The Summations: Andrea Vogt Summarises Knox Defense By Della Vedova
Posted by Peter Quennell
Andrea Vogt has a report in the Seattle PI that adds significant detail to that of ABC’s Ann Wise below. Key excerpts.
“Amanda Knox never should have been arrested. And everything that has happened since then has been part of an attempt to maintain an accusation, that, bit by bit, has disintegrated.”
It began with “psychosomatic” observations of one powerful cop, he said, Edgardo Giobbi, the former director of the violent crimes division of the central operations unit in Rome, who on “investigator’s instincts” suspected Knox from the beginning.
“Immediately after the crime, they focused attention on her,” said Dalla Vedova. “They started recording her conversations. They were quick to say ‘case closed,’ but it was a mistake the police made in the beginning, then they couldn’t let it go.”
He played tapes of secretly recorded conversations between Knox and her other roommate in the days after the slaying. They comforted each other in broken Italian and English….
Like his colleague Giulia Bongiorno the day before, Dalla Vedova spent considerable time countering attacks on Knox’s character, reading letters from the owner of a Seattle art gallery where she worked and citing former teachers. He described her as a “regular girl leading an ordinary, serene life with positive values.”
“I’ve known her for two years. She is ‘soap and water’” he said, using the Italian phrase to describe someone as wholesome. Knox, in a conservative black turtleneck sweater and with her hair pulled back from her face in a neatly woven French braid, appeared concentrated on her lawyer’s every word.
Knox is also expected to make a statement to jurors, at whom she nods and makes eye contact with each time she enters or exits the courtroom. On Thursday, the prosecution and the Kercher family attorney will be allowed to give rebuttal remarks before the case goes to the jury for deliberations.
Francesco Maresca, the attorney representing the Kercher family, said the attorneys intend to remind the jury of the “ample and massive” amount of forensic and circumstantial evidence behind the prosecution’s case. But the defense has one more day to sow more seeds of doubt.
Any concrete evidence from Defence that they can prove??? That they were somewhere else, they did something else, etc??? Why were they at the door of the house with a bucket and cleaning supplies when the police found them just for a starter question?
It appears that there is no real solid alternative story that the defence has brought.
They have simply said that AK and RS could not have performed the murder because they are young, innocent and wholesome. That they are innocent because they are innocent, and that the DNA might be contaminated.
Because there is no credible alternative, it seems to me they are relying on rhetoric and the attempt to construct an image of the defendants, based on how they look.
I was waiting for something that might cast doubt on the prosecution’s case, something to chew on, but there does not seem to be anything.
AK and RS, freed from their mothers, acted out to disappoint their fathers. Two rebellious spirits hooked up, one an eldest daughter, one an only son, both with a need to appear on the world stage to vindicate careless upbringings. RG gave the shaft to his father similarly.
AK, RS, and RG are working out deep inner wounds from childhood. Sadly, Meredith appeared to them as a stern authority figure condemning and rejecting them like their fathers (and in RG’s case, his mother also) did. Rage, envy and the story of Cain all over again.
Breaks my heart.
I think the really sad part of this entire mess has been the apparent failure on the part of both the investigating police and the prosecution to concede from the beginning that this was a crime of passion, committed in various parts by three drunken, high, stupid kids. The confusion created around motive has been the only real weak point from the very start; all the parts are there, but the various attempts at tying them into a feud about hygiene, or an orgy gone wrong, or a stolen job, et. al. are just silly. The real tragedy—IF these two walk—is that the defenses have kinda had the door opened for them in closing arguments to create doubt about motive when a MOUNTAIN of circumstantial and crime scene evidence exists.
I’ve followed this site daily since its launch, and despite EXCELLENT work and writing, have yet seen anyone really tie up the motive in a solid way. Only in the past week or so has there been a hint that this could have been a spontaneous event (I’m referring here to the timeline presented by the prosecution in closing arguments that, let’s face it, was different than what had been argued—and followed here—during the summer). It made what should have been a rock-solid case appear open for interpretation :(
I’m a middle-aged guy, living in the U.S., who has also been a partying 20-year-old. I’ve seen first hand back then (and it’s only gotten worse these days) how out of hand young women and men can get when they have enough booze and dope in them. AK and RS were hung over as hell in those images that following morning, and I’m sure they had been up all night cleaning, fighting, and trying to figure out what had gone on, and how to appear innocent without anyone but each other to rely on for an alibi.
Fact is, this whole sad, sickening series of events probably went down with something as simple as a drunk little redneck girl getting into a shoving match with a young woman that was “being a buzzkill”, a drunk weirdo young man that loved watching girls fight prodding it all on, and a drug dealer from the ivory coast that was probably so incredibly high and drunk that he actually thought at the moment that he really was having a legitimate liasin. In the blink of an eye, it all goes over the line, and BAM! you start sobering up fast and scattering like roaches.
I honestly doubt the knife found was the murder weapon, or that there were even two knives used, and yet I STILL think they’re all three guilty just based on lies and luminol. I would loved to have seen less theory about motive and more pounding home of the facts by the prosecution.
just my 2 cents. really enjoy the site.
Nashville, you probably are right. This is the weakest link and the defence is banging on it.
I believe it was premeditated but not really planned. If I recall, RS was supposed to go with a friend to some place (airport?) but it was cancelled. AK had to work at Le chic, but that, also, was cancelled.
She had a grunge against Meredith, and they decided to “teach her”. Maybe they just said this idiot of RG that Meredith fancied him, or whatever ...
Once the prank started, Meredith’s anger stimulated them and brought them where there was no turning point.
It is obvious that only lies and luminol, and lacks of alibis are proofs that they are all involved. Who did what, as long as they do not want to talk, we may never know, but they all did something together…
I hope justice is served. Should they walk away… it would be like killing Meredith a second time, and freeing two dangerous kids into the world. Beware all, as then, AK would really feel invincible…
I agree, for the most part, with nashvilletn and Patou.
Let’s just hope the jury sees through all the smoke and mirrors to that mountain of facts. The facts do speak for themselves.
nashville, your viewpoint makes the most sense of anything i’ve read. so simple it is almost too difficult to grasp (i too am a middle-aged former partying college student). i also know how easy it is for a domestic conflict to turn deadly. while the evidence seems to point to the fact that the knife wasn’t the instrument that caused meredith’s death, i can certainly see amanda holding the knife and taunting meredith with it - hence, amanda’s dna on the handle and meredith’s dna on the tip of the blade but with no evidence of blood.
lies and luminol seal it for me as well. and, p.s. i think amanda has finally learned that when she speaks tomorrow, she will present herself as a “timid wee thing” - maybe even tears.
Patou—you point out something that makes it even more striking to me…Those cancellations were the result of other parties, making the plan even less likely in my eyes, but hey, those same cancellations opened up a great opportunity to “hang out, get messed up, and try some of this killer stuff this Ivorian guy I met claims to have…He’ll meet us over by the park, and we can just go to Amanda’s place, nobody’s home there anyway…”
...by the time Meredith arrives from her evening, they are all so ripped they can’t think to flush a toilet. She’s sick of it, her money is missing, and she’s outnumbered. A messed-up Amanda,given the existing tension and the numbers on her side, would have no problem at this point just layin into her, and no doubt in my mind the whole thing was turning the two boys on, Raf snickering and handing her a knife, and Rudy, stammering around gape-mouthed, barely knowing his own name.
Simple as that.
My worry is that I’ve just seen it before: 1994 and the O.J. Simpson trial, where for weeks Johnny Cockran simply denied the physical evidence(and was ALLOWED by the defense to do so), and then simply gave an impassioned speech about lack of motive in the final days of the trial, when all that evidence was in the rear view of the jurors…My hope is that with the Italian system, and it’s use of judges on the actual jury panel, that won’t happen here.
I would have liked to have seen the prosecution walk out of the gate with less about Curatolo, and others, putting together the timeline later, and more pointing out to the jury that Amanda has a history of boozed up confrontation, and that regardless of how it happened, kids get themselves into some messed up stuff, and here we have before us two(plus a third in jail) that stepped in something they simply couldn’t clean off….Now here’s the evidence…And with that, simply put the defense on the defensive, so that all the withdrawn confessions, the division among them, etc, were coming later in the trial, THEN backed up by rock-solid forensics that CAN’T be argued with on the back end of the prosecution’s case. This would have forced the defense to defend these things in the final days and keep them fresh with the jury—or even better, admit them during the course—rather than being able to dismiss them so weakly in the early stages and pounce on lack of motive now.
Booze, drugs, male posses, no one messes with me beotch; classy, humane Meredith had no chance against the zombies with broken souls from broken families. We all know a girl who ran the posses and whom you crossed at your peril.
Where next:Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page
Or to next entry The Summations: La Nazione On Arguments Of Knox Lawyer Della Vedova
Or to previous entry Barbie Nadeau Cracks The Mystery Of Why Sollecito’s Lawyer Was Arguing For Knox