Tuesday, February 04, 2014

Defense Dirty Tricks: Did We Just See Yet Another One, An Attempt To Compromise Judge Nencini?

Posted by Jools

Judge Nencini offers corrections

This is my translation of a statement from Judge Necini carried by the Florence GoNews website.

“In relation to the press articles that reported my statements on the trial for the death of Meredith Kercher I intend to point out that there has been no interview organized or pre-arranged.

I ran into some journalists in the corridors of the courthouse who told me of the rumors and speculations that were being circulated on the duration of the deliberation session.

I then had a brief talk with them meant, in my intention, to clarify possible misunderstandings. In this I accept responsibility, reaffirming that I did not agree to disclose in any way the reasons for the sentence.  In particular, I have not expressed any opinion on the strategy procedure followed by the defence of the accused.

In fact the only reference to that matter, reported in the article that appeared in Il Messaggero, is one in which I stated that the accused were defended in the process to a ‘very high standard.’

If my words have generated misunderstandings on this point and on the absolute legality of the choice of an accused to make spontaneous statements I regret it.

These explanations are dutybound for the respect I owe to the people who participated in the process with me and to the [Law] System of which I’m proud to be a part of; as well as for consistency in my professional history, with over thirty years of work carried out without spotlights and without interviews.”

Context for those corrections

This is in relation to the previous days articles claiming Judge Nencini supposedly gave an “inappropriate” interview to the press.

In very short order three or four lay members of the Superior Council of Magistrates (CSM) laid a complaint about non-appropriate conduct (under Art. 6 of the CSM rules) for a presiding appeal court judge to give press interviews commenting on the motivations reached by the judges on any sentence before its official publication.

Not surprisingly, the first people to complain were Bongiorno and Maori (grasping at straws, much?!!) and then to follow were these three or four lay members of the CSM, who happen to be also members of the centre-right political party “Forza Italia” (Berlusconi’s party).

As a result of the complaint made by these people, the Justice Minister, Annamaria Cancelleri, ordered an inquest on the allegations against Judge Nencini which could have led to his reprimand for disclosing details of the verdict reached to the press.

Personally, I think this all results from the desperation of Sollelcito’s defense and they have erncourgaed the others to instigate it. Making a meal out of nothing, in the hope that the whole appeal trial gets thrown out.

And let’s face it, it wouldn’t be difficult for Bongiorno to find some of Berlusconi’s people that are always looking for ways to attack members of the judiciary given Berlusconi’s hatred for the system. Just my opinion…

In any case, the allegations seem to be false, Judge Nencini actually didn’t say much, and the inquest will prove it, but in the meantime the press is concentrating on this rather than the hopeless work the defense produced. This maybe is the whole objective.

The later, longer interview

The interview by Fiorenza Sarzanini with Judge Nencini the following morning is claimed to be quite legal, because the decision of the court had been published the previous evening.

Andre Vogt kindly posted a very accurate translation on The Freelance Desk, and as it will scroll down soon and be hard to find, we can repost the full interview here.

The Freelance Desk

Posted 1 February

Italy’s most influential newspaper, the Corriere Della Sera, this morning has published a fascinating long interview with Judge Alessandro Nencini about his reasons for convicting Amanda Knox. The interview was done by one of the newspaper’s most veteran crime and investigative reporters, Fiorenza Sarzanini. Click here to read the original.

HEADLINE: Amanda and Raffaele: The Judge Speaks

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

SUBHEAD2:  “The defense had asked to separate the positions of the two accused, but Raffaele would not allow himself to be questioned.”

By Fiorenza Sarzanini

“I feel relieved because the moment of the decision is the most difficult. I have children too, and handing down convictions of 25 and 28 years for two young people is a very hard thing, emotionally.”

It is 10 am the day after the verdict and Justice Alessandro Nencini is in his office. The President of the Florentine Court of Appeals, which two days ago found Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito guilty of the murder of Meredith Kercher, knows that the decision will “open up new debate, especially in the media”, but that is exactly why he agreed to explain how the verdict was reached.

You deliberated in chambers for 12 hours. Was the judicial panel divided?

“The case files took up half of the room. There are 30 expert reports. The lay judges, who aren’t court staff, had to read all the documentation to reach a joint decision, as is expected in the appeals court.  You have to review all the documents, think about them, and reason.  We did that using all the time that was necessary, and taking into account the fact that the victim was also a young girl.

And then the decision was unanimous?

“I spoke of a joint decision. I can say that in all these months and in particular during the last session of deliberations, we carefully considered the gravity of a verdict that involves young people and their entire families. This is a case that has consumed many lives.”

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.”

Why didn’t you question Guede?

“For what purpose? He has never confessed and even if we had called him, he had the right to remain silent.  We didn’t think it was necessary.  Rather, we felt it was important to study the other aspects more in depth.  In fact we requested an expert report and heard witnesses about which there were doubts. That is the role of the appeal judges. In four months, we’ve been able to arrive at a result.”

Sollecito’s lawyers had asked you to split the defence.
“We’ll explain the point more in the reasonings, where we will explain why we rejected that request. In any case, Sollecito did not want to be questioned during the trial.”

And this influenced your choice to convict him?

“It is the defendant’s right, but certainly it removes a voice from the trial proceedings. He limited himself to making spontaneous declarations, saying only what he wanted to say, without being cross examined.”

Over the years, various motives have been speculated. What idea did you yourselves form?

“We convicted and we will explain it explicitly in our reasoning.  For now, I can say that up until 20:15 of that evening, these young people all had different plans, then their commitments fell through and the occasion for this to happen was created.  If Amanda had gone to work, we probably wouldn’t be here.”

Are you saying that the murder was just a coincidence?

“I’m saying this was something that unfolded between these young people. There may have been coincidences, and we’ve taken it into the reasoning. I’m aware this will be the most debatable part.”

Cassation demolished the acquittal. Will you as well?

“We are not going to mention it. We simply have to focus on the decision in the first instance (Massei) which we confirmed, on the facts.

And you don’t believe that there were errors?

“I didn’t say that. Some I believe there may have been and I’ll point them out.”

You convicted Amanda Knox, but didn’t issue any precautionary measures against her. Why?

“She is legally in the United States.  At the moment of the offence she was in Italy to study and she went home after having been acquitted. She is an American citizen. The problem will arise when it is time to carry out the sentence.  For now I don’t believe that such a measure wouuld have been necessary.”

So why then have you confiscated Raffaele Sollecito’s passport?

“It was the agreed minimum. In these cases such measures serve as prevention. We want to avoid that he makes himself impossible to find during the period of waiting for a definitive judgment.”

And you believe being forbidden to leave the country is enough?

“Yes, that seemed more than sufficient to us. If there are other developments later, we will consider them.”


Well that sure is a turnaround. Not unexpected. I am glad we did not leap in earlier. It sure did not smell right.  This story may still be developing, but here is my own present take on it.

1) Judge Nencini is approached (ambushed?) in the corridor of the courthouse last Thursday evening by a couple of reporters he doesnt know.

2) He is asked about the cause of the long duration of the judges’ deliberations, and he gives a respectful, innocuous, quite legal reply.

3) This emerges with some other (legal) remarks the next day as the huge “illegal interview” reported in various versions and wordings in the biased, suspect arms of the UK media.

4) Those reports include heated allegations of rules broken. So do shoot-from-the-hip statements of Bongiorno and Maori. So do complaints almost instantly filed with the CSM.

5) Remember Judge Micheli and Judge Massei also gave quick explanations to the press. Judge Hellmann gave various huge, clearly highly illegal interviews.

6) Judge Nencini is one of those driving investigations INTO BERLUSCONI’S OWN PARTY for huge bribes for contracts for Florence’s high speed rail link.

7) Judge Nencini is also a major mafia fighter, and there is stacks of evidence now that the mafia has leaped upon the Knox-Sollecito PR campaign bandwagon.

8) The Florence Prosecutor-General’s office is investigating Bongiorno for possible bribes offered to colleagues of the mafiosos witness Aviello in prison.

9) She is also being investigated for the possible inspiration behind the false accusations of crimes in Sollecito’s book.

10) She could face disbarment and even prison for some of this. A last desperate dirty trick would not entirely surprise us.

Cassation will not like this at all if there is the slightest whiff of illegality in ambushing or wrongly quoting Judge Nencini.

Sollecito and Knox really should fire their sleazy teams, and get lawyers who can help them.

Not drop them in deeper and deeper.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/04/14 at 03:59 AM | #

Thank you, Jools and Peter, for your competent and timely posts. Well done!

Posted by Bjorn on 02/04/14 at 04:50 AM | #

There can never be true justice for Meredith because nobody can return her life.  There is no way to make her family and friends ‘whole’ again because the murder shattered their social compact.

It still exists but that night is doesn’t seem real to them anymore. This brings them closer to the truth than your average human living the developed world.

There is no justice for anyone in this existence. It’s all random and meaningless. Which is why we invent gods and write fairly tails. From the very core of matter to the infinite it’s just a reflection… literally a reflection of what’s actually ‘real’.

I’m putting down the bong.

Posted by stevema14420 on 02/04/14 at 04:51 AM | #

[Re Andrea Vogt’s translation of Sarzanini in Corriere] I think it’s essential that people see for themselves what Judge Nencini actually said. 

For the most part, what he says is rather obvious, such as the fact that the court carefully considered the evidence, that they followed the Supreme Court’s directions without being in any way forced to arrive at a guilty verdict (crucial point), and that the travel restrictions for Sollecito were necessary, while similar measures for Knox were probably outside their jurisdiction for now, until an extradition request can be forwarded to the US. 

For the rest, he didn’t give any direct answers, but explained that the information will be available in the motivation report.

The only part the defense and their party colleagues appear to have latched on is the answer regarding Sollecito:

“Q: Sollecito’s lawyers had asked you to split the defence.

A: We’ll explain the point more in the reasonings, where we will explain why we rejected that request. In any case, Sollecito did not want to be questioned during the trial.

Q: And this influenced your choice to convict him?

A: It is the defendant’s right, but certainly it removes a voice from the trial proceedings. He limited himself to making spontaneous declarations, saying only what he wanted to say, without being cross examined.”

For the first question, he defers the answer to the motivation report.  However, he adds a very important element: Sollecito did not want to be questioned.  The following answer is simply an elaboration on this point.

In his statement to the media, Sollecito said that he would have been willing to be questioned, had the court only asked.  Based on what Nencini says, it appears that he might have actually been asked to do so, but he and/or his lawyers refused?

Nencini doesn’t actually say that Sollecito’s refusal to submit to questioning contributed to the latter’s conviction (i.e. that it had a negative effect).  He implies that it simply didn’t contribute anything positive to a neutral baseline.

The absence of something positive does not imply the presence of something negative.  It just means that in the absence of a positive addition, the court had to consider the case in the light of available evidence and testimonies, which were not favorable to Sollecito.

It seems that the wild accusations against Judge Nencini are very politically-motivated and that the case itself is only a small pretext in a much larger context.  I hope the inquest is fast and that it affirms once and for all that Nencini’s statements were within legal parameters.  If so, Bongiorno and Maori should be disciplined.

Posted by Vivianna on 02/04/14 at 05:34 AM | #

Mamma Mia, Judge Nencini!  Like I said in a previous post, in the US, Judges may not comment on a pending matter.  There is this magic phrase:  “No Comment.”  The judge may then refer the reporter to a court spokesman or administrator. 

This is an unforced error.

Why give the critics any ammunition at all?

Judges should not give a flying fig if somebody thinks they are hiding something. Most people understand an explanation that judges cannot make comments outside the courtroom.

Everything here will be examined in microscopic detail when the extradition case is sent to a US Federal Court someday.

In the meantime, the Italian Judges need to just SHUT THE HELL UP !

Posted by Gonzaga on 02/04/14 at 06:09 AM | #

As for “ambushes” by the media, I am sure Judge Nencini was not born yesterday.

Posted by Gonzaga on 02/04/14 at 06:10 AM | #

I could live with a situation where the judges say less when not on the bench and the prosecutors say a little more.

This would have helped contend with Sollecito’s claim that he was “waiting to be heard” but no-one asked him.

We know from our own interviews in Perugia that in 2009 THE PROSECUTION DID ASK TO CROSS-EXAMINE HIM.

Bongiorno and Maori were quite adamant that he would never say something, especially after Knox’s cross-examination shot her feet-wise.

It was his own lawyers who were ensuring his quietness. Not Mignini.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/04/14 at 07:21 AM | #


Without excusing it if ultimately it turns out to have been not such a good idea, I can understand where Nencini is coming from.


The Post WWII justice system as considerably updated in the 1990s is intentionally the most pro-defendant in the world, and with its automatic appeals and so on it grinds all the official players down.

Just now and then these statements float out in frustration.


This was written by an Italian lawyer within the Italian system (business) and you can sense his exhaustion - and in his case he isnt even on the official team!

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/04/14 at 07:45 AM | #

The sleazy Defence parties will stop at nothing. 

After all there are chunks of lives at stake - 25 years and 28.6 years to be precise.

Posted by thundering on 02/04/14 at 09:56 AM | #

Poor Judge Nencini…someone who seems full of integrity to me, conscientious, and thorough in his grave responsibility.

What about the code of ethics for the journalists? catching him off guard in the corridor at a vulnerable point, asking leading questions and then disingenuously slanting his answers?

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/04/14 at 11:45 AM | #

Below is also the interview of the Judge Hellman who acquitted Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in 2011 and note he was NEVER disciplined!


Posted by True North on 02/04/14 at 11:54 AM | #

Bongiorno - she’s quite something isn’t she?  I would not be surprised in the slightest that she is behind this latest set up of Judge Nencini.

From Sollecito claiming he wasn’t requested to speak in court and be cross examined (when all the time he hid, cowering behind Bongiorno in court) to the very bad smell of Judge Chiari being ‘moved’ off the case and replaced by the Knox & Sollecito friendly Hellman & Zanetti at the 11th hour, Bongiorno pregnant and delaying the trial to ridiculous lengths due to her pregnancy, the bizarre witnesses she produced including making the court hear a man who had murdered a child with a shovel, her witness Aviello claiming he had been offered bribes by Bongiorno (in which she screeched that she will take legal action against him but so far hasn’t for some reason) to hysterically waving a large kitchen knife around in court like a mad woman at the appeal.

Yes I wouldn’t put this latest attempt at dirty tricks past Bongiorno.

Posted by DF2K on 02/04/14 at 01:01 PM | #

One awaits, with bated breath, the upcoming charges against Bongiorno, Knox(es), Mellas, Sfarzo, Hellmann, Conti and Vecchiotti; compliance with the FOIA requests re: Hampikian’s correspondence with the defense and C&V; the shame of the MSM and the PR effort they cheerlead, and, justice, finally, for Meredith Kercher.

Posted by Ergon on 02/04/14 at 02:44 PM | #

It really doesn’t matter. I, for one, appreciated the Judge’s comments.  It went a long way in shutting the American press up.

If the convicted (mercy, that has a nice ring to it) want another judge to convict them, well, I’m not going anywhere.

This is the ‘kicking and screaming part.’

180 days (or less) to extradition.

‘Ice Maiden’ gotta love it.

Posted by mylady007 on 02/04/14 at 02:54 PM | #

Raffaele is complaining that he wasn’t asked to answer questions and that if he thought that it would have helped his defence then he would have done so.

What a weasel comment!

There was nothing to stop him making himself available for cross examination at any time in the three hearings so far and one can only infer from this that he didn’t want this and nor did his lawyers. Maybe I’m missing something about the Italian way of doing things but in the adversarial system I am used to each side presents their own case with their own witnesses. Since when is an accused to be considered a prosecution witness? What happened to the right to silence which right, apart from his irrelevant spontaneous declarations, Sollecito has adamantly exercised throughout and clearly for his own reasons?

What does interest me in the Nencini interview is the proposition that Bongiorno had asked for “the defence to be split”, whatever this means. This, it seems, is not denied by Nencini, as he says that the request was rejected and that he would deal with that aspect in the Motivations.

I was not aware until now that there was a request as such. What I would quite like to know is exactly what Bongiorno was asking of the court.

Sounds like she was suggesting that somehow the court should compartmentalize the evidence, putting all that specifically incriminating her client in one locker, and the evidence against Knox in another, and then make a decision on the evidence in each locker without peeping at what was in the other. And never mind the evidence that links the lockers together! Fat chance!

In any event there would surely have to be a reason for the court to even contemplate doing this, and as far as I am aware none was ever advanced by the defence.

I think that we all know what was the unstated objective, and so did Nencini, even if neither Bongiorno nor her client wanted to be clear about it. But then how could she have realistically advanced a lesser role for her client in the events of the 1st/2nd November without a complete volte-face and putting her client on the stand?

In any event the opportunity has come and gone and I think that Bongiorno is pissed off by this as well, and the fact that Nencini read her so well. But it’s no good smarting, blaming others, creating distractions, and laying down smoke screens. It will get her nowhere.

Bongiorno comes across as a bit of a spoilt and childish brat when things have not gone her way.

PS. Yep, Nencini should have kept his trap shut but if anything happens it will just be an admonishment. It will not affect the result of the appeal. The verdict has already been pronounced and at the end of the day at least a majority of the judges will have to approve the written rationale for the verdict.

Posted by James Raper on 02/04/14 at 03:25 PM | #

@James Raper. Thank you. Glad to hear your P.S.

I remember distinctly that in an earlier session of this present appeal just completed ( I thought it was in a December session),- that at the end of the session, Judge Nencini made a very particular point of addressing Sollecito (perhaps it was after his ‘spontaneous declaration’ day?)... saying that he, the judge, was open to Sollecito coming forward if there was anything at all he wanted to say, to add…. He could make a submission to the court. But, also, that if he didn’t do this over the next couple of weeks, over Christmas, it would be late at the end of the appeal.
I remember distinctly, because he made this very clear, at the end of a long day.

I thought at the time he was being as generous as he could be to Sollecito, and encouraging him to talk, if he wanted to of course. For a little while, I had a wan hope that he would. But after his lawyers summed up his defense earlier in January, I realized he wasn’t going to.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/04/14 at 04:43 PM | #

Nencini, welcome to Mignini’s Club. Membership is open to judges with immense integrity who are rewarded with bites and tusk slashes from rabid opponents. Mignini broke his head and heart for years over this miserable case, attacked on every side and slandered as a biased man. The pack went so far as to call him mentally unstable because he didn’t blind himself with the lame excuses of pro-Knox rabble rowsers. Yet Mignini finally came through the fire vindicated. He and the upstanding and courageous Nencini who has served justice for 30 years without a taint, can now both wear the blazer with gold insignia of the Mignini Club, “to the stars through adversity.” They are like the Leopard of refined Lampedusa family in Gattopardo. Their envious enemies the jackals, wolves and lynxes snarl around them in frothing fear and hatred to take them down but they can never change the valiant Leopard.

@Vivianna, ditto on all you said, and so very well stated. @James @Peter I agree, Nencini has been set up and in a moment of compassion fatigue he spoke in an effort to clarify and to defend Italian justice, but he underestimated the ferocity of the presspack and his enemies to twist words. Look at how they skewed everything Mignini tried to say.

Yes we wish Nencini had said nothing, to have issued a terse “no comment” and pushed through the ambush. Naturally the losing parties want to misconstrue his meanings, to find insinuations behind innocuous words. It’s their jaundiced eye and jaundiced agenda of the defense, Shameless in Seattle was a proper headline. Rafaelle’s lies about not knowing he could be cross-examined as if to blame an erudite judge for his own campaign of craven silence are an echo of his lies about not fleeing the border for Slovenia. He was ready to run at the first whiff of an arrest order.

Posted by Hopeful on 02/04/14 at 05:06 PM | #

The main judge for each stage of the trial has addressed the media in the past in a similar manner.  Hellmann’s statements at the time were far more controversial than Nencini’s, since he talked about the truth established in court versus the actual truth, which made the acquittal seem quite manufactured.  None of them was subjected to an inquest or admonished, as far as I know.  Why the double-standard now?

Posted by Vivianna on 02/04/14 at 05:07 PM | #

IMHO the defence barked too soon, betraying their dirty tactics. It is (again) a badly miscalculated step, *before* seeing the written verdict, which will see them treated to an impeccable document. Nencini’s demeanor will also change, and the jackass press can kiss goodbye getting anything out of a judge, other than the official version. Just my prediction.

Posted by Bjorn on 02/04/14 at 06:45 PM | #

Hi James Raper and Vivianna.

Terrific on all those pesky questions that RS is holding his breath for…

Before even seeing your posts, I was running over many of those questions (many originally from you) in my own mind. A main post is definitely called for.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/04/14 at 08:29 PM | #

Great comment from MyLady007 which had me smiling:

“It really doesn’t matter. I, for one, appreciated the Judge’s comments.  It went a long way in shutting the American press up.

If the convicted (mercy, that has a nice ring to it) want another judge to convict them, well, I’m not going anywhere.”

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/04/14 at 08:31 PM | #

Hi DF2K and Ergon

Yes your list of defense dirty tricks is spot-on (though there are even more) and unlike this storm in a teacup they really will attract punishment.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/04/14 at 08:33 PM | #

Great comment from MyLady007 which had ME smiling:
This is the ‘kicking and screaming part.’


Posted by Helder Licht on 02/04/14 at 09:55 PM | #

And “the show must go on” @CNN, now with RS.

Posted by Hungarian. on 02/04/14 at 11:10 PM | #

This is just in from a UK reader with fast eyes - can anyone see the 105 signatories?


You may be interested to know that a letter has just appeared in The Guardian (normally a respectable, liberal newspaper which has unaccountably been hitherto completely buying the pro-Knox propaganda).

The letter, at http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/04/case-against-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito, has 105 signatories.

The Guardian’s repeated casting of the Meredith Kercher murder trial as a gross miscarriage of justice for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is disturbing (Reports, 1-4 February). Undoubtedly, the case is complex and shrouded in ambiguity and uncertainty. However, there are at least three points which are certain.

1) During the pre-trial, trial proper, and retrial, different judges and juries have, after close and prolonged examination of all the evidence, concluded there is enough evidence against the defendants to find them guilty of the murder charge against them.

2) The appeal in which the defendants were acquitted was overturned after the supreme court found it to have “multiple shortcomings, contradictions and inconsistencies” and that the “evidence against [the defendants] had been underestimated”.

3) At the same time as she was originally found guilty of murder, Amanda Knox was also found guilty of slander and subsequently sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for having accused an innocent man of the crime. Although acquitted of murder on appeal, the slander charge was upheld. At the time of the acquittal, Ms Knox had spent four years in jail, ie she effectively served the slander sentence while on remand. Therefore, she has not in fact served any time in prison for a crime she did not commit (although the same could not be said for Mr Sollecito if the final outcome of the legal process were to find him not guilty).

Assertions such as those made by Andrew Gumbel (himself a co-author of Sollecito’s autobiography) that Knox and Sollecito have been reconvicted “without a shred of evidence to substantiate the verdict” are untrue and undermine the gravity of the case, as does a one-sided interview with Ms Knox during which the evidence against her is barely addressed.

Only those in the courtroom are in possession of the full facts; it is only they who should make pronouncements on what the outcome should or should not be. Until then, the best course of action would be to wait for the (admittedly, grindingly slow) Italian legal process to come to its conclusion.

Georgia Ladbury, Friya Engineer, Jen Rouse and 105 others


Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/04/14 at 11:33 PM | #

This is just in from a reader in Italy with sharp eyes - Judge Hellmann saying HIS speaking out late 2010 was somehow quite different. Perhaps James Raper or someone could weigh in on this.



Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/04/14 at 11:35 PM | #

As you know, I do not usually comment as I learn more than I could teach 😊

However, Sollecito seems to distanciate himself from Amanda. He has been judged because of “someone else’s strange behaviour”. There is no evidence agains him and “nothing serious” against her (or something similar, he does not use these words).

He and her, anyway, are natural born liars. Not a shame in the world!

Posted by Patou on 02/04/14 at 11:47 PM | #

Good one, Peter [re the letter in the Guardian].

Meanwhile, over here some of us are pointing readers to truejustice.org to get the facts.


We seem to be in the ascendant. + using a pseudonym i have ticked the Guardian off for its approach so far.

Posted by nopassingby on 02/05/14 at 12:04 AM | #

While noting that Sollecito has a lawyer from the Holloway case (perhaps a PR move to engineer US sympathy) I was more concerned by the triumphant tone in his voice when he spoke of being available for questioning throughout the appeal.

If the judge asked to question him would it then become the retrial situation Hellman conducted in the first appeal?  He said he and Knox will appeal, interesting as the grounds for such will only be known when the Nencini report is released.

Posted by Moniker on 02/05/14 at 12:42 AM | #

@ thundering:  “The sleazy Defence parties will stop at nothing.”

@ DF2K:  “Bongiorno - she’s quite something isn’t she?  I would not be surprised in the slightest that she is behind this latest set up of Judge Nencini.”


I had the exact same thoughts when I first heard about Judge Nencini.

The defense’s “dirty tricks” are endless.

All Thank You all for setting the record straight on this matter.

Posted by MissMarple on 02/05/14 at 01:29 AM | #

Judge Nencini rocks it as far as I am concerned. But, did he consider a desperate murderer would probably get fake papers? Seems naive to me.

Yes, we have so many reverberating actions coming from the senseless murder of Meredith Kercher…  there is still much to know.  Thanks TJMK for keeping us well informed. Thanks to everyone who reads and responds..

They all suffer from the consequences of their actions…  even if not incarcerated (yet). I see the strain is great.  I predict major drama on horizon. This time, I block all questionable sorts. No foolin around.

Keep watching AK’s changing appearance…  I would not be surprised if it leads somewhere.

Posted by Bettina on 02/05/14 at 02:29 AM | #

I am getting impatient with all the denials and all the accusations against the Italian justice system by Knox’s supporters. I am giving up. I consider Meredith having been attacked and killed by dogs. How do you talk to dogs and ask them to confess?

Posted by janenewyork on 02/05/14 at 09:43 AM | #

Do not know if this was already mentioned but Sollecito himself asked formally (with lawyers spreading the verb all over the press) to be interrogated by PM in November 2007 and then at the interview on Dec 6 or 7 he decided for silence. The day before Guede had been taken back to Italy.

Posted by Popper on 02/05/14 at 01:04 PM | #

Don’t insult dogs like that.  They are wonderful loyal loving creatures with a few exceptions, usually badly trained by incompetent or evil humans.

Posted by believing on 02/05/14 at 01:08 PM | #

I find ridicolous anyway that Sollecito has a US lawyer with whom he gets “questioned” in a friendly way by US networks ...

But refused to be interrogated with his real lawyers by Judges and PMs several times. 

He does not fool anyone.  His stating Nencini said he would be acquitted if he spoke is an outright lie, a slanderous statement made with malice.

Posted by Popper on 02/05/14 at 01:31 PM | #


Yes, exactly. And Judge Nencini was correctly stating nothing but a fact, and a known fact, that Sollecito exercised his right to silence at the TRIAL .

And, as we all realize, but far too many persons do not, this appeal was not a trial, or a retrial, and the procedure and parameters were strictly defined.

It is disappointing but not at all surprising that the defence continues in the same vein.

It is all part of the fabrication that stems from Denial. The pattern is that those doing this will manufacture their own crises.

A shame for those, especially in the media, who are allowing themselves to be pulled into this unhealthy ’ game.’

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/05/14 at 01:34 PM | #

Sollecito does not need a US lawyer in the Italian jail where he will soon be serving his likely sentence.

Posted by Popper on 02/05/14 at 01:34 PM | #

Perhaps I’m missing something here and I note that some other commenters have mentioned it too.

If this is a new First Appeal that has just ended, then either side is able to appeal to the SC but only on legal grounds of process.  That is, the appeal does not go over the evidence again but over the process.

These were the grounds of the successful Second Appeal which saw the Hellman First Appeal annulled.

So on what grounds, other than those, can Bongiorno and Maori appeal?  How can Knox be sayng she’s appealing because she is not guilty and wants this awful travesty overturned?

Surely the verdict part of it is done and dusted and all that is left is the legality of the decision?

Posted by James Higham on 02/05/14 at 02:25 PM | #

Hi, James, yes the court will only consider legal arguments, but it is still early days, Judge Nencini has 90 days to file a motivations report, the defense 45 (?) days to file an appeal.

The early ambush of Nencini helps our side immensely, since he will now, having been warned (and no judge likes having their decisions overturned) probably add another 20 pages to his report to address the issue of joint liability of Knox and Sollecito, and, his reasons for his (seemingly unusual at the time) suggestions that Sollecito speak up further on his own behalf.

He will even mention Knox’s e-mail to him, which is funny to even think about right now, since all she did was confirm how they were both flight risks, and if she was too scared to appear in court, then placing travel restrictions on Sollecito would be justified.

Which he proved with his ungainly flight to Austria, returning only after he heard there was no order of preventative arrest, just that he would have to surrender his passport.

I expect a tough, hard hitting motivations report from the very experienced Judge Nencini.

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

I thought I would place this link here as well…someone kindly put it on PMF:


It is a John Carlson talking on the radio in Seattle.

Obviously, being In England I know nothing of this, but it was very refreshing to hear of some of the US media talking a lot of sense..

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/05/14 at 05:58 PM | #

Latest excellent report examining the Knox and Sollecito PR campaign by The Week with The First Post columnist Andrea Vogt.



Posted by True North on 02/05/14 at 08:49 PM | #

Thank you for posting a link to the Guardian letter, Peter. I cannot see the 105 signatories; I wish I were one of them.

Posted by Ann-Marie on 02/05/14 at 09:45 PM | #

@Egon: thank you!

“The early ambush of Nencini helps our side immensely, since he will now, having been warned (and no judge likes having their decisions overturned) probably add another 20 pages to his report to address the issue of joint liability of Knox and Sollecito, and, his reasons for his (seemingly unusual at the time) suggestions that Sollecito speak up further on his own behalf.”

makes sense to me

Posted by itsneverBoW on 02/05/14 at 10:01 PM | #

John Carlson is the calm reality himself. I really like his commentaries and listening him a lot when I am driving. I am somehow missed this early program, so thank you very much for pointing it out SeekingUnderstanding.

Posted by Hungarian. on 02/06/14 at 03:30 AM | #

The link from True North has been changed, it’s now here :


Posted by Sylviane on 02/06/14 at 04:44 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 The Hubristic, Meanspirited PR Campaign: What Sort Of Life Has It Left Knox And Sollecito Now?

Or to previous entry Authors Of “Math On Trial” Bring The Explanations Of The Hard DNA Evidence Up To Date