Friday, May 27, 2011

Questions For Knox and Sollecito: Address These Several Hundred On The Hard Evidence

Posted by Our Main Posters

These questions were first addressed to Rocco Girlanda, the pro-Knox Member of Parliament. who came up empty-handed.

This Open Letter to Rocco Girlanda was first posted and sent to him in English on 9 November 2010. Six-plus months later, no response. We are now reposting it and mailing it in Italian, as Italian media and opposition MPs are interested in asking him these same questions.

Mr. Rocco Girlanda
Parliamentarian for Gubbio in Umbria
Chamber of Deputies
Parliament of Italy
Rome, Italy

Dear Mr. Girlanda:

Questions Concerning Your Hurtful Behavior Toward The Family and Friends Of Meredith Kercher

And Also Concerning Your Ethics, Your Politics, Your Legal Behavior, And Your Personal Behavior

Your book Take Me With You ““ Talks With Amanda Knox In Prison” is leaving readers with a number of disturbing questions as to your motives, timing and interests in writing the book and publishing it at this time.

These questions concern whether your book - or at least its publication right now, directly before the important first level of appeal - is in fact very unethical, and they also concern the appropriateness of the nature of your relationship with Miss Knox.

In order to put these these questions to rest, we are sure that you will be eager to know what they are, and to respond to them in your best way possible. We’d be pleased if you would reply to us through our return address, or - given the public nature of this discussion - email it for posting directly on the TJMK website.

Here are the questions we have assembled. Again, we thank you in advance for your replies:

  • Do you believe in the separation of the executive, parliamentary and judicial branches of government? Since you are a parliamentarian (and, in particular, a member of the judiciary committee), do you think that the publishing of your book at this time could be seen as being inappropriate, given the calendar of Amanda’s appeal for her murder conviction, as well as the ongoing trial for slander (for having accused the Perugian police of hitting her during questioning)?

  • When you visit prisons in your role as a parliamentarian, what is your main objective: perform an independent check and control over prison conditions, or befriend prisoners? After how many visits to Capanne prison did you realise that you had established a friendship with Miss Knox? How often do you visit prisons in Italy? Which other prisons have you recently visited? Do you visit men’s prisons? Do you regularly give gifts to prisoners, like the books or the computer you gave to Amanda? If you consider that the computer was not a personal gift but rather from the Italy-USA Foundation of which you are president, which other American prisoners in Italian prisons have received such gifts? Which criteria does the Foundation follow in deciding who receives gifts? (for example, prisoners who have expressed repentance, or prisoners who have to use free legal aid due to financial penury, or prisoners who contribute to awareness programs to help others avoid similar crimes in the future ....).

  • As president of the Italy-USA Foundation, you have expressed concern that this case has strained relations between the two countries. Have you spoken with the US Embassy in Rome about your concern?  Within the framework of Italian-US relations, are there any other issues which you think come close to your-perceived significance of Amanda’s involvement in murdering Meredith Kercher? (for example:  Italy’s middle east policy concerning talks with Palestinian organisations, or discussions about the acceptance by Italy of Guantanamo inmates, or the ongoing state of Fiat-Chrysler relations and investments, or the rooting out of organised crime, or even Berlusconi’s joke about Obama being handsome and suntanned?)

[Above: the village of Gubbio to the north-east of Perugia which Rocco Girlanda currently represents]

  • In your over 20 parliamentary privilege meetings with Amanda Knox, did she ever act in a bizarre manner, like performing cartwheels for you? Why didn’t you ever ask her about her murdered roommate, Meredith Kercher or in general about the crime? Can your book really be of any interest to anyone if it only contains bits and pieces of poetry and banal conversation, without linking Amanda to the case which has put her into jail? How can your book come close to one of its supposed objectives - that of trying to understand how a young person could be involved in a violent crime such as that of Meredith Kercher’s murder - it you make no reference to the crime?

  • You have stated that you have daughters similar to Amanda Knox. In what ways are your daughters comparable to Amanda? Studies? Personal life and use of drugs, or social habits with the opposite sex? Some other way?

  • Amanda wrote you a letter (amongst others) on 7 August 2010, where she tells you in Italian, “The only thing I can show you is my gratitude for your friendship and your support.” What is the extent and what are the characteristics of this friendship and support? Is Amanda’s gratitude one-sided, from the perspective of an emotionally weak prisoner who becomes dependent on any stranger who shows her the slightest kindness, or do you mutually share this friendship which she describes, between the two of you? Do you know if Amanda’s Italian legal team are aware of the extent of your friendship? Do you think that your friendship may actually somehow complicate her legal situation and strategy?

  • You describe an affectionate hug between you and Knox: “I blush. She holds me, I hold her. It’s a never ending embrace, without a word. If I said I didn’t feel any emotion I would be lying. Maybe my face reveals that.” is what was quoted in the Daily Mail. Have you ever told a priest, psychologist, psychiatrist, social worker, drinking buddy or your wife about your physical contact with Amanda and your nocturnal dreams which involve her? If so, what advice have they given you?

  • Did you attend any of the Knox-Sollecito trial sessions over the course of the year that it was held? (it would have been easy: you could have taken advantage of visits to your parliamentary constituency, just as you have found it easy to visit Amanda in jail). Are you familiar with the evidence? Are you aware that there are two other persons convicted for the same crime together with Amanda? Do you know if - like her - they write poetry and want to be parents when they are freed from prison (a number of years from now)? Do such desires for life under regained freedom make any convicted prisoner less guilty of the crimes they have committed?

  • Do you feel that there were any specific errors or problems with the investigation in this case which you believe may contribute to an incorrect verdict and sentence for the three suspects? Did Amanda get a fair trial compared to any other similar crime investigation and legal process in Italy?

  • Are you able to offer an explanation as to why not once have the Kerchers and their lawyer, Francesco Maresca, ever been worried about the trial outcome? After three years, why is it that Francesco Maresca still has no worries and is confident that the convicted will lose their appeals?

[Above: Mr Girlanda with images of herself by Amanda Knox released about simultaneously with his book]

  • Do you believe that any of the investigation or judicial officials involved in this case are corrupt, or that any type of corruption played a role in their activities? Don’t be shy, please identify those who did wrong amongst Prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, Prosecutor Manuela Comodi, Judge Claudia Matteini, Judge Paolo Micheli, Judge Giancarlo Massei, Judge Beatrice Cristiani, the six lay judges, Appeals Judge Emanuele Medoro, Homicide Chief Monica Napoleoni, Inspector Rita Ficarrra, DNA expert Patrizia Stefanoni, or any other person involved in this complex case. Was there a conspiracy of corrupt officials who directed an evil campaign against an obviously innocent girl with no real evidence against her?

  • As a followup to the prior question, do you know that not one credible international attorney or professor of comparative criminal law and procedure has taken the defense of Amanda Knox, claiming injustice in the Italian judicial system? Do you agree that the Italian criminal system is fair, balanced and completely pro-defendant?

  • Do you know that Italian citizens constantly complain of their relaxed criminal laws and that criminals are constantly set free even after being sentenced on appeal while waiting for the confirmation of the Cassation Court? For example, little Tommy would still be alive if Mario Alessi had been kept in prison after being convicted on appeal for raping a minor. As a politician, don’t you think the law should be changed by keeping violent criminals in jail after being convicted on appeal, in order to guarantee the security of the citizens of the country you represent?

  • Do you know that the Italian attorneys of Amanda Knox don’t approve of this media propaganda perpetuated by the Knox-Mellas clan, that seems intent on spreading falsehoods and misinformation, while at the same time blaming an entire country (the one you represent in parliament) for an alleged “wrongful conviction”?

  • In promoting your book, you have stated that during your more than 20 meetings with convicted murderer Amanda Knox, a “friendship” has grown. Would you classify that as a friendship of convenience or a friendship based on caring for the interests of the other? We ask that because it truly shocks us that Knox’s Italian legal team was humiliated, and Knox herself was deprived professional legal advice and support through the publication of your book without it being vetted by her lawyers.  “She is very worried,” said Knox’s lawyer Luciano Ghirga, declining to comment on the book which he said he has not seen. “She is not at her best. She is very worried” ahead of the appeal, he added. Although the book will likely change little in Knox’s legal predicament, I would have thought that a “friend” who was also a law-maker would realise the importance of consulting the other friend’s lawyers concerning the possible fallout of a personal literary initiative such as yours.

  • Do you know that the American Embassy has followed this case from day one and reported to the State Department? Do you know that the Embassy stated that the trial was fair? Do you know that the State Department never expressed concerns about the outcome of the trial?

  • Do you know that the only American politician that once spoke out regarding this trial was Mrs. Maria Cantwell from Seattle when she asked Mrs. Clinton to verify if Italy is a third-world country with a barbarian criminal system and if Amanda Knox was sentenced only because she is an American citizen?

  • How did you and your associate Corrado Maria Daclon prepare his list of contacts that he met with in his trip to Seattle when you were writing your book? Did some person or persons arrange for meeting with these contacts? Was this person associated with the Knox-Mellas Entourage?

  • Have you ever read the 430-page Sentence Motivation Report (“Dispositivo Della Sentenza Di Condanna”) written by Judge Massei who presided over the Knox-Sollecito trial?  Do you know that there is overwhelming evidence against Amanda Knox and that the information spread out by the expensive PR team, hired by the Knox family, is neither a complete nor trustworthy story?

[Above: Giulia Bongiorno. Concern that Rocco Girlanda has gone way beyond what is appropriate to his parliamentary privilege to visit prisons “to inspect conditions” is further inflamed by his presence on the Italian parliament’s Judicial Committee. This committee, amazingly, is presided over by Raffaele Sollecito’s lead defense lawyer: Giulia Bongiorno. Is Giulia Bongiorno turning a blind eye to Mr Girlanda’s extraordinary number of visits, which seem highly abusive of his privilege, and exceed the quota of any family member?]

  • Do you know that the vast majority of Americans have no idea of who Amanda Knox is? For example, if you look at the number of hits on videos posted by the Knox clan on YouTube, you would discover that few hundred people have visited the site. Also, do you know that the vast majority of Americans that have heard about this case think she’s guilty?

  • Do you know who Steve Moore is? As President of the of the Italy-USA Foundation, do you, Mr. Girlanda, approve the insulting assertions of Mr. Moore when he says that the Italian police questioning of Amanda is typical of a “third world country”? That is was “something close to water-boarding”? Do you know that Steve Moore said that Amanda’s accusation of Patrick Lumumba, an innocent man, was “recanted by Amanda as soon as she had gotten some food”? Do you know that this weird individual said that “the court of final appeal is going to be the press. It’s going to be the public”?

  • Have you ever read or seen Steve Moore on American national television? Do you know that he has been interview by all major American television news stations, spreading falsehoods and misinformation? Do you know that Mr. Moore has been accusing Italy as a whole as been responsible for what he calls a “wrongful conviction”, in a “railroad job” by a “psychopathic prosecutor”? Do you agree with him?

  • Of the crime scene, Steve Moore said that “there was blood everywhere. There were foot prints, fingerprints, palm prints, hair, fluid samples, DNA of just one person: Rudy Guede”. Do you know that Rudy Guede left very little evidence for someone who has admitted been there and touching everything? Do you know that Guede left no hairs, no saliva, no sweat, no blood, and no other bodily fluid at the scene of the crime? Do you know that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito left plenty of DNA evidence and footprints all over the crime scene? Do you know that Steve Moore is telling falsehoods? Do you know that the motivation report clearly explains, without a minimal doubt, that more than one person was present during the murder of poor Meredith? (Please do read Judge Massei’s report)

  • Steve Moore says that the interrogation of Amanda Knox at the police station “was the most coercive interrogation I have ever seen admitted into a court in the last 20 years”. Do you know that the interrogation at the police station on the evening of November 5, 2007, before the arrival of the prosecutor, was just 1 hour and 45 minutes and that Amanda was treated like any other witness that had just been caught lying?

  • Have you ever visited Raffaele Sollecito or Rudy Guede in jail and are you planning to write a book on them as well?

  • We have just heard that the bound edition of your Amanda Knox book has been pushed by the conservative publisher at least as far away as next spring. Could this be cold feet on the part of your publisher, who may not want to be associated with the public relations campaign of a convicted killer? Or of a disaster in terms of predicted sales? Your agent Patrick King seems in a furious rush now to get the book out one way or another for Christmas .... who on earth would want to give a Christmas gift to a friend or loved one which is composed of bizarre sweet talk with a convicted murderess?

  • Are you even slightly aware of the deep hurt which you have caused to the Kercher family and Meredith’s many friends with your book? Do you know that some persons with great sympathy for them have words for you like “a pretty cruel heartless bastard”?

Finally, Mr. Girlanda - and we thank you for your patience in responding to these questions, which many concerned Americans and non-Americans have helped us compile - you have indicated that the proceeds from the sale of this book will go to the U.S.A.-Italy Foundation of which you are president.

If this budget injection is not used to make gifts of additional computers for more American prisoners in Italian jails beyond Amanda Knox, would you please consider applying part of the book proceeds to the new scholarship that the Perugia city council has established together with the University for Foreigners, in memory of Meredith Kercher?

It would be a wonderful gesture which would respond positively to those many Americans and non-Americans who are concerned that Amanda Knox’s conviction for the murder of Meredith should not be spinned into a money-grubbing show-business performance, where the only victim of this case - Meredith - is forgotten, and instead through some sort of twisted publicity campaign, one of the guilty parties is converted into a sympathetic Mother Theresa who escapes fully responding for her crimes.

The original of this letter in English and Italian has been emailed and sent in hard copy to your office in Rome. We greatly look forward to your various responses and will be happy to post them in Italian and English here. 

Very many thanks in advance from people all over the world who are seeking true justice for Meredith

Signed in the original for the Main Posters Of TJMK
Who include a number of American and Italian lawyers


You can now follow True Justice For Meredith Kercher on Twitter via truejusticeorg.

Posted by The Machine on 05/27/11 at 07:43 PM | #

An interesting & thorough inquiry & no doubt useful as a device, but the Posters surely don’t expect an answer to this in any detail.

Girlanda comes across as a self-serving politician whose semi-erotic embrace of Knox anchors the heart-rending words of Amanda herself (presumably) “Take me with you!” in his own audacious Confession.

Such rot! Whereas the essential question here is whether a sentimental book, described as miscellaneous & evasive, can affect the verdict of the appeals court. And the answer is No.

Girlanda’s book, to be sure, is but a part of the Knox-inspired propaganda whose reach is world-wide. And yes, he is well-placed in Italy &, given his role, the book is insofar well-recommended.

But all this publicity on Knox & its incessant renewals on TV & elsewhere must affect the Italian court quite differently than what the pro-Knox campaigners are expecting.

And what do they expect, at this late date? They are utter fools if they expect (except in pretense) that Amanda’s sentence can be overturned. Far too much serious evidence has come before the public for that.  What they hope for (& what might even be possible) is a reduction in Amanda’s sentence.

But the Italian court will “break its back” to do the right thing now, the just & honest thing, just BECAUSE of this out-pouring of pro-Knox propaganda. They are veritably under the microscope of a watching world & must do everything to show forth the integrity of the Italian system.

Meanwhile, has Amanda herself learned anything during the long course of her imprisonment? She dresses more circumspectly for her court appearances, but as her every appearance also reveals, she takes deep satisfaction in being noticed & knows just how to behave to secure attention.
You may see this in the many slight movements of her head & her body language.

Otherwise, she has learned nothing. She shows no gain in honesty or insight. Her pretense to care for the truth to emerge is only that & her occasional tears & quavering voice in brief demonstrations reveal that she feels sorry for herself. This court will not fail to see it.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 05/27/11 at 08:35 PM | #

This letter addresses some very interesting points - especially Girlanda’s attention to prisoners in general, Italian or foreign-born.

Will Girlanda respond to how many prisoners he has ever visited, how many he visits annually, and how often? Why hasn’t he visited Sollecito or Guede? If Girlanda refuses to respond, why?

If his sole focus has been Knox, it really leaves one to wonder what his motives are, personal, professional and otherwise.

Posted by giustizia on 05/27/11 at 08:38 PM | #

For those interested in the pathology of the Amandii, there’s a very interesting cat fight going on in Huffington Post, American Public Opinion Molding Central
Mr Girlanda (and others) comes under heavy attack:)

Posted by Ergon on 05/28/11 at 01:28 AM | #

truejusticeorg can now be found using the Twitter search facility.

Posted by The Machine on 05/28/11 at 12:35 PM | #

On Ergon’s post above:

The Huffpost reference is worth a look both for article & the many comments—among which we find a few by Ergon also. As for his term (new here?) about the “pathology of the Amandii,” it is suggestive.

It’s the recent photo of which I would say a few words. Dressed in elegant satin & looking like anyone but a convict, she composes herself.  Were she quite relaxed, as head & shoulders imply, her bosom might be less prominent, I should think, although its frequent emphasis in her manner of dress is a veritable theme.

Consider also the forward tilt of the head, so characteristic of Amanda. She shadows her serious eyes but we are drawn to the pleasant smile of a good-looking young woman.

Yet this is not the face of innocence. Why does she not “present” her face?  Why is it not uplifted, like the candid face of innocence? She may show a kind of shy or sly reservation here but why is she not frankly brave?

A tilt of this sort—as we focus on the eyes—may remind us of a sort of aggressiveness, although here nicely veiled. Or if not aggressiveness, then possibly defiance, also veiled. Or if neither of these, at least Encounter.

Amanda smiles because she enjoys this.  She enjoys being noticed & may know that she is being photographed. Going beyond this: I posit as pathological (in full awareness that I offer mere hypothesis, betray my suspicion & assert my conviction of her guilt: my belief that the court has justly convicted her) Amanda enjoys more than the mere attention received. She enjoys the reason for that attention: her triumph, her deed, her famous accomplishment.

Can one read all this into a mere photograph? Or do I betray a suspicious man’s darker imagination, as on a Rorschach blot?  That is not impossible. And my appeal is to say, Then for God’s sake, let us have the psychological diagnosis of those professionals who have (or have they not?) interviewed this notorious young woman. High time that their own considered evidence (if there be any), I mean of course their honest professional opinion, be brought to bear. It could hardly be worth the attention of the court less than the miscellaneous gossips of four notorious convicts who would smudge the many fine points of evidence with cell-block hearsay.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 05/28/11 at 05:45 PM | #

As a new member I’m not sure if the question of Amanda and Rafaele’s hashish use prior to the murder and whether that was a causative factor was ever discussed in depth. It does feel like the present culture may deem it politically incorrect to posit a link between drug use and crime. Still, a perusal of the literature shows divided opinions on the issue of Drug Induced Violence. Here’s a 1955 WHO report:
The Problem of Cannabis ... crime.html

As explained in detail, with many examples on an earlier occasion,(50)the writer has no doubt that such a relation exists in many countries. Further affirmative views, based on facts, have been expressed by Fraser, Giulia, Rosies Orozco and Martinez, Gomez ,as well as by Warnock, as mentioned in the last chapter.
Recently, M. J. Pescor of the United States Public Health Service, recognized for his investigations on drug addiction, referred in a short review to the “consideral controversy about the effects of marihuana”. Whereas, in general, investigators in the United States of America regard marihuana smoking an a relatively innocuous vice, he adds that “it releases inhibitions which may account for the commission of crimes or the development of mental disturbances in certain pre—disposed Individuals”. This statement, which in the opinion of the writer is correct, seems to contradict seriously those who “are inclined to minimize the importance of smoking marihuana”.
Pescor adds, however, that many law enforcement officers (also in the USA, the writer believes) and scientific investigators, principally from countries other than the USA, “are fully convinced that the use of marihuana is an evil practice dangerous to the individual as well as society. At least it deprives the individual of good judgment, leading him to commit various antisocial acts. At the worst it drives him to orgiastic sexuality, brutal assault, murder, and eventual insanity”.
Pescor also indicates the following factors which perhaps may account for the differences of opinion: cannabis in the States is generally not as potent as that .obtained in other parts of the world; addicts in the USA smoke it diluted with a considerable amount of air, which would mean a very small dosage compared to that when it is eaten or drunk (infusions); experimental studies in the USA have been made in a controlled institutional environment where the subjects are not exposed to the same type of stimuli as in their natural environment. This viewpoint thus confirmed that expressed previously.(55). He adds further that in the USA the prolonged use of marihuana among addicts is exceptional; in the majority of instances, in some parts of the country, it serves as the introductory step to heroin or morphine addict particularly in the case of juveniles. Pescor concludes that there is every reason for not condoning its use, if on no other grounds than its tendency to lure its victims into more serious types of addiction.
Other authors from different countries and continents confirm the above viewpoint”

Posted by Ergon on 05/29/11 at 05:19 AM | #

Scroll down to page 641 “Agression and Violence”
“Ultra-potent skunk cannabis is seven times more likely to trigger psychotic illnesses such as schizophrenia than traditional hash, a study has warned.
The research, by the highly-respected Institute of Psychiatry in London, will deepen concerns over the safety of cannabis amid political controversy over its criminal status.
Dr Marta Di Forti, who led the research, said: ‘Our study is the first to demonstrate the risk of psychosis is much greater among frequent cannabis users, especially among those using skunk, rather than among occasional users of traditional hash”

Skunk is the selectively bred version of cannabis engineered to produce a higher THC level. It is now widely available in Europe. Were Amanda and Raffaele high on skunk?

Posted by Ergon on 05/29/11 at 05:02 PM | #

Ergon, thanks for bringing attention to the cannabis connection. Amanda was known to smoke a lot of marijuana at UW. Comments were made that she really got into it, beyond the average party user. Skunk (from what I’ve read) is now hydroponically grown and the THC levels as you say are much higher. A comparison I read was that if a typical marijuana cigarette had about 10 mg? of THC, the modern skunk would have 300. There’s even a strain of seeds sold to growers named AK47. It promises mindblowing reactions for the user.

Shrinks were saying they now see cases of severely affected young people who have smoked skunk. It unleashes pre-existing mental problems. One article said it’s like playing Russian roulette with your mental health. We know Raf was frequently doped up, and Amanda was on same road. Drug use tends to get worse over time. Raf apologized profusely to his father after the murder, saying he would NEVER smoke spliffs again, though what type he was smoking around time of Meredith’s killing who knows? I think there was a mix of drugs and alcohol.

Posted by Hopeful on 05/30/11 at 01:31 AM | #

Exactly how many members of parliment are there under Burlusconi’s coalition? I read that it was over 400. If that’s true, it would make Girlanda’s petition that much more pitiful, considering that less than 1% of parliment supports it.

Posted by Barry on 05/30/11 at 03:15 AM | #

Both vowed to give up their drug use although they both maintain they hadn’t done anything wrong - which is a bit strange in anyones book.

Drug use is of course no excuse for extreme behaviour resulting in the death of a housemate but I have no doubt skunkweed with added alcohol intoxication played a part in the death of poor Meredith.
Knox admitted to investigators herself that they were drunk and wanted to have “some fun”. She also characteristically lied and contradicted herself when she stated to police that she had smoked “one joint” that day.

I would personally rather like to see the pyschological evaluation carried out on the pair which was given to the judges while they ruled on whether to grant them bail or remand them to prison under lock and key.
As we know all judges ruled on the latter.

Posted by Black Dog on 05/30/11 at 11:54 AM | #

I think that ALL of us would like to read an in-depth psychological assessment of the pair!

To my mind that would conclude the one outstanding aspect of the case.

However I suspect that we are some time away from there being such an assessment and although a further intermediate assessment may feature in a re-consideration of sentencing I again doubt that much of it will be made public other than for what comments may be made on it in the judgement.

Posted by James Raper on 05/30/11 at 12:55 PM | #

Please watch Ali G - dangerous drugs on You Tube. The expert says one’s body is beautifully constructed. Seldom do so nicely constructed girls like Amanda commit such horrendous crimes. And even if the jury “got to know Amanda” like Edda wishes them to do, they and Edda still would not know what it was like for Amanda to be on a drug trip which definitely went wrong. Amanda must be punished and her family must learn to accept this fact.

Posted by Jade Tree on 05/30/11 at 01:58 PM | #

Hi Jade Tree,

Amanda Knox may have taken some dangerous drugs, but it’s also possible that she didn’t. We shouldn’t exclude the latter just because it’s less palatable.

There have been a number of high-profile cases where seemingly normal women from respectable backgrounds have committed horrific and senseless murders:

Posted by The Machine on 05/30/11 at 03:37 PM | #

Again we must thank The Machine for timely reference to “some of the cases of nice girls who killed…”

One of these killers, the Canadian woman Karla Homolka (not a bad-looking woman) can be seen in photographs taken (evidently) after her crimes: She is often smiling pleasantly, seems altogether complacent, is untouched by her crimes.

At 17 she met a 23-year-old man whose sadistic tendencies answered to her own, a fact discovered quickly (cf Amanda & Sollecito, who knew each other roughly a week or so before the rape/murder.)

On Dec. 1990 she raped her own sister (with him.) The girl, then unconscious, choked on her vomit & died.  Six months later the couple kidnapped a young woman, raped her over “a number of days” & videotaped these scenes. At last dismembered her & buried her pieces in concrete. Then ten months later, they kidnapped a 15-year-old girl, once again videotaping the assault. They killed her just before leaving for Easter Sunday dinner at the Homolka family (never explained about her sister’s disappearance—was there never a question?)

Homolka’s many smiles & evident complacency, afterward, show almost too clearly the psychopath’s incapacity for remorse (or guilt.)
Amanda’s own attractive smiles & (if recently) pleasant court-room demeanor mean exactly nothing about her “character” in view of much plain evidence.

Homolka served only twelve years.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 05/30/11 at 05:03 PM | #

Chamber of Deputies: total = 630; Berlusconi = 316.
Senate: total = 321; Berlusconi = 157.

Posted by ncountryside on 05/30/11 at 09:00 PM | #

So 630 total in Italian parliment, and out of that 316 are Berlusconi’s coalition.

Out of that 630, 321 make up the senate and 157 of that is Berlusconi’s coalition?

Forgive my total ignorance of Italian politics!

Posted by Barry on 05/30/11 at 09:32 PM | #


The Italian Parliament is a bicameral parliament i.e. is composed by the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies.

The Chamber of Deputies has 630 members elected.
The Senate has 321 members elected and/or nominated.
The Italian Parliament is then formally composed by 321+630=951 members.

Berlusconi’s alliance has 361 lawmakers in the Chamber of Deputies and 157 lawmakers in Senate; therefore Berlusconi’s alliance has the majority in both (separate) Chambers. Berlusconi’s coalition, in total, is composed by 361+157=518 members, this is eventually important when the Chambers work and vote together, for example for the new President of the Republic.

Now, 10 members in the Chamber of Deputies signed the question, i.e. the 3% of the Berlusconi’s majority in Chamber of Deputies or, if you prefer, the 1,6% of the Members of Chamber of Deputies, or also the 1,05% of the entire Italian Parliament.

Posted by ncountryside on 05/30/11 at 10:32 PM | #

Thanks, Ernest. We’ve no way of knowing whether drugs played a part in this murder or not, though it does seem like the court did take it into advisement. It’s also very hard to build a psychological profile on Amanda Knox without knowing her past history in the U.S. From what I have been able to observe so far, she does display a dissociative personality disorder.

Posted by Ergon on 05/30/11 at 11:38 PM | #

My first posting here, I found this on the Injustice in Perugia site. (see below)

“Michael Wiesner, a psychology, philosophy, and history teacher at a private high school in Honolulu Hawaii, brought the Amanda Knox case to the attention of his students while teaching psychology. Michael has been teaching at the high school level for 27 years, and has been awarded teacher of the year. His current classes are Honors World Civ and International Baccalaureate 20th Century History, but he also taught psychology and philosophy for 25 years.”

“His specialty is critical analysis of sources and media literacy. According to Michael, students need to know how to recognize bias and evaluate sources. He says that one aspect of psychology concentrates on attribution theory - how easy it is to misunderstand other people, their actions, and intent. Michael knows better than most that in order to understand both history, and the actions of human beings, context is vital. It was Michael’s many years of teaching on this subject that caused his peeked interest in the Amanda Knox case. Here’s Michael’s take on the case in a nutshell:”

“Amanda was misunderstood because she did not conform to conventional behavior. Her actions were taken entirely out of context. Then the media frenzy that created the false persona of ‘Foxy Knoxy’, the misinterpretation of trivial actions like length of cell phone calls, and the fabrication of possible motives without a shred of evidence, all led to a wrongful conviction. This is how conspiracy theories develop. Give meaning to meaningless events - and if you have enough of them, people are easily fooled.”

“Michael felt strongly that the Amanda Knox case was a great way to teach critical thinking to his students, leading him to use the case in his classroom as a means of discussion. Michael was pleased to see his students take a strong interest in the case:”

“Students relate to Amanda and Raffaele because they could be any one of them. My students joined the FB causes page, and then our school news team wanted to do this video for their last broadcast. They are following the case, and rooting for an acquittal”.”

Me again, sorry but how can this Teacher, claim that there were no evidence, and how can people believe this , it is freighting, to just read ...
Once again, people, not reading the Massei Report, just close their eyes to the facts.
Just love the sentence Facts in a nutshell… ???

Posted by Skuttie on 05/31/11 at 05:25 PM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry In Europe Human Rights Especially Privacy Trumping Web Defamers And Damaging Journalism

Or to previous entry Now The Grandstanding Junior Politician Girlanda Attempts Political Interference In Judicial Process