Breaking news. VICE Media have apparently hired the mother of all demonizers. For what? To compere a program about demonizers! Statute of limitations on demonizing Knox book still has several years to run. Sollecito has conceded in court his own book lied and demonized.

Saturday, February 01, 2014

Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz And Philly Lawyer Ted Simon Both Claim The Devil’s In The Details

Posted by Peter Quennell



Alan Dershowitz sees plenty of evidence against Knox. He really has absorbed the key details, and in this case, the devil is in the details.

Alan Dershowitz has spoken out quite accurately a number of times on the case previously, and he shows great respect for the carefulness of the Italian system.

Philadelphia lawyer and Knox advisor Ted Simon also thinks there is a devil in the details. Or rather, he did back in 2008 (below) before he got on the Knox payroll and his foolish mantra became “There is no evidence”.

Wrong. There is stacks of evidence that Knox was in that room - and it wasnt even tested for DNA.

  • Why was her lamp in the room? Why cannot she explain that? Why are there zero fingerprints? Who wiped them? Who moved Meredith’s body? How did Knox’s and Meredith’s blood get co-mingled? In half a dozen different locations? Outside a locked bedroom door?

  • Why are there footprints in blood outside the locked bedroom door of both Knox and Sollecito? Why do Guede’s shoeprints head straight out the front door? And if Knox didnt start to rearrange the crime scene, who staged the break-in, and why?

  • And why do the various presentations in closed court in 2009 (all-day testimony by crime-scene and autopsy experts and a 15-minute video recreating the attack)  which proved THREE attackers still remain unchallenged?

Those pesky details…




Comments

It has always been in the detail.

  FoA: there is no evidence!

  FoA: the evil Italians (Mignini)!

  FoA: she was not there.

Who wants more details than this?

If you ask a question, then you are a “guilter”

Interesting indeed!

Posted by chami on 02/01/14 at 11:35 AM | #

Latest behind the scenes report by journalist Andrea Vogt.

HEADLINE: Amanda and Raffaele: The Judge Speaks

HEADLINE: “I have children too; it was a huge burden.”

HEADLINE: “The defence had asked to separate the positions of the two accused, but Raffaele would not allow himself to be questioned.”

http://thefreelancedesk.com/front_featured/amanda/knox-appeal-2/

Posted by True North on 02/01/14 at 11:46 AM | #

I see all hell is letting loose on CNN must be slow day. It had to happen I suppose.

However after all the hoopla dies down and Jody Arias thing starts up again then the American public will concentrate upon that or something else, leaving the wheels of justice to keep on turning.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 02/01/14 at 11:58 AM | #

Thanks True North

We are going to post the Corriere interview with Judge Nencini that Andrea Vogt kindly translated next - important we give it some framing.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/01/14 at 12:01 PM | #

New article on Knox as ice maiden. Take a look.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/meredith-kercher-killer-amanda-knox-3100098

Gemma Aldridge is channeling the intrepid Sharon Feinstein (more on her to come).

There will be a spate of such psychological reports and analyses now, and at least two new books.

Our own psychologists will advance their own analyses - reporters, please feel free to contact us.

We now have the 2008 Sarzanini book on Knox psychology in full English translation.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/01/14 at 12:01 PM | #

Hi Graham

Re CNN website and on-air coverage “its complicated”. They are now finally actually airing a lot from both sides.

Erin Burnett, Nancy Grace, Wendy Murphy and Piers Morgan are all pro-Italy and pro-truth.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/01/14 at 12:04 PM | #

This is an article about a new camera system to read the tiny details from our faces as we speak:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14900800

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/01/14 at 01:23 PM | #

@True North

Consider that our laws are nothing but a set of rules. It may appear messy, but this is a fair assumption.

Why can’t we replace judges and juries with a set of powerful computers that are best for this purpose: compare and contrast.

It is not possible because we need a human face: justice must be served with humanity and humility. If they are missing, it is nothing but a torture by the powerful. We need that human factor in judgements.

I find the statement “I have children too; it was a huge burden”- literally very moving. If you are not delivering your justice with compassion, you are just a robot; a computer in a human form.

It is not a time for celebration. Court houses are usually imposing buildings that evoke fear in all. Nobody ever wins in a court.

I find the judge’s interview inspirational.

Posted by chami on 02/01/14 at 02:51 PM | #

@SeekingUnderstanding

We have been hearing about these things for a very long time. They rarely work (the report says that this one works 66% which is not very far away from 50% (a random prediction)).

I would love to hear the authors testing on a TV newsreader or on a popular advertisement. Of course I am not sure what is a lie (and what is truth but that is another story anyway).

I just want to mention that the philosophy is very similar to the classic lie-detector. The machine measures nervousness, in terms of change in skin-resistance, blood pressure, pulse rate and other tangible physiological observables.

It has also been claimed that it (telling a lie) affects voice too: ultra low frequency sound waves, called low frequency tremors, are present when you tell a lie. Interestingly, combining several parameters do not improve the lie-detection success rate.

On a lighter note, the machine will have a good market in France and Italy. But then the biggest market may be in China and Japan where it may not work at all!

Posted by chami on 02/01/14 at 03:12 PM | #

Alan Dershowitz is talking sense. What a breath of fresh air!

Posted by Hopeful on 02/01/14 at 03:28 PM | #

I always understood that the usual PR bait to the media is along the lines of “if you support our client in your reporting we will allow access for exclusive interviews, etc. -  otherwise you get nothing.”

Now, following the verdict, there’s a noticeable swing by the ever-fickle media towards being less craven.

They know there’s no advantage,  as far as readership/audience levels are concerned,  in backing an obviously losing horse. Marriott and his goons may as well whistle in the wind now that the tide has turned. Over time who will want any access at all to their rogue client, locked away as she will be?

Curt Knox in his old age will likely completely reverse his hubristic opinion ( voiced before the Nencini verdict) that hiring Marriott PR was the best choice he’s ever made. He might then reflect that it’s funny how life has a habit of knocking you down as soon as you think you’ve beaten the odds.

Unless of course Mr Knox now considers it a moral victory just to avoid jail in Italy for his daughter. In this way his ego and self-image will no doubt be precariously maintained, conveniently forgetting that he seems sure to live in infamy as the father of a cruel murderer, wherever she ends up.

Way past time for some deep self-reflection in the Knox/Mellas camp.

Posted by Odysseus on 02/01/14 at 03:49 PM | #

yes, thanks chami. two thirds is not very good. i just thought it was interesting nevertheless.

i personally think that there needs to be a deeper understanding of individual psychology etc as well, but then, I would !

i don’t see that any method that might be reduced to something like box ticking is going to be good enough.

I’m sure some human beings have been lying for thousands of years…just as some human beings have followed their conscience even when there was no-one to impress…they had an inner need to be truthful.

If there was an easy answer perhaps it would have emerged by now? I suppose there’s two sides : the telling of the untruth, and then the person hearing it who lacks judgement and doesn’t realise it’s not true, or perhaps doesn’t want to realise.

Some people are truth seekers by nature.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/01/14 at 03:50 PM | #

I can’t really believe this but it gives me hope. Big change on ABC since the Morning Show yesterday:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/amanda-knox-found-guilty-court-sort/story?id=22306461

Posted by Hungarian. on 02/01/14 at 04:04 PM | #

hello Hungarian

yes, that is hopeful, of a turn in the tide.

perhaps it might encourage some more people to look more closely at the known facts.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/01/14 at 05:11 PM | #

I’m not sure if this has been posted yet, but Some Alibi posted this video link on PMF and I thought it was worth sharing:

http://outfront.blogs.cnn.com/2014/01/31/amanda-knox-i-will-never-go-willingly-back-to-italy/

It involves Steve Moore pontificating about how Guede was a police informer and how the Supreme Court is somehow part of the conspiracy

(Sadly still got Guede sent to prison for 16 years, so I guess those eye-talians can’t even do conspiracy right). 

Some raging and sputtering ensue when he’s challenged.

Posted by Vivianna on 02/01/14 at 05:59 PM | #

Wow, thanks for the link, Viv, this former Formidable Bumbling Intellectual (Steve Moore) is indeed something, he looks like he missed the roll call at the junkyard.

Posted by Bjorn on 02/01/14 at 06:55 PM | #

@ chami:
” It has also been claimed that it (telling a lie) affects voice too: ultra low frequency sound waves, called low frequency tremors, are present when you tell a lie.”

Yes!

During a Hospital Medical-Staff Peer Review Hearing I was called away from the deposition of a very Senior Physician witness, whose colleagues had told me “Always tells the truth.”

This witness had a most convincing demeanour, and body-language, but the testimony included many assertions I independently Knew to be False; the ones the witness Knew-to-be-False we’re therefore Lies, but were asserted in such a convincing manner, that I could not be sure if they Were actual Lies.

I did not independently know whether Other assertions, made by this witness in the same convincing manner, were True or False, nor whether, if they Were False, the witness knew-them-to-be-False. Therefore I could not be sure if those Other assertions Were actual Lies either.

When I got back, the deposition was over but I listened to its tape-recording, which was now, shorn of the witness’s demeanour and body-language, stunningly revealing:

Most, but not all, of the times this witness made an assertion I independently Knew to be False, there was a distinctive voice-tremor.

The same tremor was present in many, but not all, of the other assertions.

Assuming that the distinctive voice-tremor had indicated “Lie”, I was able to participate in the rest of the Hearing so effectively that it arrived at a universally approved conclusion.

Far from being one who “Always tells the truth.” the witness turned out to be a bare-faced liar who lied more convincingly than most of us tell the truth.

That distinctive voice tremor certainly corroborated chami’s communication in the case of that witness.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 02/01/14 at 07:40 PM | #

Why the PR problems for Knox and FOA? Amanda is the greatest liability of her own PR campaign vs previous campaign after the first guilty verdict when she was in jail.

She cannot be idealised anymore.  She talks too much and she sounds fake imho.  Most of her problems in this case come from talking too much, she was even arrested for talking. 

She calls Meredith “my friend” as her conscience dares not name her. She has pre written phrases and she never talks about details, facts. 

Innocent people insist to return to facts and details of the events over and over without a script and chronology to show you once again they are innocent.

She cannot fake tears, she has these pauses which are just a technique to allow her to think what to say next, not genuine looking at all. 

She says “i was expecting better from the system” same words of the press release ... people do not talk like that ... plus as i said innocent people change words to express various situations ... she says “it hit me like a train” when it is obvious she was fully expecting it ...

She is a huge liability of her own PR.  So FOA supporters are left with a complete moron arguing Guede was an informant and the Supreme ourt is in the conspiracy ...

PR effort goes down down down ... just my two cents.

Posted by Popper on 02/01/14 at 09:58 PM | #

The news in Seattle is the Seattle Seahawks not Amanda Knox.

In fact, the day the verdict was read it was actually hard to find it reported on the radio.

Posted by Jeff Friend on 02/01/14 at 10:42 PM | #

I think some of you may enjoy a TV show called “Lie to Me,” available on Netflix. I thought it was just entertaining bunk, but it turns out it’s based on a real psychology scholar, Dr. Paul Ekman, who also served as a consultant for the show.  Obviously, the main character is fictional, but the parts about interpreting facial expressions are probably at least partially rooted in reality. 

It’s a pretty smart show (unfortunately cancelled already), and while watching it, I often thought that perhaps Amanda should have a chat with one of these human lie detectors.  It would probably be very difficult for her to fool them.

Posted by Vivianna on 02/01/14 at 10:44 PM | #

Vivianna—

While watching that clip that Some Alibi posted, it has become clear that Moore has gone even further off the deep end.

What a loon.

Posted by Jeff Friend on 02/01/14 at 10:55 PM | #

@SeekingUnderstanding

In some sense, speaking a lie is an innate biological mechanism for self preservation. We tell lies that BENEFIT us directly in the short term.

Obviously the origin is very likely pre-historic. But self preservation is a biological property that always tries to preserve and propagate our own gene pool. Sex is our way to propagate our own gene pool and lies is an important mechanism to preserve the same. Sex and lies are cousins (ask Amanda!)!

In this particular case, I am not blaming anyone for telling lies. They are just trying to save their skins (and gene pools) but telling lies is effective only in the short term. Just like Amanda Knox got away with murder but only for a short time. The time was sufficient for her to propagate her own gene pool but she chose not to- obviously for non-biological reasons.

In this context, truth is nothing more than a self-consistent statement. With all the actors dispersed, it is very likely the truth will never be found. In many cultures, telling a lie to save yourself is not considered a serious lie.

Modern liars want more than self preservation: they want power. Power to control over another human is the greatest power. That is where the conflict of the modern culture of telling lies to gain power has come to be in focus in our modern society.

In some way, I see most crimes as attempts to gain power over others.

Posted by chami on 02/02/14 at 02:10 AM | #

@Popper

The PR campaign is a cover for some bigger operations. Of course I do not know the details but it shows.

Most of us are illiterate (is it the right word?) in the fine art of stabbing and killing our flatmate and getting away with it but there is a power in numbers. Someone suddenly observes something that others have failed to notice.

I was bugged about 300 missing euros for a long time. I was obviously distracted. Others were distracted about Sfarzo (or what’s your name by the way?) for months.

The things that show up are (i) Amanda is out of money (ii) Amanda has not paid to Patrick.

The thing I find amusing is that Conti-Vechiotti has not spoken. Hellman has spoken a few times but these are gems- collectors item.

Where the money went?

A part of it will be used to build up opinion against extradition. But some significant part has certainly gone for some nefarious activities.

Amanda is the PR. Everything else is a diversion.

Posted by chami on 02/02/14 at 03:17 AM | #

@chami

True observations, as usual…

Children tell lies very easily to ‘cover up’, avoid punishment, and keep their parents’ love and provision. One could call it an instinct, as you say.

Even the English have the phrase ‘white lies’ which is still used, (and practised).

This is where the maturity, consciences and education of the parents starts to show. A good parent will be able to distinguish between the deed and the doer of the deed. (I.e. I still love you, and will continue to care for you…even though I think what you DID was bad/wrong or unacceptable).

This is where dysfunction, if there is any, starts to show.

Dysfunction will almost always be connected to a wrong relationship to their own power - being empowered as balanced functional adults. (What causes the various dysfunctional states is of course an endless debate).

Thus children grow up with erroneous conditioning - or bad habits, including habits of thought.

This is often what a therapist will be doing - helping the client unravel the negative thought habits, and replace them, slowly, with better ones.

It is a characteristic of being civilized that we do not just allow instincts to lead and always be indulged.

Hence the cultivation of self-restraint, and the outward courtesies.

I do so agree with you about the relationship between wrong-doing, and the ‘wrong’ power. It has often been said, (more eloquently than I ), that the person who wants control and power should begin with self-control, and power over their own self first.

The PR campaign has been a wrong-doing - an evil in my opinion, whether it was/is instinctual or not. It is the opposite of what we attempt to do in therapy.

The journalists/ interviewers (not all of them) make howling mistakes in many of their questions, if viewed from a therapeutic perspective. We would not encourage webs of lies - for the sake of the client if nothing else.

But then the client would very likely stop coming if they wanted to continue in a world of fiction.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/02/14 at 05:04 AM | #

To everyone at TJMK and particularly Peter:

I have just noticed an article about which I was previously unaware.

Can anyone throw any light on its authenticity and care to comment on the obvious disparity between Sollecito’s quoted words and known facts -for instance, that neither Knox nor Sollecito were ever in the eye line of Meredith’s bedroom when her door was broken down on the day after her murder?

The article reads as follows:

Published in the Sunday Mirror 4/11/2007

ITALY MURDER DETAILS EMERGE
EXCLUSIVE
MURDERED IN ITALY. MEREDITH, 21
Friend tells how he broke down door
Kate Mansey In Perugia, Italy 4/11/2007

A friend of murdered British student Meredith Kercher told last night how he discovered her body in her blood-spattered bedroom.

Raffaele Sollecito, 23, relived the horror of finding the body of the pretty brunette who died when her killer broke into her home and cut her throat as she lay in her bed.

“It is something I never hope to see again,” he said. “There was blood everywhere and I couldn’t take it all in.

“My girlfriend was her flatmate and she was crying and screaming, ‘How could anyone do this?’”

Meredith, 21, who had been studying in Perugia, Italy since August, was murdered the day after a Halloween fancy dress party at the city’s British-themed Merlin Pub on Wednesday.
On Thursday she posted happy snaps of herself in fancy dress on the internet and in the evening had returned home alone after watching a film at a friend’s house.

But her flatmates - two Italian girls and one American - had all stayed out for the night, so the gruesome discovery wasn’t made until the next day.

Raffaele had spent the night at his own house on the other side of the city with his girlfriend, Meredith’s American flatmate Amanda Knox, 22.

He said: “It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends.

“The next day, around lunchtime, Amanda went back to their apartment to have a shower.”

As Amanda, from Washington DC, stepped into house [sic B] she could tell there was something terribly wrong.

Raffaele said: “When she arrived the front door was wide open. She thought it was weird, but thought maybe someone was in the house and had left it ajar.

“But when she went into the bathroom she saw spots of blood all over the bath and sink. That’s when she started getting really afraid and ran back to my place because she didn’t want to go into the house alone. So I agreed to go back with her. When we walked in together, I knew straight away it was wrong. It was really eerily silent and the bathroom was speckled with blood like someone had flicked it around, just little spots.

“We went into the bedroom of Philomena (another flatmate who was away) and it had been ransacked, like someone had been looking for something. But when we tried Meredith’s room, the door was locked. She never normally locked her bedroom door and that really made us frightened.”

Their panic grew as they desperately banged on her door.

Raffaele said: “I tried to knock it down. I thought maybe she was ill… I made a dent, but I wasn’t strong enough on my own so I called the police.”

When police arrived they knocked the door down straightaway and Raffaele followed them into the room.

“I couldn’t believe what I was seeing,” he said. “It was hard to tell it was Meredith at first but Amanda started crying and screaming. I dragged her away because I didn’t want her to see it, it was so horrible.

“It seems her killer came through the window because it was smashed and there was glass all over the place. It was so sinister because other parts of the house were just as normal.”

Posted by Mealer on 02/02/14 at 07:12 AM | #

Oh my word Ted Simon has changed his tune over the years, has he not ?

He knows as well as 99.9 % of people that all three are guilty…

Posted by mollythecat on 02/02/14 at 07:30 AM | #

Hi Mealer

Yes the party was the first alibi. Scroll down to the mention of Kate Mansey here:

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/our_take_on_the_case_for_the_prosecution_3_raffele_sollecitos_multiple/

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/02/14 at 08:00 AM | #

Still, watching Amanda Knox try to squeeze out tears on National TV is unintentional comedy.

Posted by Ergon on 02/02/14 at 08:10 AM | #

Peter,

Many thanks for your reply and the link.

Posted by Mealer on 02/02/14 at 08:24 AM | #

P.S Peter:

The party element of the first alibi disappears from Sollecito’s subsequent alibis.

I am much more intrigued by his Mansey interview declaration that he was first to discover Meredith’s body, including following the police into the murder bedroom after the door had been broken down, when all the police and other eyewitnesses have confirmed that Knox and Sollecito were never in a physical position to even glimpse into the room, (which was sealed shortly afterwards).

et al.

Posted by Mealer on 02/02/14 at 08:31 AM | #

I’ve been arguing with people on cnn ever since the verdict. It amazes me how people don’t do any research and just parrot what the media say’s. It’s always the same argument:
Their’s no evidence
Italians hate Americans
(My favorite) They put scienctists in jail for not predicting an earthquake
It’s double Jepoardy

I strongly believe if Rafeal is incarcerated while Knox is fighting extradition for years, he will spill everything. Does anyone know if Solecito has ever been offered a deal to tell the truth?

Posted by Kmcvick on 02/02/14 at 08:56 AM | #

@ Mealer
Sollecito has always given easily debunked explanations to third party enquirers. He also recently pretended on twitter that he was writing mails to his teachers on the night of the murder, that he imagined pricking Meredith with his knife in his prison diary after a long period of solitary confinement…it must be a form of wishful thinking. Walking in Meredith’s room after the police opened the door would have explained how his DNA got there

Posted by Xarta on 02/02/14 at 09:19 AM | #

@Mealer

I heard about the party from the Follain’s book.

At one point RS says something like “It is right but not right if you know” which struck me as unusual.

Mansey attributed the odd reactions from RS as being in trauma. RS was smiling when he was asked to be photographed and Mansey told him that he should not be smiling- another odd reaction!

The interview took place in a coffee shop and AK was being interviewed by the police at that moment.

The uneasiness is understandable.

Posted by chami on 02/02/14 at 09:25 AM | #

Xarta,

Yes, it would innocently explain Sollecito’s DNA on the bra clasp if he had cut himself on a door splinter on the way in and the police had then asked him, using his cut finger, to cut the clasp off the bra in their presence!

Posted by Mealer on 02/02/14 at 09:49 AM | #

Hi Kmcvick

On CNN. Along with a lot of very pleased emails we are getting some emails raging on about “questions” like those.

We have a new TJMK page coming with “model” replies. That should help a lot.

Knox herself has the same problem as all on her side, she reads only the nonsense churning around and around in their echo chamber which is why they were always bound to hit a dead end.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/02/14 at 10:58 AM | #

Has anyone tried to point out that even IF Amanda was in shock or pressured by police or didn’t have a lawyer present during her questioning, the first thing Edda did on arrival the next day or so was hire an English speaking lawyer recommended I think by the American embassy as us often done. 

So if Amanda then had serious doubts about Patricks guilt and her being on the scene as a witness why didn’t her Italian counsel immediately know and relay that message to police in a formal statement??

Surely given her youth and unfamiliarity with Italian law the lawyer would have made sure to submit this during the next few days.  I’m sure Edda talked at length with her about being on the scene at every meeting and would have said something to the lawyer about any possibility of a mistake.

How can Americans swallow this stuff hook line and sinker including Robyn Roberts??

Posted by believing on 02/02/14 at 11:13 AM | #

Hello chami
Just for the record and to expand upon your comment regarding ‘living the lie’ When we are children we do not know where our parents stop and we start and lessons learned from childhood (about four or five until about seven) mold us for the rest of our lives. Generally, in most cases I think, we wish to revert the that time when we were helpless even if that time was horrible since we have no term of reference to measure it by. That is why people pick abusive partners over and over. The woman who gets rid of one abusive husband only to be attracted to another abuser is paramount in human society. Just as a man had an alcoholic mother will generally pick a partner of similar disposition. In other words we are hard wired to seek some semblance of the familiar.

Hence to Knox. Her mother was very angry at Curt Knox because he abandoned them at an early age and refused to pay any support at all. He is still a very angry manipulative individual which is why he started the Knox P/R scheme which of course was for no other reason than to make money. After all he did not and never has cared for his then family considering them to be a liability since they held him back from his view of relevancy. Knox tried therefore to impress her father/(and by extension the entire male population) by engaging in masculine endeavored which included making herself available for sex with strangers thereby creating yet another trophy so she could tell herself that she was attractive when she believes that she is not. 

This led her to learn how to manipulate the situation by turning her mothers anger to her own advantage and being the eldest (Ashley and Delaney being younger) she took the full brunt of Eddas anger which she used and turned to gain an advantage. The obvious conclusion is that she was a sociopath even then. This of course is why she dislikes her mothers current partner Chris Mellas because she sees him as an obstacle against gaining the recognition she craves from her biological father Curt Knox.

Having said this I predict that within the year Knox will lose control and do something very stupid. The string which holds her personal ‘Sword of Damocles’ is fraying and getting weaker. I am not being vindictive here but I hope it happens soon because then their entire house of cards will come crashing down hence from that point of view the P/R scheme was the very worst thing Curt Knox could have done because it brought attention to his daughters condition of guilt.

Curt Knox has stated that the P/R scheme was the best thing he ever did and I suppose from a financial point of view he is correct. At any point in time though when Knox has outlived her usefulness he will throw her away just as he did when she was a child. She knows this and that is why her original sickness manifested itself into being the true sociopath and thereby believing her own lie. She shows no emotion having learned that at a young age but the specter of Sollecito and Guede finally telling the truth must haunt her constantly. Sollecito for self preservation and Guede for financial gain.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 02/02/14 at 12:03 PM | #

Hi Believing

On Knox and Patrick. Okay thats a good response if that question comes up! Edda did know Patrick was in the clear, and later admitted it, but said she didnt tell anyone because Italian was her problem (she could have been charged).

However, she didnt have long chats with AK on the details, because they met only under watchful circumstances at Capanne where they were warned all prison exchanges were monitored.

Knox seemed to actually want to say more - maybe come clean, or at least tie herself closer to the crime - but Curt shushed her, until she got the point, and stopped. Maybe a pity. It could have saved us all five years.

It wasnt till Knox was released late 2011 that they had any chance at a really private chat. (Her lawyers of course could talk with her privately, but they werent very good. Dalla Vedova especially was out of his depth throughout.)

It seems an open secret in Perugia that the lawyers and parents all knew all along that somehow Knox was involved. But they were riding a tiger, for which theres no getting off.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/02/14 at 12:24 PM | #

@ Mealer

Yes, just another unlucky coincidence…Note that at the time of the interview Sollecito didn’t know about the bra clasp, only that DNA traces were being recovered from the bedroom.

Posted by Xarta on 02/02/14 at 12:54 PM | #

Hi Grahame

Hope you don’t mind me butting in to your post to chami but re your point:

“When we are children we do not know where our parents stop and we start and lessons learned from childhood (about four or five until about seven) mold us for the rest of our lives. Generally, in most cases I think, we wish to revert the that time when we were helpless even if that time was horrible since we have no term of reference to measure it by. That is why people pick abusive partners over and over”.

It’s not just that specific period of childhood/infancy (in my opinion) - there are very often unintegrated emotions from natal and pre-natal experiences that unconsciously drive our behaviours. Aberrant behaviour can often be seen as an unconscious attempt to revisit and master a trauma (this is why, as you say,“people pick abusive partners over and over.”) What’s usually lacking and the reason the pattern is often doomed to repeat is the absence of conscious self-insight.

This is where psychotherapy comes in, guiding people to understand what drives their behaviours and thus enabling them to change. Lacking that conscious insight into the well-springs of behaviour we are all to some extent acting out some personal madness on the world stage! Knox and Sollecito are at the (very) extreme tail of a Normal Distribution.

“All of humanity’s problems stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone.” - Blaise Pascal.

Posted by Odysseus on 02/02/14 at 01:22 PM | #

@Grahame Rhodes

I was talking about different things. A generic lie, like “the moon is made of green cheese” is said just for fun and has zero social value. On the other hand, “I did not steal the cookie” which may be a lie, is told with a purpose of avoiding punishment of any kind, how so ever little. This is what I called self preservation and is a part of the biological defense mechanism. This is not taught (I mean learnt) nor is an acquired skill.

The biology of sex is very similar. Women look for men who are genetically strong and superior but men too look for the same thing in women. The final result is that both get something at their own level, more or less. In sex, men are less fussy with their partners because they can “broadcast their seeds” far and wide but the case is different for women. Once pregnant, they are stuck for about a year and beyond to care for the child. It is therefore imperative for women to choose their partners with far greater care, particularly with regard to stability. Women will tell lies far more easily to save the marriage, particularly if they already have a child. Men are callous in this regard. Interestingly, modern western society tolerates this to a large extent.

“Her mother was very angry at Curt Knox because he abandoned them at an early age and refused to pay any support at all”- X abandoned Y because X thinks Y is no good and he can get a better Z. Y gets angry because she is stuck with a child and money is in short supply. Y will finally find W and settle happily. If you try to explore the equations, you will notice that the number of factors that play a role in this dynamics is too many to analyse reliably.

Personally I do not think Amanda will do anything stupid any more. It was a toxic combination of several people and drugs and sex. Further, she has grown up considerably and hormones have now perhaps stabilized in the system. That was a one-off case. I am perhaps wrong, but Americans suddenly feel liberated when they are abroad (women in particular).

Anyway, my focus in the earlier post was on lies as a biological defense mechanism for self preservation and in absence of societal forces, we cannot be expected to naturally tell the truth.

I am sorry I could not explain it better.

Posted by chami on 02/02/14 at 01:23 PM | #

Hello Chami

No you explained it really well. Please excuse me, I have a bad habit of going off subject particularity when cornered

“Did you take the garbage out?” etc” “No but I’m about to. By the way did you see the news????etc”

This is also personal self preservation by deflection.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 02/02/14 at 02:01 PM | #

@Odysseus

‘Lack of insight’ - or,too, lack of self reflection…these are so important, vital in fact.

Regarding someone else’s psychology, and their individual make-up and formative influences:  I think we have to be careful when one goes into the realm of hypothesis because it is necessarily speculative in some degree.

Also, if the person were a client, they would be entitled to client confidentiality. I know some might say that by their behaviour the Knoxes should forfeit a right to their own privacy. 

However, part of the reasoning for proceeding cautiously is because of the risks of de-stabilizing someone who may already be disordered or unbalanced. I think it is significant to remember that the psychiatric reports on Knox and Sollecito from Capanne were witheld from public release.

We all can act differently when subjected to prolonged and severe stress. Please note I am not excusing anything!

It’s just that no-one wants to see someone, whoever they are, pushed to the edge of themselves and re-living trauma, most especially they are not in a safe environment .

It is important for trauma to be re-visited in such a way that the person feels held, and to some extent supported. This is in everyone’s best interest.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/02/14 at 02:11 PM | #

@SeekingUnderstanding

Couldn’t agree more, especially your last para. Just a non-judgmental presence by a genuine helper/healer can make that difference if someone is encountering what was previously repressed.

I’m in quotation mood!

“The doctor is effective only when he himself is affected. Only the wounded physician heals.” Carl Jung.

Posted by Odysseus on 02/02/14 at 02:42 PM | #

I can’t access this site for some reason, it says: Page not found

http://thefreelancedesk.com/front_featured/amanda/knox-appeal-2/

Any suggestion what shall I do?  Thank you.

Posted by Hungarian. on 02/02/14 at 03:16 PM | #

@Hungarian

Yes there’s a fault there somewhere.

It seems to work if you got to the home page http://thefreelancedesk.com/ then wait for the “amanda knox-appeal-2” banner to appear on top RHS, then click on “read more”.

Posted by Odysseus on 02/02/14 at 03:27 PM | #

This is a great article on The Independent website about some of the DNA evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/its-not-right-to-say-there-is-no-evidence-in-the-case-against-amanda-knox-theres-plenty-9099649.html

I hope people will share this article on social media websites. I’ve already shared it on Twitter, Google+, Reddit, Digg and StumbleOn.

Let’s make it the most read article on The Independent website.

Posted by The Machine on 02/02/14 at 03:40 PM | #

The primary aspects of the sociopath is arrogance and if they see that another whom they perceive as being in their way, for whatever reason, then they will do their best to rid themselves of that person. Such is Knox.

If you examine Sollecito as an entity then he is not threatening at all but is just a spoiled little boy who is comfortable in his fantasies. Therefore Knox used him as she has used others. Knox perceived Meredith as a threat because in every way she was so much better than Knox.

Add to that the fact that Meredith tried to be friends with Knox was perceived therefore as a weakness since all Knox knows is manipulation, so Merediths offer of friendship was looked upon with suspicion. Add to that jealousy and the thought that Meredith was laughing at her only compounded the situation.

Note also that Knox never tried to take it out on the other girls in the flat.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 02/02/14 at 03:44 PM | #

@The Machine

The article is by Leila Schneps who, as you may know, is the mathematician/statistician who wrote “Math on Trial” with her daughter Coralie Colmez (also a mathematician/statistician) and which had a chapter on the Perugia murder case.Very good book.

Posted by Odysseus on 02/02/14 at 03:54 PM | #

@The Machine

thanks for that. great article. what a relief to read some proper reporting.

will forward the link where possible.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/02/14 at 04:11 PM | #

“On Knox and Patrick. Okay thats a good response if that question comes up! Edda did know Patrick was in the clear, and later admitted it, but said she didnt tell anyone because Italian was her problem (she could have been charged).” 

That has to be the most flimsy excuse I’ve ever heard.  Your daughter says she was on the scene while a murder took place (and rape) and heard everything, and then days later says ‘well actually I made a mistake’ and then you don’t make a big deal of it in any language available, including sign language?  As if no one in the area spoke English.  This was 2007 not 1907.  That whole thing rings very false.

I’m thinking about what I would do if a loved one was in jail in another country and something like this happened.  The first thing you do is find people to help you who speak your language.  You can’t tell me that her lawyer would not have immediately made a statement to police.  Combined with the two weeks of amnesia caused by two taps on the head by a policewoman, and intense questioning for one night, it’s really key as this all happened right afterwards, not some years down the road.

It’s very strange to me that American media does not look more closely at the timeline of events and shows such a one-sided story but it is obviously for their ratings and they are afraid to go against the tide.  I would never want someone innocent to go to jail for such a long time, but the stories just don’t add up.  Hopefully RS will talk and then maybe there can be closure on the whole thing.  I’m sure his family is putting intense pressure on him to separate himself.  He may not be able to though.

Posted by believing on 02/02/14 at 05:52 PM | #

Hi believing

Right. It was a stupid move, prolonging the framing of Patrick, which in effect led to Knox getting three years.

Thats not the only time Edda Mellas seemingly broke Ityalian law. She still has a calunnia charge pending for sliming the police (calunnia is criminal defamation, tried by a prosecutor).

And this overwhelmingly looks like perjury on the stand, as the prosecution in effect sarcastically noted.

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/why_defendants_mostly_dont_testify_those_devils_that_lurk_in_the_detai/

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/02/14 at 10:01 PM | #

I see the DM are running a story claiming Knox has been given a “lifeline” because Judge Nencini spoke after the verdict and that Maori is threatening legal action as he claims Nencini is guilty of “prejudice” against the chosen one.

Oh the drama.
I suppose they have to be seen to clutch each straw they can.

Posted by DF2K on 02/03/14 at 04:30 AM | #

@DF2K
Yes,  they are going for this straw to clutch.
But Judge Nencini was clarifying the situation. He was immensely careful. He showed that they could and would have acquitted if the facts had allowed them to, but that they themselves have to follow the logic and the facts. They can’t do what they ‘want’. I’m sure he is above wanting one way or the other anyway. He says quite clearly they had to produce ‘convincing reasoning’ :

“Yours was a narrow path, the Court of Cassation had urged you to remedy the Perugia appeal decision that had acquitted the two accused.”
“Not so, we had maximum flexibility. The only restriction was that in the case of acquittal, we would have to have give reasons based on logic. There was no other binding restriction.”

“Not even with regard to the decision handed down in Rudy Guede’s case?”
“Effectively the specifics of the case was this: there was a person already convicted via fast-track, and definitively, for concourse in the same homicide. The Court of Cassation was asking us to consider who participated and their roles.  We could have said that the two accused weren’t there, and then provided convincing reasoning, but we did not believe this to be the truth.”

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/03/14 at 06:52 AM | #

I am frankly appalled by the collective ignorance and even xenophobia that emerge from some of the comments on websites (CNN, Guardian etc.).

For those who know nothing about the case (or those who believe to know from press sources but have not read official documents) we must again suggest to read primary sources, so the actual past reasonings of the verdicts.  The reasoning of the current appeal verdict is going to be published in a few weeks.  Most of these verdicts are translated into English and are documents that describe in detail the reasoning of the courts.  http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Primary_Sources

There is no justification in insulting with terrible words Alan Dershowitz, a very prestigious former Harvard professor, or anybody who has a different opinion, or a foreign country or its people and representatives.  In the USA (and UK since incredibly the UK press has lowered its standards) there is a fair share of dubious presidents, criminals, judgements just as in any country.

More importantly if there was any anti US sentiment in this trial they would not have arrested and convicted Sollecito to 25 years in prison.  This is a joke.  The bad prosecutor is also a joke, appeal trial has a different prosecutor, Supreme court again a different one.  The conspiracy theory at Supreme Court is non-sense, we are not in the Pelican Brief. 

On concrete points: 
Italy has a reasonable doubt standard, arguably at a more advanced level than in the US.  If a decision is beyond reasonable doubt it must in fact explained in writing by the Court of Assize (2 professional and six lay judges).  The decision maker is not a black box jury like in the US and it is possible to understand exactly why Courts make a certain decision.  The parties may appeal twice, once for merit of the case and once to the Supreme Court for matters of Law and procedure.  If at any level the written reasoning of a Court is flawed (i.e. manifest illogicality, ignoring evidence or grossly misinterpreting it etc.) the parties, including the defendant, have the extra protection of a final judgement of Supreme Court. 

It may seem complicated but it is not - ignorance by a serious reporter is not admissable anyway… a defendant is probably more protected against mistakes than in US criminal courts.  After a conviction in first instance Court of Assize, the defendants have appealed.  The provisional acquittal in the first appeal was partially cancelled by Supreme Court (just for the crime of murder not for the crime of calumny against the innocent man Patrick accused by Knox of the murder she said she witnessed) as it was deeply flawed and ignored key evidence according to the Supreme Court. They ordered a new trial.  The explanation of this ruling is also available in the link above so whoever disagrees with the Supreme Court of a G7 country can exercise his or her skills and be more to the point rather than just talking randomly. 

On double jeopardy: ignorance of many contributors to websites and many journalists is clear on this point. 

Double jeopardy was invented in what is today’s Italy, it was a provision of the Roman Empire Civil Law (ne bis in idem).  It is obviously present in the Italian jurisdiction but, as in most European countries, refers to a definitive sentence, not a provisional one.  The trial has the objective of reaching the truth it does not assume, as in the US, that a court (in the US, a jury) is always right, expects a written reasoning of any decision issued by a tribunal or court at any level.  It follows that appeals exist and double jeopardy applies to a final sentence only at Supreme Court level or in the absence of appeal at any level.

MOREOVER, and this is a KEY POINT, the double jeopardy clause of the Italy/USA Extradition Treaty (dated 1984) talks about the case in which a person to be extradited has been tried for the same crime in the USA, country that is asked to arrest and extradite the future fugitive (the “Requested Party”).

(from the Treaty) ARTICLE VI - Non Bis in Idem. Extradition shall not be granted when the person sought has been convicted, acquitted or pardoned, or has served the sentence imposed, by the Requested Party for the same acts for which extradition is requested.

It is clearly a double jeopardy of jurisdiction, as any extradition treaty implies the complete acceptance of the justice system of the other signing country (with exceptions that must be included in the Treaty itself).  US courts will have no say in the judgement for murder.  If Amanda’s conviction is eventually confirmed, (likely, as her appeals of merit are exhausted) US Courts will just have to rubber stamp the extradition request and the Secretary of State will finally decide.  He has no legal grounds to refuse. See link to Italy/USA Extradition Treaty http://internationalextraditionblog.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/italy.pdf

To conclude, we must await for the written verdict, but the standard of proof required for this conviction is not very high.  Given that there is clear evidence of the presence of other people in the flat - other than Rudy Guede - during the murder (and the Supreme Court had already ruled on multiple attackers in Guede’s parallel trial), it was probably sufficient for the Appeal Court to establish the presence of the defendants in the flat beyond reasonable doubt.  This is easily done with the confession of Amanda in a memorial written in prison just after her arrest (confirming two previous statements signed by her before arrest), her calumny that the murder was committed by an innocent man and she had witnessed it, the statements in the appeal trial by Rudy, who placed the other two in the flat.  To the above we must add evidence of a staged break in, footprint in blood on the bathmat compatible to Sollecito (Guede had shoes and his shoeprints go directly out of the flat), footprints in blood found with luminol revealing DNA of victim and Amanda and compatible in size to Amanda, not Guede.  Such footprint were also in the room of the alleged fake break in (occupied by the roommate Filomena).  The most relevant DNA traces are mixed blood / DNA of Knox and victim in 3 points in the small bathroom, DNA of Sollecito on bra clasp and the DNA of Meredith on a knife found in Sollecito’s flat, where the victim had never been. Claims of contamination were discussed but refuted as contamination must be proved and DNA.  Witnesses, telephones, computers all prove the defendants lied repeatedly on their movements and defence lawyers admitted some of these lies.  Many contradictions exist in their statements reconstructing the events. 

Case is quite simple IMHO and was judged properly but I AM NOT A JUDGE.  NONE OF US IS.  I will wait for the written verdict.  There are judges in Courts of Law and the defendants had all the guarantees they could imagine.  If she is finally convicted the US will extradite, I agree with Dershowitz, as it is a democratic country based on the rule of Law, not on xenophobia. 

I deplore the xenophobia and ignorance of some of the messages in websites and if the family of the victim reads here I wish to say I feel ashamed for those who wrote them. 

I am also disgusted by reporters who do not read documents or do research, give false information, slander people, are in conflict of interest (like a writer who co-authored a book with Sollecito writer for the Guardian) and lose objectivity because ignorant of basic facts.

[I apologise for any typo but I wrote on a stupid screen keyboard of a stupid tablet and I am not very good at on screen edit]

Posted by Popper on 02/03/14 at 09:03 AM | #

Amanda Knox Guilty
The Guardian has run a video piece on Amanda Knox by Simon Hattenstone whom I have emailed separately. It features Amanda with her new mature look and is passively sympathetic. I am angry and not a little sad for Meredith’s family
I support the Guardian for years in their fight against injustice, often a liberal voice in the wilderness. But this. There is no justice here. What is wrong with the Guardian that they refuse to see. Such a piece can only help the PR of Amanda Knox, unfairly influence public opinion without recourse to a balanced approach. The video did not attempt the difficult questions, it did not quote the evidence, which is ignored and has doubt by neglect heaped upon it. If it is mentioned at all it is a lobotomy of the truth. No doubt it can be claimed that such was not its aim. Of course not, the evidence is too deep, as well play on the emotions for cheap TV.. What a travesty, the collection of all that evidence- to convince those who have journalistic ears but whose need for liberal illusion run to deep to hear. If it is argued as social comment, then PR is served and sympathy made clear. It will be hard enough to see justice done and have Amanda Knox returned to Italy to serve her sentence without PR being used to influence, by unfair means, the prosecution of extradition, given the validation of the verdict by the supreme court. I can not contemplate the pain the Kercher family must feel in the pursuit of justice for their murdered daughter. That her proven murderer should be lauded indirectly by seeking to promote sympathy for her position can only add to their distress. With bravery and with dignity have they borne this dreadful and lamentable catastrophe. The health of both parents has suffered irredeemably. The children fight on.  It maybe there is no justice, no heaven, no recompense and no answer to the reason why. It is also quite possible to live amongst those whose heart is full of despite and not know them for what they are. Those who have found a way to live out where the hell winds blow and not feel the heat, to share untroubled sleep having sold the soul for a moments bloody respite from yesterdays weirdness, tomorrows reason why. “place the rag deep in your face for Now is the time for your tears.” The lonely death of Hattie Carol.
letterstheguardian.com

Posted by Macthomas on 02/03/14 at 09:20 AM | #

Yes, as a long time Guardian reader, I am quite disgusted with the Guardian participating in the PR campaign for a convicted murderer. They have thrown any journalistic integrity out of the window.

I won’t be buying their newspaper or visiting their website again.

Posted by bobc on 02/03/14 at 09:29 AM | #

@Popper
Thank you very much indeed for your succinct summary above. With your permission, I would like to copy and quote this to persons who are raising spurious and ignorant points. Do you mind my asking whether you are in the UK or US?
Thank you again, I hope your words are heeded.

Thank you too Macthomas for resisting the Guardian’s bias (I gave up with this paper some time ago.)

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/03/14 at 09:46 AM | #

As if that were not bad enough, Andrew Gumbel has waded in, here: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/31/amanda-knox-raffaele-sollecito-case-harsh-verdict-italian-justice

Posted by Ann-Marie on 02/03/14 at 09:53 AM | #

@SeekingUnderstanding

No problem. 
Do what you think appropriate. 
I am in the UK.

Posted by Popper on 02/03/14 at 10:33 AM | #

Hi, Popper, I’ve noted the xenophobic comments on social media, considering it’s the internet and sourced from the Knox/Mellas households, it is still deplorable, and I only wish the media could report this case fairly and try to not perpetuate stereotypes about Italy. Yet they call it anti-American prejudice?

On the other hand, this latest complaint against Judge Nencini? First, I am told that Judge Nencini’s interview was within the parameters of what he’s allowed to say, according to Art. 6, sec 109 (?) of the judge’s code of ethics, that relating to the public interest.

Then, the complaint brought against him was by a lay member of the CSM, Nicolo Zanon, of Forza Italia, which is Berlusconi’s political party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forza_Italia so it’s just political or personal, much like Dr. David Anderson filing a complaint against the ‘expensive’ video.

Judge Nencini might be admonished at best, but I think the CSM is more likely to see it for the political theater the complaint is. I can also see why Mario Spezi was rummaging around the court room, he and Frank Sfarzo are bankrolled by Forza Italia, through Berlusconi’s media outlets.

But I also see it as part of their long term strategy, to attack the Italian judicial system through the process of this court’s actions. Theoretically, an adverse ruling from the ECHR might compel the constitutional court at Cassazione to look into and see if there were irregularities in the process, and a change to the system is required. That’s why I’m waiting to see if Amanda Knox’s appeal to ECHR is accepted.

By the time any thing happens, of course, Cassazione may already have finalized her conviction.

Comments?

Posted by Ergon on 02/03/14 at 10:43 AM | #

@ Eegon
How long would it take for the ECRH to look at the Knox appeal?

Posted by forres on 02/03/14 at 11:40 AM | #

I have said it before but I do not mind telling it once again. It is about the DNA evidence but put in a different perspective.

1. That the DNA was found on a relatively few samples is a very positive point. I personally agree that it is difficult to clean DNA selectively particularly when the kitchen knife could not be cleaned thoroughly enough. Of course it has been cleaned well but still some DNA remained. This says, inter alia,

a. once stuck, DNA is difficult to remove. This is particularly true if the sample is allowed to dry for some time…

b. if the source itself is rare, what is the likelihood of the (alleged) contamination? For example, Sollecito’s DNA was found only on a cigarette butt and on a bra clasp, both physically separated widely.

2. A low copy number sample is expected not to give rise to a peak in the electrophoresis simply because the sample is not enough. All the protocols and standards are made on the basis of common sense and not on the basis of what Greg Hampikian feels or thinks. In reality, there is no international standard in this regard.

a. Looking at the electrophoresis charts, one does not deny that there are peaks that are clear and well defined. And when a set of peaks matches a person known or suspected to be around the scene, it is impossible to explain these set of peaks as spurious.

b. It has been well known that some errors do creep in during amplification process (there are protocols to enhance these errors in many research works) but today these errors appear to be very small (it is not really a rocket science).

c. On the bra clasp, roughly speaking, DNA from Sollecito is about 25% of the DNA from Kercher. This was not a low copy number sample and this is clearly not a contamination. It essentially means 100 ul of sample has been contaminated with 25 ul of RS DNA sample. Contaminations usually occurs from carry overs, some small amount that was not well cleansed.

As Peter mentioned in the beginning, the devil is in the detail.

Posted by chami on 02/03/14 at 12:21 PM | #

Chami,

Please show Meredith the respect that she, as an innocent victim deserves - refer to her as Ms. Kercher, or preferably, Meredith.

Conversely, please use “surname only”, when referring to the convicted murderers, Knox and Sollecito.

Posted by Mealer on 02/03/14 at 12:44 PM | #

Thanks, Ergon, I was wondering.

Posted by James Higham on 02/03/14 at 12:57 PM | #

Hi

I rarely write but I’ve been following Popper’s comments for years and they are always so logical, clear and rational. I share his outrage at the media. It is really stunning to hear time and again that there is no evidence. I watched the ABC interview with Knox and couldn’t believe the sympathy they gave that girl.

I don’t follow CSI or any of those shows but I did see an expert on forensics on American Experience on PBS that was looking at the history of forensics. This expert seemed pretty seasoned and she pointed out that the body tells a story - every detail tells us something and that is the first place to start looking for evidence. Based on this statement, the first place to start is with the body and Meredith Kercher’s body told a lot. If we are to start there, it then follows that the police had to find the other people who were involved and all the evidence leads smoothly and easily to K and S.

Anyway, again, stunned by the America media. I pretty much refer to them as “media sluts” now rather than professional journalists! And, as a Canadian, it is deeply disturbing to see Italy smeared again and again.

Dora Maar

Posted by Dora Maar on 02/03/14 at 12:59 PM | #

News from Seattle this morning:
http://www.komonews.com/news/local/Judge-in-Amanda-Knox-trial-faces-allegations-of-impropriety-243335041.html

It seems though that the timing is not so perfect for the FOA because everybody is celebrating the yesterday’s Seahawks Victory and the media is full with their news (what they really deserve).
Go Hawks!!!

Posted by Hungarian. on 02/03/14 at 02:37 PM | #

@ Ergon

The behaviour of judges is regulated by Law Decree 109 of 2006 http://www.camera.it/parlam/leggi/deleghe/06109dl.htm

Nencini was well within limits and his president of Court of appeal confirmed it (probably authorised him).  Common sense generally suffice to understand limits.  One thing Nencini could not reveal is the number of votes.  He did not.  The verdict is effective and cannot be put into question for something like this.

Disciplinary action is always possible but strongly unlikely in a case like this.  Politicians can do very little as disciplinary actions and careers of magistrates are regulated by CSM (Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura).

Zanon is a non-magistrate member of CSM but these members are a minority and Forza Italia is a minority in Parliament.

CSM has 16 magistrates, 8 non-magistrate members elected by Parliament among professors and experienced lawyers + 3 members by Law (President of the Italian Republic, First President of Court of Cassazione and General Procurator at Court of Cassazione).

It is known Forza Italia fights magistrates in general as their old leader Berlusconi is a convicted felon with many other trials and investigations open.  Nencini is also known as he sued Berlusconi several years ago for a symbolic Euro 10,000 as the politician frequently insulted judges.   

I do not see any disciplinary action happening here, even if they may discuss it at CSM.  Nothing will ever impact the verdict.  Bongiorno is just a sore loser. 

On ECHR I am highly sceptical Amanda’s appeal can go anywhere as she never raised those issues before Italian courts.  We will see. 

——
Question: Can I edit a previous comment?
I forgot how.

Posted by Popper on 02/03/14 at 03:02 PM | #

That was interesting to read about the bra clasp, Chami - what would be the normal ul of a contamination?  What were the amounts of the other DNA found (they said there were several person’s DNA on the bra clasp besides Sollecito’s) as I’m wondering if they were too big to be contamination.  It seems strange that those persons were not identified somehow.  It’s not like a lot of people touch your bra clasp, being inside your other clothes.

Posted by believing on 02/03/14 at 03:42 PM | #

Hi, James, regarding ECHR,

“The application number is 76577/13 and the applicant is represented by Avv. Carlo Dalla Vedova (Roma). Filed 24 November 2013, registered by the Registry of the Court on 6 December 2013. The Court will examine it in due time”.

I believe we should get an answer whether the court accepted or rejected the application around March or April this year. It looks like it was filed in haste to beat a December 31, 2013 deadline, after which rules to accept new applications would be tightened up appreciably.

The problem is, ECHR only comes in AFTER final convictions are obtained, so I wonder what legitimate basis the court will have to accept the application?

Posted by Ergon on 02/03/14 at 05:14 PM | #

Figures, CNN hacks deleted video cause they r partial to Knox. Clearly they do not want it in circulation. Here it is for anyone who is interested… http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-NZfgm3i_g

Posted by willsavive on 02/03/14 at 10:05 PM | #

@Mealer

“Please show Meredith the respect that she, as an innocent victim deserves - refer to her as Ms. Kercher, or preferably, Meredith”

I am extremely sorry for all the careless but unintended mistakes. Please accept my sincere apologies.

- chami

Posted by chami on 02/03/14 at 10:37 PM | #

@ chami
I know from your previous comments that you have the utmost respect and concern both for Meredith and her family, and I did not think otherwise from one small slip.

thank you for your accurate input to the comments from your professional knowledge.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/04/14 at 05:49 AM | #


Make a comment

If you are reading this please log in to post a comment.

Smileys



Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Guide For Smart Media: Note Extensive Hard Evidence In Exceptionally Fair, Careful Legal Process

Or to previous entry Appeal Session #10 Images: The Attorney General Of Tuscany Dr Tindari Baglione Breaks The News