Wednesday, October 02, 2013

Appeal Session #1(B) Detailed Report On Enquiries The Court Has Okayed

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters

[Above the two co-judges with lead judge Allessandro Nencini reading the case history]

Translation From The Umbria24 website

Meredith, war of requests in the first hearing of the 2nd Appeal

The court has order a new test on the I trace and on the hearing of the witness Luciano Aviello. Rejected all other requests

By Francesca Marruco

After a little over 2 hours in its counsel chambers the Florence Court of Appeals has decided to ordered a new test on the (I) trace evidence of the knife seized in Raffaele Solecitto’s apartment, the weapon presumed to have been used in the murder.

The Court has also decided to hear the witness Luciano Aviello and rejected all the other requests of renewal of investigations presented by the defense. The Court returns on Friday with Aviello and the provision of the task of the new genetic analysis to the Carabinieri del Ris of Rome.

[The appeal] started this morning in the maxi courtroom no. 32 of the Florence Justice Courthouse, the new trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher, after the annulment of the acquittal by the Supreme court. Present in the courtroom was only Patrick Lumumba.

Absent, as expected, were the two accused Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. 

- 9:00 Francesco Sollecito, father of Raffaele,  says he is tranquil about the outcome of the new trial. Responding to the journalists, he specified “The statement of the Supreme Court is compromised by errors committed because the judges did not have full assess to all of the proceedings, as they themselves specified,”

- 9:45 The defense of Knox and Sollecito have asked for the exclusion of the Patrick Lumumba (civil) part because the conviction of Amanda for calunnia has already been passed into final sentence.

This request was opposed by the General Prosecutor Alessandro Crini, and the lawyer of Lumumba. For them the plaintiff’s civil right is legitimate, as the Supreme Court, has asked to re valuate the penalty, in order to obtain the impunity.

The Court retired in counsel chambers to decide and announced it wanted to decide today on the reopening of the investigation.

- 10:15 The court rejects the request of the defense of Knox and Sollecitto to exclude the civil part of Patrick Lumumba, because the Court specifies that, among other things, the offense was not assessed in the totality by the first court.

- 10.50 The President of Court of Appeals, Allessandro Nencini, is initiating the introductory report. Starting from the day of Meredith’s homicide. The judge traveled trough the most important passages of the three Courts. Speaking of the (I) trace, isolated by the consultants of the second Court on the knife (considered the weapon of the crime by the first Court) President Nencini said:” It necessary to underline that the independent consultants had found another trace but it was not analyzed”.

- 11:15 The President of the Court Nencini, at the end of the introductory report, said: ” This is a trial for matters of undeniable seriousness, beyond the spectacularization, there is the willingness of the Court to give all of the possible space for debate to all of the parties, because in origin there was a important verdict and the actions for which we proceed are of undeniable seriousness”

- 11.25 Raffaele Sollecito defense lawyer Giulia Buongiorno was the first to take the floor.

“Sollecito’s defense does not ignore the motivations of the Cassazione, and we are in favor of any kind of verification that the Court will order, with the following caveats. This proceeding has always been based on two types of evidences, the testimonial and technical.  We request that during this proceeding, we hope to be the last one, that the Court during the next hearings will concentrate only on the truly reliable evidences, putting aside the ones that are not nullified by the fact that it is a media proceeding.

Many witness have said things because they have read them or heard to them. So the proceeding was reopened,but not to collect this type of guesswork. We do not want to inflate this proceeding with new conjectures. We request to examine in depth the crime seen, as pointed out by the Cassazione.  In the crime scene room there are copious traces of two of the four presumably present persons, Rudy Guede that admitted to have been there, and none of the two indicted, except on the hook of the victim’s bra.

When the Prosecutor asserts that there are no traces because Amanda and Raffaele cleaned them, we think that it is impossible. For this reason we request to have a evaluation done in order to verify if it is possible to clean selectively”. “The Cassazione mistake has been that it didn’t noticed the entry in the crime scene room before the bra hook was found , so we request the acquisition of two reports. 

We want to understand if in a sealed place it is possible to get evidence even after the admission by the police of other searches .  We do not request to get the hook and to say that it is contaminated, I want to know if in that environment it was possible to collect some genuine evidences, because on the crime scene there were not ten traces of Raffaele but only that one”. 

A subordinate request by Giulia Buongiorno requests that experts , new ones or the ones of the second trial, will read the electropherograms.  Buongiorno requests even the analysis of both of Meredith Kercher cell phones that she consider the “black box” of the crime and that ” was never analyzed deep enough except from the Corte d’Assise di Perugia” The defense requests also the analysis of the presumed sperm trace on Meredith’s pillowcase.

- 12.15   Amanda Knox defense lawyer Carlo Della Vedova takes the floor and lifts up right away an exception to the Constitution.  “Are we today able to judge on matters that happened six years ago? Can a person be under proceeding for life? Are we sure that Amanda Knox is an accused as all the others. It is right for an indefinite postponement of this proceeding? For all of this I insist that the Court evaluate the constitutionality”

- 13.00 Kercher family’s lawyer produced a letter written by the family members of Meredith that read “We are confident that the evidences will be reexamined and all the requests of more evidences will be granted, in a way that all the unanswered questions well be clarified and that the Court can decide on future way of action in this tragic case. The past six years have been the most difficult of our lifes and we want find an end and remember Meredith as the girl that she really was rather than remember the horror associated with her”.

-14.00 The General Prosecutor Alessandro Crini says he is against the request of the defense to hear anew from some witnesses, including Rudy Hermann Guede. The same judgment Crini used for the major part of the requests of the opening introductory presented by the defense. In conclusion, he asked for the the addition of the evaluation of the “I” trace, isolated by the independent experts, but never analyzed because it was believed to be a Low Copy Number. Furthermore the prosecutor asks that the witness Aviello be reheard.

-15:00 The lawyers of the civil part that represent the Kercher family adheres to the request of the General Prosecutor Crini, opposing the requests of the defense.  ” I ““ said the lawyer Francesco Maresca believe that one attempts to dress, with a new dress, evidence that are strong, resistant, and robust from the sentence of the first court and that where minimized by the second court. For example, the witness Capezzali.

Also there are newly dressed certain requests that are obsolete, that have already been done. Like the one of selective cleaning. In the bathroom next to the room of the crime, there were many mixed traces of DNA of Amanda and blood of Meredith. And if the genetic profile of Sollecito, besides the bra hook,  is present only mixed with that of, Amanda on a cigarette butt,  that was found; then how did it migrate, only that one,  from the cigarette butt to the bra hook”?

- 15:10 The defense of Raffaele Sollecito adheres to the request to analyze the “I” trace, but opposes that hearing the witness Luciano Aviello. Buongiorno also pointed out that it is not true that the independent experts of the second court decided automatically to not analyze certain traces, but did so in the presence of the defense experts Stefanoni and Novelli and those of the defense.  Carlo Dalla Vedova, for Knox defense said that Avelio will be heard only to demonstrate that the Police uses two different weights. Like when Avelio said he knew where the crime weapon was.

- 15.30 The Court retires in council chamber and announced that will not come out before 17.30

Thereafter the court convened again and the decisions were as outlined in the post below this one. Almost all of what the defense had argued - each of them a stretch if you know the full circumstances - was denied. 

And the two main requests from the prosecution - that Aviello be put back on the stand and the large knife be retested - were accepted. Ourcomes of these may or may not add to the strength of the prosecution’s case, but seem to offer no prospects of joy for the defenses.


Innocent people accused dont see PR campaigns started for them almost from the minute they are arrested. That was always one huge red flag in Italy.

And as we have often posted, when an illegal media campaign is mounted, to encourage public opinion to lean on the courts, justice officials are REQUIRED to swing into action. The law mandates this.

It is not a personal choice of any one official and Dr Mignini who is by far the most vilified (for reasons going back into the Monster of Florence case and the addled brain of Doug Preston) doesnt have to lift a finger.

Believe it or not, the same prosecution office and judges office that we saw performing in court two days ago have been staring at the defamations of Sollecito, Sforza and Spetzi for some months now.

They really know this illegal campaign now. This is very different from the handicapped Perugia prosecution which had less information and hostile judges to contend with.

Did you get the impression that their attitude in court to the defenses and defendants was a warm one?! Time to fish or cut bait, guys.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/02/13 at 06:48 PM | #

Oh and anyone who encounters Sharlene Martin’s road-show of Knox crazies somewhere in Washington (after being locked out of Congress) should maybe try to share these home-truths with them.

You’d be doing them a favor. I presume Sharlene Martin is just a pawn or a glove puppet in this bizarre game, though she sure seems an avid one.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/02/13 at 07:08 PM | #


“many mixed traces of DNA of Amanda and blood of Meredith”

what are the blood tests that were carried out? TMB or similar sprays are generally not capable to determine the origin.

The RBC is mostly responsible for the TMB signal but it does not have any DNA. The WBC has DNA that can be used for fingerprinting.

I did not see any report in which the blood source was clearly identified. Do you or others in this broad can please tell us?

I would have said that there were DNA for both the girls mixed with blood.

Posted by chami on 10/02/13 at 07:36 PM | #

Hi Chami

These were the samples OUTSIDE Meredith’s rtoom that the defenses so avoided addressing.

Presumably so that they could continue the mantra “there was no evidence of them INSIDE the room” which of course there was (Knox’s lamp without fingerprints on it, not even mentioned in her book, and all the blood they tracked outside the room and onto the bathmat).

I wonder if this post by the Machine addresses the issue enough for you?

Posts here by James Raper, Cardiol, SomeAlibi and especially Fly By Night also focus on the sample collecting and testing that was done.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/02/13 at 09:34 PM | #

Raffaele Sollecito will be appearing Pier Morgan’s show on CNN this evening. You can contact Piers Morgan on Twitter:


It only takes a few seconds. Everyone can make a difference.

Posted by The Machine on 10/02/13 at 11:41 PM | #

@ Peter,

Thank You for this update.

My apologies for this question, but I recall reading something recently about this witness Aviello, but I do not remember where.

So will Aviello’s testimony help or hurt the prosecutors? 

Thank You !

Posted by MissMarple on 10/03/13 at 01:53 AM | #

@ The Machine :

Thanks for this update.

Wow ... interview with Piers Morgan ... I have no doubt that Raf will “put his foot in his mouth” during the interview ...

I cannot handle Piers Morgan, much less Raf ...

So any reports from anyone who has the “stomach” to watch will be most greatly appreciated !  Besides, I can’t watch because I have a class this evening.

Thank You !

Posted by MissMarple on 10/03/13 at 02:00 AM | #

Piers Morgan is one of those known to be quite scathing about Knox & Sollecito. Possibly tonight he cracks the little nitwit.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/03/13 at 03:16 AM | #

Hi MissMarple

Immensely, Aviello helps the prosecution. For the Sollecito defense especially he is the nightmare witness from hell.

Especially see Upodates #4 and #8 on him in this post.

All of our posts on Aviello can be read here and we’ll post a roundup on Friday.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 10/03/13 at 03:21 AM | #

Posted by all4justice on 10/03/13 at 09:56 AM | #


Vid of rs on Piers’ show - missing part of url, so search that & yee shall find (depending on licensing/geographics).

Posted by all4justice on 10/03/13 at 10:24 AM | #

At the end of the Daily Mail article:

‘What I really want is we don’t need this tragedy more victims. I’m just begging to look at the real facts and the truth,’ he said.

I think that’s what everyone would like?

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 10/03/13 at 10:36 AM | #

Thank you for translating this from the Umbria24 website. This “war of requests” shows Maresca at his powerful best again, his zingers at the defense who dress old arguments in new clothes as if they would be unrecognizable. He puts a pin the balloon theory of contamination and calls the evidence “robust”.

The mafia-like tactics of Marriott’s PR phonies is just one more sign of the corruption that Knox seems to draw to herself. Curt Knox wanted to block reporters from the door of his home but quickly found other reporters with microphones and cameras where he could speak on national TV. He approached Marriott for the proper “stories” to use after Amanda filled their heads with pleas and lies. Marriott gave them his tried and true lies (oops, I meant ideas) in exchange for SOMETHING.

Then Marriott donned his railroad engineer cap and loaded the freight train with half-truths. The trainride to hell as Kermit calls it began. It’s easy to pick up speed when you’re going downhill.

Wheeeee! Speeding over the world with Amanda the innocent. As you said, they weren’t longsighted, they managed one rail switch, maybe a tunnel or two, but they’ll derail on the third curve.

Daddy and mom with crimebuddies FOA paid Marriott as a sort of American mafia to twist the arm of the truth about Amanda who nods agreement between sobs. They spin a perfect family, erase her drug use and evidence she left at the crime scene.

More than this they wanted to ridicule the police and judges of Perugia and maybe cross a few palms with silver for illegal favors, acting just like the mafia.

Wrong move. For every action there’s an equal and opposite reaction. Their massive dispersal of lies and snakes created a tidal wave of reaction to their insufferable deceit. Now there are lawsuits, people fleeing homelands, and a Supreme Court taking a dim view of the lauded Miss K.

The tidal wave of truth will bury their town of lies built on sand like Katrina poured over New Orleans.

Posted by Hopeful on 10/03/13 at 10:05 PM | #

Make a comment


Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry How Did The Knox-Mellases Engineer Their PR And Legal Shortfall? David Marriott Analysed

Or to previous entry Shame On Riccardo Panella Of Perugia For Perpetrating A Despicable Hoax