed traces of Knox’s and Kercher’s DNA ?

      34) Why does this footprint not match Guede’s foot size?

      35) If multiple attackers were required to restain Ms. Kercher, holding her limbs while brandishing two knives and committing sexual violence, then who else was with Guede and why no traces of this 4th (or more) person(s) were found, either in shoeprints, footprints, fingerprints, DNA or otherwise?

      36) If Guede and others were involved in the assault, why has Guede not acknolwedged them, and instead consistently hinted that, and finally admitting that Sollecito and Knox were with him during the assault?

      37) If Guede and others were involved in the assault, why do the other shoeprints, footprints, DNA traces and fingerprints all point to Knox and Sollecito being present during the assault, in one way or another?


    4. Italy Is Not Buying The Racist Mantra

    If your racist mantra remains “the black guy did it alone” and “Italians are corrupt and stupid” you need to PROVE that. If you cannot answer all of these questions above, this will deservedly cook you.

    You could be facing 30 years with the “mitigating factors” canceled and the new penalties you will incur for your dishonest books and PR campaigns.


    [Five easier ways in: 3 via balcony (note two drainpipes, window grid below), 2 via side windows]










    Sunday, September 22, 2013

    Questions For Knox: Ten Hard Questions That Knox Should Be Asked Monday On ITV’s Daybreak

    Posted by The Machine





    Amanda Knox will be interviewed for the first time in Britain on ITV’s Daybreak programme tomorrow.

    No interviewer should unquestioningly accept everything Knox says as the gospel truth. Remember Knox served three years in prison and is labeled a convicted felon for life for malicious lying.

    So let’s hope tomorrow’s interview is not yet another whiny mis-statement of the core facts, and not yet more sliming of Italian officials, of which we have just seen so many.

    There are many questions on this site which Knox has never ever answered. Some arise from the evidence and some from her dishonest book.

    See especially the tough questions here and here and here and here.  With luck the Daybreak hosts will ask Knox all of these tough questions below.

    1. Multiple false alibis

    You and Raffaele Sollecito gave completely different accounts of where you were, who you were with and what you were doing on the night of the murder. Neither of you have credible alibis despite three attempts each. Sollecito told Kate Mansey from The Sunday Mirror that you and him were at a party.

    He told the police that you and him were at his apartment. He then told them that he was home alone and that you weren’t at his apartment from around 9.00pm to about 1.00am. You first told the police that you were at Sollecito’s apartment. After you were informed that he was no longer providing you with an alibi, you repeatedly claimed that you went to the cottage with Diya Lumumba.

    You changed your story yet again and claimed that you were at Sollecito’s apartment, but he might have gone out. All the other people who were questioned had one credible alibi that could be verified.

    Extract of Sollecito’s witness statement.

    “I went home, smoked a joint, and had dinner, but I don’t remember what I ate. At around eleven my father phoned me on the house phone. I remember Amanda wasn’t back yet. I surfed on the Internet for a couple of hours after my father’s phone call and I stopped only when Amanda came back, about one in the morning I think.

    Question 1. Why did you and Raffaele Sollecito repeatedly tell the police and others a pack of lies?

    2. False accusation

    You falsely claimed that Diya Lumumba killed Meredith in two witness statements and you repeated the false accusation in your handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007. You served three years in prison for this felony and your appeal to the Supreme Court was denied.

    Question 2. Why did you repeatedly accuse Diya Lumumba of murder when you knew full well that he was completely innocent and why didn’t you or your mother retract your accusation when he was in prison?

    3. The Double DNA Knife

    According to a number of independent forensic experts - Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo, Professor, Giuesppe Novelli, Professor Francesca Torricelli, Luciano Garofano, Elizabeth Johnson and Greg Hampikian - Meredith’s Kercher’s DNA was found on the blade of a knife from Raffaele Sollecito’s kitchen.

    He falsely claimed in his prison diary that he had accidentally pricked Meredith’s hand whilst cooking. Dr Stefanoni analysed the traces on the knife six days after last handling Meredith’s DNA. This means that contamination couldn’t have occurred in the laboratory.

    Meredith had never been to Sollecito’s apartment, so contamination away from the laboratory was impossible.

    Question 3. How do you think Meredith’s DNA got onto the blade of the kitchen knife?

    4. The bra clasp

    An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s on the exact part of Meredith bra clasp that was bent out of shape during the attack on her.  His DNA was identified by two separate DNA tests. Of the 17 loci tested in the sample, Sollecito’s profile matched 17 out of 17. Professor Torricelli testified that it was unlikely the clasp was contaminated because there was a significant amount of Sollecito’s DNA on it.

    Professor Novelli analysed the series of samples from all 255 items processed and found not a single instance of contamination, and ruled out as implausible that a contaminating agent could have been present just on one single result. David Balding, a Professor of Statistical Genetics at University College London, recently analysed the DNA evidence against Sollecito and concluded it was strong.

    Question 4. How do you think Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA ended up on Meredith’s bra clasp?

    5. The bloody footprint on the bathmat

    According to two imprint experts - Rinaldi and Boemi - the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat in the bathroom matched the characteristics of Sollecito’s foot, but couldn’t possibly belong to Guede. Rudy Guede’s bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith’s room and out of the house which indicates that he didn’t go into the bathroom after Meredith had been stabbed.

    See our past posts on this here and here.

    Question 5. Who do you think left the bloody footprint on the bathmat?

    6. Mixed samples of Amanda Knox’s DNA or blood and Meredith Kercher’s blood

    According to the prosecution’s experts, there were five instances of your DNA or blood mixed with Meredith’s blood in three different locations in the cottage. Even your lawyers conceded that your blood had mingled with Meredith’s blood. In other words, Meredith and Amanda Knox were both bleeding at the same time.

    Question 6. Why were you bleeding on the night of the murder and is it a coincidence that only your DNA was found mixed with Meredith’s blood?

    7. The Luminol Enhanced Footprints

    Bare bloody footprints were revealed by Luminol at the cottage. Three of them are compatible with your foot size and one of them is compatible with Raffaele Sollecito’s foot size.

    Question 7. What do you think the Luminol was reacting to - Meredith’s blood or some other substance?

    8. The staged break-in

    There is absolutely no evidence that anyone stood outside Filomena’s window and climbed up the vertical wall on the night of the murder. There were no marks from soil, grass or rubber soles on the wall. The earth of the evening of 1 November 2007 was very wet, so if anybody had climbed the wall, they would have left some marks on it.

    The glass on the window sill and on the floor show no signs of being touched after the window was broken, which would have been the case if the intruder had gained entry through the window.

    There was not a single biological trace on any of the shards of glass. It would have been very likely that an intruder balancing on the window sill would have suffered some kind of injury or cut because of the shards of glass.

    If the window had been broken from the outside, there would have been shards of glass outside, but there wasn’t even one.

    Judge Massei and the panel of judges at the Italian Supreme Court specifically mentioned the shards of glass on top of Filomena’s clothes which had been tossed onto the floor in her room and regarded it as proof that the break-in was staged.

    Question 8. Who do you think staged the break-in at the cottage?

    9. Knowledge of the crime

    Umbria Procurator General Galati’s pointed out in his appeal that you knew specific details of the crime that you could have only known if you had been present when Meredith was killed.

    According to multiple witnesses at the police station, you said you were the one who had found Meredith’s body, that she was in the wardrobe, that she was covered by the quilt, that a foot was sticking out, that they had cut her throat and that there was blood everywhere. But you weren’t in a position to have seen anything at all when the door was kicked in.

    In your witness statement you described Meredith’s scream. Other witnesses have corroborated your claim that there was a loud scream.

    Question 9. How did you know so many precise details of the crime?

    10. Shower and the “bathmat shuffle”

    The Scientific Police found 13 traces of blood in the bathroom that Meredith and you shared. Prosecutor Mignini and Filomena have both expressed their surprise that you showered in a blood-spattered bathroom.

    Filomena told Mignini during cross-examination:  “I thought it was odd that she’d had a shower when there was blood all over the place.”

    You told Mignini that you used the bathmat to shuffle to your room.

    Question 10. Why did you shower in a bathroom that was splattered with blood, and did you notice the visible bloody footprint on the bathmat when you used it to shuffle to your room? And why so soon after did the police notice that you were stinking?

    Lorraine Kelly and Aled Jones the ITV Daybreak hosts who should confront Amanda Knox


    Tuesday, July 23, 2013

    How The Clean-Up And The Locked Door Contribute To The Very Strong Case For Guilt

    Posted by James Raper





    On the 30th September the appeals of Amanda Knox and Raffele Sollecito against the convictions they received at the first instance trial will resume, this time in Florence.

    This follows the annulment by the Supreme Court of the acquittal verdicts rendered by the Appeal Court presided over by Judge Pratillo Hellmann. There is one conviction not under appeal. This is Knox’s conviction for calunnia, which is now definite.

    They are therefore both currently convicted of murder and sexual assault, and a number of lesser charges, amongst which there is the simulation of a burglary “to ensure impunity for themselves from the felonies of murder and sexual assault, attempting to attribute the responsibility for them to persons unknown who penetrated the apartment to this end“.

    There is one activity, for which there is evidence, with which they were not charged (perhaps either because it was redundant or not a criminal offence) though this was likewise to ensure impunity for themselves.

    This is the partial clean up at the cottage and it is this with which I intend to deal. I want to highlight salient observations which have been under discussion here and elsewhere and some of which may be well known to readers, but perhaps some not, or have been forgotten about. Once again, in many cases, I am merely a conduit for the observations of others, not least the first instance trial judge Giancarlo Massei.

    So let‘s consider the observations and in doing so we can also throw some more light on the lone wolf theory.

    1. Take a look at the bloody footprint

    This is, of course, the bloody footprint on the bathmat in the small bathroom right next to Meredith’s room. 





    The heel of the right foot, if it had blood on it, is missing from where it should be on the tiled floor. It is difficult to imagine, given that the imprint of the foot on the mat is contiguous with the edge of the mat, that there was not at least some blood on the remainder of the foot such that there must have been at least some blood deposited on the floor.

    Just as difficult to imagine that casual shuffling about on the bathmat would have removed the blood so as to render it “invisible” to the use of luminol.

    Of equal relevance is that there were no connecting bloody footprints.  Why not?

    The defences have an improbable theory -  that Guede, despite his homicidal rage, was smart enough to hop about on his left foot with a clean shoe on, and the other bare but covered in blood, and that having by this means entered the bathroom and washed his bloody right foot, disastrously leaving his (supposed) imprint there in the process, he then returned to Meredith’s bedroom inadvertently standing in blood with his left shoe and leaving with a trail of bloody left shoe prints -  in which case the exercise of washing his foot was entirely in vain, on two counts, after all that careful hopping around.

    Neither is it entirely clear why his right shoe came off in the first place.

    It is far more probable that the inevitable bloody prints were deliberately and carefully removed. The reason for doing this was not just to conceal who would have made them (the print on the bathmat was, after all, left in situ) but, from a visual perspective, to conceal any blood that might be noticeable and alarming to anyone approaching Meredith’s room. Guede’s bloody shoeprints in the corridor were visible but only on close inspection.

    2. Take a look at the bathroom door

    Specifically the internal (hinge) side of the bathroom door. Take a look at this photograph.





    We see a long streak of dried blood.  Clearly the blood has flowed some distance under the influence of gravity and we can see that it looks slightly diluted, with red corpuscles gathering towards the tip of the streak. A drip of that size does not appear from nowhere.

    Indeed it is difficult to imagine how the blood got there unless it was part of a larger area of blood which most likely was on the face of the door and which was swiped to the right and over the edge of the face of the door. The cloth or towel used to do this was wet accounting for the slight dilution and length of the streak.

    3. Take a look at Meredith’s door

    It is interesting, is it not, that there is blood on the inside but not on the outside? The outside:





    And the inside:





    It is difficult to see how and why Guede touched the inside handle with a bloody hand (was it shut and if so, why?) and then closed the door to lock it without leaving a trace on the outside face of the door. Possibly he might have changed hands. The answer might also be that he visited the bathroom to wash his hand as well as his foot, save that none of his DNA was recovered from the spots and streaks of diluted blood in the washbasin, whereas Knox’s DNA was. All the more surprising given that Guede shed his DNA in Meredith’s room.

    We see some blood on the edge of the door which again might be the remnant of a trace on the outside face.

    4.  Take a look at Amanda Knox’s lamp.

    This was found inside Meredith’s room behind the door. Meredith also had a similar lamp which was resting on it’s base on the floor by her bedside table.

    The presence and location of Knox’s lamp is obviously suspicious. Had Meredith borrowed Amanda’s lamp because her own was not working, then it would not have been in the position it was found but on or more likely knocked over and lying beside the bedside table since the violence appears to have been concentrated in that area of the room. 

    Had Meredith’s lamp been on the bedside table then likewise it too would most likely have been knocked over in her life and death struggle with her sole assailant (there are blood streaks on the wall just above) and it would not have ended up sitting upright on it’s base.

    Both lamps were probably used to check the floor of Meredith’s room after the event and Knox’s lamp was probably sitting upright until it was knocked over by the door being forced open.

    This is Meredith’s lamp by the bedside table.





    And this is Knox’s lamp by the foot of the bed.




    5. Take a look at what luminol revealed

    We can state with confidence that luminol (extremely sensitive to and typically used to identify blood that has been wiped or washed away) discovered :-

    (a) three bare footprint attributable to Knox, one in her bedroom and two in the corridor, and

    (b) two instances of the mixed DNA of Meredith and Knox, one in Filomena’s bedroom and one in the corridor.

    (c) a footprint attributed to Sollecito in the corridor.

    I have covered a number of elements strongly suggesting that there was at least a partial clean up, not of “invisible DNA” as the Groupies like to mock, but of what would have probably in some cases have been noticeable deposits of blood that would have attracted the eye of anyone entering the cottage and which would certainly have alarmed the observer as being difficult to explain.

    Spots of and footprints in blood, not just in the bathroom but outside it, a locked bedroom door with blood on it, and a bathroom door with blood on it’s face.

    We can include Knox as one such observer given her e-mail account of having allegedly stopped by the cottage to have a shower and collect some clothing before the discovery of the body. Such physical evidence - had it not been removed - would not have sat easy with that account, however dizzy and naïve Knox presents herself. One can envisage Knox thinking “sorted” - that her story would now work perfectly.

    Even so, there were elements that were overlooked, such as Knox’s blood on the washbasin faucet and blood generally in the small bathroom, but a door can be closed and at least these were elements amenable to some form of explanation from her perspective, whether or not convincing, as occurred in the e-mail.

    Incidentally in addition to the mixed traces in the small bathroom, Meredith’s blood was found on the light switch and a cotton bud box.  I have a hard time imagining what Guede would have wanted with the cotton bud box, less so Amanda given her blood on the faucet, ear piercings and a scratch on her throat. Knox, when asked during her trial, could not recall having switched on the light during her alleged visit to the cottage.




    6. Take a look at the items on Knox’s bed

    Massei concluded that it was likely that it was Knox who carried out the clean up, which if correct might explain why it was not central to her thinking to dispose of the bathmat with Sollecito’s bloody footprint on it!

    Knox was seen by Quintavalle at his store at 7.45 am on the 2nd November, thereby destroying her alibi. He described her as pale faced, exhausted looking, with pale blue eyes. He also added, and he would not have known this from photographs in the newspapers, that she was wearing blue jeans, a grey coat and a scarf, with a hat or cap of some sort.

    We can see from the crime scene picture of Knox’s bedroom below, that such items (minus hat or cap) appear to be lying on her bed.





    Sollecito did not accompany Knox to the store but this would be because he was known to Quintavalle whereas he was unfamiliar with her. He may however have accompanied Knox to the cottage and/or have acted as look out for her when she was there.

    7. Some conclusions

    I have included “The locked room” in the title because of a poster’s observation regarding Guede’s bloody left shoeprints exiting Meredith’s room. There is the simple observation that these footprints are going one way only and not towards the small bathroom.  But they do not even turn to face Meredith’s door, and again hard to imagine that this could be so if it was Guede who locked her door!

    We can rule out Guede as having been involved in any aspect of the clean up precisely because of that trail of footprints and other evidence of his presence left behind.

    Now that the travesty of the Hellmann acquittals has been truly exposed Knox and Sollecito face an impossible uphill task.

    The clean up and the locked door are just two of many elements in this case which combine together and corroborate each other in a manner that enables us to see the truth beyond a reasonable doubt.


    Page 1 of 3 pages  1 2 3 >