Tuesday, July 07, 2009

Trial: Italian Reporting On Autopsy Consultant Seems Brief And Unswayed

Posted by Peter Quennell


We had long been led to believe the testimony of Carlos Torre might be a blockbuster which could energize a lackluster defense.

Click above for the longest report of the day that we can find in Italian. Even ASCA’s report seems relatively brief and restrained. No sense of a breakthrough there.

ASCA reports that Mr Torre interpreted the wound pattern on Meredith to mean that a smaller knife was used for the final blow “with a blade of 8 cm which was partially extracted and plunged in at least 3 times”.

As the size of the wound is large, he claimed a repeated partial in-out action of the small knife, rather than blows from the larger kitchen knife with a blade of 16 cm found in the kitchen of Sollecito, on which traces of the DNA of both Meredith and Amanda Knox were found.

Also that the final blow occurred while Meredith was lying on her back, that there were no signs of three aggressors, that Meredith could not have cried out after the stab wounds, and that bloody footprints revealed under luminol were not the shape of Knox’s foot.

Mr Torre conceded under cross-examination that a wound of the size of the larger knife was also present, and he left the DNA evidence of Knox and Meredith on that larger knife unchallenged, thus undercutting his claim of a single perpetrator.

The prosecution team had presented extensive evidence that the bruise patterns and cut marks indicated that Meredith was kneeling face-down at the time. And that they all pointed to three attackers, rather than a single attacker wielding two knives with only one hand free both to hold her and to inflict bruises all over her body.

Judge Micheli in seeing most of the same evidence concluded in his report convicting Guede and sending the two to trial that a scream heard by witnesses in the houses above was probably Meredith’s last act before she was stabbed, not right after.

And last month, Sollecito’s defense team essentially went along with the prosecution experts’ claims for the autopsy and attack scenario, so for the first time the defense teams significantly differ.

Thankfully, besides being terse, the reporting was not very graphic, in this the most painful of all areas for those who mourn Meredith the most.


Good morning, Peter. The testimony of Torres seems most noteworthy for the absurd remark he made to the effect that if two knives were used ‘it would be the first time in history that two knives were used to commit a murder.’

Here’s the link to comments on Ann Wise’s ABC News piece which addresses Torre’s testimony:

Posted by wayra on 07/07/09 at 03:26 PM | #

Thanks, Wayra. Torre surely remembers this famous local case His previous two clients are sitting in prison right now, by the way.

If the lone-wolf theory still has any traction at all we seem to be missing it. The general mood among informed watchers seems to be: don’t bore the jury with improbables which Judge Micheli already dismissed, move on, and find something else to win them over.

Finn’s piece on the phonecalls below amazed some people, and he has not yet finished mining that area. Denying all guilt in face of narratives of facts like that might already be a loser.

If there is some degree of guilt, perhaps plead a lesser role? Or perhaps go for a psychological defense? Or, perhaps best of all, become deeply penitent to Meredith’s family and to the court?

That can lead to leniency of sentencing in Italy.  Otherwise the defendants might both end up in the sex offenders wings where Guede is sitting right now.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 07/07/09 at 04:00 PM | #

I don’t think he was talking about the bloody shoeprint but rather a bloody footprint, because he said something about her second toe being longer than her first, which is not something you could tell from a shoeprint, but is something that might show up on a (bare) footprint.

Posted by malcolm on 07/07/09 at 05:14 PM | #

Hi Malcolm, thanks for the correction on the footprints, which is now incorporated in the post above.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 07/07/09 at 05:36 PM | #

How does someone kneel face-down? I can’t picture the pose.

Posted by malcolm on 07/08/09 at 06:43 AM | #

I have a problem with the defense theory that this is just a burglary gone bad.

Let’s assume that Rudy (or any other lone person) simply wanted to steal stuff from the house, and while he was at it he was caught by the returning owner of the house (Meredith).

Wouldn’t a normal thief simply try to escape and run away? Let’s assume that the owner would be able to recognize him (as MK probably could since she knew him). In that case maybe he would kill her and then run away. But I’ve never heard of a thief that, caught in the act of stealing, decides to have intercourse with the person catching him stealing, before killing that person and fleeing the scene. How could the defense think of something so far fetched?

I also have problems with the theory that Rudy entered the house thru the broken window, which he climbed using the bars from the window below. Wouldn’t, in such scenario, Rudy’s fingerprints be on the window bars that he used to climb the wall? and wouldn’t his fingerprints be on the window, window latch, and probably glass of Filomena’s window? and wouldn’t his fingerprints be on the outside shutters, which he had to open to break the window and close after he was in?

Candace Dempsey advances the theory that maybe he used a long stick to open the shutters before throwing the rock at the window. But where is that long stick? Did he take that to Germany? And with so much broken glass on the floor, wouldn’t he had stepped on some of them and maybe carried them in other parts of the house? And why would he throw filomena’s clothes all over the place when there were computers in plain sight? Was he into fashion only? He must have been, that’s why he took that picture with Armani.

I’m going to suggest that line of defense to Candace Dempsey. I bet she’ll come up with the idea that Rudy broke into the house to do Meredith’s laundry, that’s why the washing machine had her clothes inside fresh from a wash.

Posted by Commissario Montalbano on 07/08/09 at 08:00 AM | #

Hi Malcolm. Scroll down to the graphic here. The last full day of the prosecution’s case consisted of this reconstruction of the final act. The Italian media reported on it in some detail but there was next to nothing about it in the English-speaking media.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 07/08/09 at 01:15 PM | #

How can the crazed defense team bring in Torre to testify for a Lone-Wolf theory, and how can this infamous Torre be so negligent in his collection of the facts from which he derived his conclusion?

If it were a lone-wolf (Guede), how can Torre explain the shiny clean recently-mopped corridor floor leading to the bathroom next to Meredith’s room? What thief would clean his bloody foot-steps from the corridor but leave his shoe print in the victim’s room? Surely, someone else must have mopped the corridor - it must have been mopped because, unless this lone-wolf was superman and could fly from the room through the hallway into the bathroom and onto the bathmatt, where he left a bloody foot print, without once stepping on the corridoor floor leading to the bathroom, then how can we explain the clean corridoor?! Thankfully the luminol footprints contradict the possibility of superman & we know someone cleaned the foot-steps, which show two foot sizes, so we also know two people where there during the mopping.

What lone-wolf could have the strength to detain (with a single hand, assuming he had one knife, no wait - two knives! - in his other hand) a victim who’s family have testified in court was a strong young woman with several years training in martial arts? It is impossible that a person with a knife in each hand, or even two knives in one hand and the other hand free, could have done this. Unless that attacker had four hands or more, I cannot see how this scenario is credible. Again, the autopsy results and injuries on the victims simply rule out the possibility of a four-handed lone-wolf.

This testimony seriously injures Torre’s credibility and claims to intelligence.

Posted by Scooby on 07/08/09 at 02:59 PM | #

I was listening to a talk-show radio in Seattle (KIRO).  Seattle Attorney Anne Bremner was discussing the testimony of Carlos Torre.  She referred to him as the best in Italy, well-liked and respected.

The way she talked, this was the end to the prosecutions victory. Of course she agreed with his testimony that it was only Rudy G. responsible for the murder. 

I wish they were taking calls and I would have mentioned TJMK. Anne is very convincing as most good lawyers need to be. She definitely chooses to ignore the facts of the case!

Posted by BARBM on 07/09/09 at 12:07 AM | #

Regarding Dr Torre, it may be worthwhile to remember that his last two clients were the Cogne murderer who killed her own small child, and the authors of the Erba massacre, who stabbed their neighbors to death and set their apartment on fire - four people died, of which one was a 5 year old child.

They also stabbed a fifth person, thought he was dead, and left him behind, but he survived and recognized them (he was a neighbor too). The Erba murderers are currently serving a life sentence, Ms Franzoni (Cogne) received a 30 years sentence.

By this, I don’t mean to discredit Prof Torre’s expertise, but I am merely pointing out that he seems to like picking up the most desperate cases.

For those who can understand Italian, it may be worthwhile to watch the video of Torre testifying during the Erba trial and listen to his replies to the prosecutor and the court appointed coroner, his callousness left me speechless. http://tinyurl.com/n3adxg

By the way, all those who seem to be obsessed by Knox and Sollecito’s “lack of motive”  may want to know that the Erba murderers confessed that they killed their neighbors because they were “noisy” - the confession was afterwards retracted because “they were pressured by police”.

As to the Cogne murderer, she is still proclaiming her innocence.

Posted by Nicki on 07/09/09 at 12:24 AM | #

Hi Barb,

I must admit that I didn’t find Anne Bremner very convincing when she analysed the wrong crime scene on national television and offered it as proof that the real crime scene had been contaminated.

She also made the following erroneous claim about the DNA on the blade of the knife sequestered from Raffaele Sollecito’s apartment on her website:

“It’s not a match with Meredith Kercher or anyone else.”

As we know, Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni categorically stated that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade of the knife. Dr. Renato Biondo, head of the DNA Unit of the scientific police, and the Kerchers’ own DNA expert, Professor Francesca Torricelli, have both provided independent confirmation that this forensic finding is accurate and reliable.

Posted by The Machine on 07/09/09 at 01:23 AM | #

I don’t recall the last time Ann Bremner, Candace Dempsey or the Seattle PR firm let facts or ethics impede their mission of misinformation. KIRO is the CBS(48Hrs) affiliate in Seattle where Marriott has former colleagues as does Peter Van Sant who is a Seattle native who began in the Seattle market. It would be fascinating to see what if any deals are in the works for any or all of them. Joan Rivers could play Bremner in the movie?

Posted by jennifer on 07/09/09 at 02:05 AM | #

Grazie Nicki per il link del processo di Erba.

I’d never seen Torre before. He reminds me of my professor of criminology at the University of Florence. Same crazy grey hair. The only difference was that my professor turned out to be associated with the Red Brigades. I wonder what this crazy guy is associated with. Candace Dempsey? Same difference, just a News Terrorist?

Posted by Commissario Montalbano on 07/09/09 at 03:58 AM | #

Thanks Nicki for the useful cases re. Torre’s background.

With reference to your observation:

“By this, I don’t mean to discredit Prof Torre’s expertise, but I am merely pointing out that he seems to like picking up the most desperate cases”.

I’m assuming Torre gets paid a handsome sum of money for these testimonies. He may otherwise be doing for publicity. Or maybe he’s just being charitable (though I doubt it).

Making mistakes re. murder analysis & presenting those analysis to the public in court is just as damaging as publishing a not-so-good peer-reviewed journal article. From what you’ve said about the last two cases, it doesn’t look like failure has hindered him from testifying again in very risky cases. Which is why I think that if he’s willing to put his reputation as an academic on the line to this extent, then there is a high probably he’s getting paid for it.

Posted by Scooby on 07/09/09 at 11:17 PM | #

Hi Sccoby,

Quite interesting the exchange between Torre, prosecutor,defense and civil part on videotape no. 5 of the Erba trial. At about 2,08 civil part lawyer asks Torre-after he has criticized and dismissed the medical examiner who had been working with the body, and not just studying pictures “Are you being paid for your consultancy?” Torre answers :“I was expecting your question…” but at this point he is interrupetd by a voice -defense- saying no,no, so Torre resumes ” Sorry, I cannot answer this question”. At this point defense asks Torre “please tell the court why you have accepted this case” and Torre answers “because I am a curious man and I love the truth”.Defense repeats Torre’s words “so you have accepted because you love the truth right?”, and Prosecutor steps in, referring to the horrible massacre by the clearly guilty twosome -the victims blood was even found in their cars-,” Didn’t your heart broke…touring Italy to be interviewed and to participate in each and every talk show for publicity…pulling out tricks from you magic suitcase…”

Not even God could have helped the Erba murders -the inseparable couple-, tons of evidence and a direct witness who survived the attempted murder, but Torre accepted to consult for defense anyway. I doubt he was just being charitable. Guess money is a stronger motivator than reputation,  and as the Latins used to say, “pecunia non olet”.

Posted by Nicki on 07/10/09 at 12:13 AM | #


This case from the start has smelled of prosecutorial over reach. From observation it typically involves a defendant less able to defend himself with biased judgment and/or an outside agenda.  So as not to pick on Italian justice, let me give an American example.  Circa 1946 in Western Colorado, an 18 year old male was charged for having sex with a minor, his 17 year old date whom he had taken to the senior prom.  He was sentenced as if it were forcible rape. The real reason was he was half American Indian and his date was the blonde banker’s daughter.  I’ve seen a number of others, but that was the most egregious. Amanda Knox, as a visiting student, who worked 3 jobs to afford the course of study fit the profile of an easy mark for an ambitious prosecutor.  Assertions of satanic ritual and sex games, I feel, were for Italian domestic consumption.  Was not the penalty for murder with sexual intent increased in the wake of this tragic murder?  Isn’t there an under current of discontent about the conduct of some of the African immigrants?

My problem with the prosecution’s case began after the false ID of Lummuba, and the convenient substitution of Guede as the third player without a serious reassessment.  On one of the specials from British TV, I understood one of the Italian police supers to say essentially they go into an interrogation with an outcome in mind.  When that outcome proved wrong, the official attitude, I sensed, was it was a clever tactic on Amanda Knox’s part and not an admission of error on theirs.  Frankly, I don’t believe she knew a third person existed. She was led down a primrose path.  If she had been involved and she was resetting the crime scene to cover a fellow murderer, why would she ever leave a toilet unflushed?  The assertion that these two, especially Amanda, had opportunity to destroy the clothing they were wearing, comes up wanting because the crime scene was sealed on discovery of the body.  Please recall the testimony of her buying underwear. I cannot believe that her wardrobe wasn’t culled with a fine tooth comb. Where are the pictures of Amanda and Sollecito showing physical marks of a struggle? There was an absence of Amanda in the crime scene involving a struggles of a young woman who was skilled in budo arts. Yet there was evidence on Meredith’s body that she had fought back fiercely.

Other than a very shaky ID by a single convict, there is no evidence of all three being together.  If there was a coat to match the one described by the Albanian, why wasn’t it put into evidence? Now the defense introduced testimony that Guede’s smell was offensive when he was seen at the club later that night.  Does this sound like someone who would be invited along for sex games?
Going back to the prosecution’s case in main, the cell phone call to Meredith’s mother reasonably fixes the last time she was alive.  The prosecution’s own witness put the two defendants outside between 9:30 and after 11.  Nor did they introduce Sollecito’s shoes bearing evidence.

What I see is the prosecution attempting to prove a set of circumstances that never happened and the defense stuck with a blown alibi. I surmise that something happened at that house before 9:30 that made these two to believe they were guilty. That incident involved the knife found at Sollecito’s and his DNA on her bra strap. It had no sexual intent.  I can think of no other reason for them to have loitered in the car park than to be there when the police arrived to explain their side. That Meredith didn’t call the police could be an inference to them that the incident wasn’t serious or fatal. 

Alternatively, it could have left her somewhat incapacitated by loss of blood and what she had to drink, a helpless victim when Guede burgled the house.  Guede’s MO of breaking windows and stealing cell phones along with a history of violence fits in with what happened that night. 

The fact Meredith was alive after 10 puts the mark on Guede.  His prints and especially his DNA on the tampon confirm he was there.  Rapists don’t turn on the lights, because they don’t want to be identified.  He didn’t see that she was wounded, thus he wiped the wall with his bloody hand. When Meredith screamed, he silenced her by choking her. Realization of what he had done caused him to have serious bowel contractions that he dealt with by using the toilet.  The Kercher family’s expert witness concluded her cause of death was strangulation, not a knife wound. Stabbing the victim in the neck afterward could well have been Guede’s ploy to throw the police off his trail. Who would have more reason to lock the victim’s door to delay discovery than the man who fled Italy the next day?

As for Amanda mopping the floor and cleaning the kitchen, she was cleaning up the mess made from the earlier incident. Her motive could have been innocent or it could have been to cover her own actions.  That she called Meredith’s cell phone before the door was forced could be interpreted as her motive was the former.

From all that I’ve seen and read, I could not agree to a verdict of guilty, because I don’t see evidence sufficient to say guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for murder with sexual intent.  Or murder for that matter. I do see other offenses, but the couple aren’t on trial for them.

Posted by Barry T on 07/10/09 at 01:52 AM | #

Hi Barry,

Your post contained numerous inaccuracies.

The prosecution have never mentioned satanic rituals. It was Raffaele Sollecito’s lawyer, Luca Maori, who mentioned a “satanic rite”.

Rudy Guede wasn’t a convenient substitute for Diya Lumumba. He was identified by a bloody fingerprint he left on a pillow in Meredith’s room.

It wasn’t Hekuran Kokomani, the Albanian, who claimed that Amanda Knox was wearing a red coat. It was Fabrizio Giofreddi.

Meredith didn’t phone her mother on the evening she was murdered, so you can’t state that she was definitely alive after 10pm.

Rudy Guede doesn’t have a history of stealing mobile phones and he didn’t have a criminal record for violence.

Antonio Curatolo didn’t say that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were in Piazza Grimana from 9.30pm to after 11pm. He said that he first saw them between 9.30pm and 10pm and that he saw them a couple of times after that. He wasn’t watching them the whole time.

Meredith couldn’t have been incapacitated by what she had to drink because she didn’t drink any alcohol that evening.

Rudy Guede’s DNA wasn’t found on a tampon.

Amanda Knox didn’t make a genuine attempt to contact Meredith on her mobile phones. Knox’s mobile records show that her call to Meredith’s Italian phone lasted just three seconds, and the call to the UK phone lasted just four seconds.

I politely suggest that you get acquainted with the basic facts of the case before offering possible scenarios of what might have happened.

Posted by The Machine on 07/10/09 at 02:57 AM | #

Barry T. I’ll keep this short as it may not be directly relevant to the above post but in answer to your observations I’ll say that: bar the inconsistencies which The Machine has kindly pointed out, I may have been willing (and I was at some point) to ponder that perhaps, just perhaps, as you say, the prosecution got it wrong. This, however, was impossible. Every time attempted this I was faced by a difficulty posed by either Knox, Sollecito or both: 1) Mixed MK & AK DNA in various places in the murder scene; 2) the bizarre amnesia of the defendants caused by hashish/mariijuana (simply unconvincing); 3) contradictory statements made by the defendants at various stages since Nov. 07 (and I’m not just speaking of the one AK claims was made under pressure at the Police Station); 4) unusal cell phone activity & defendants claims which contradict cell phone records (I’m sure if you read the post on this website you’ll find numberous others).

I have tried to keep an open mind & let the facts speak for themselves; and I have also allowed that some of these facts may have been obtained through biased eyes, but all this led me to was a belief that AK & RS were most probably involved in this crime. It is not that I don’t want to believe they are innocent, it is simply that from what they’ve said & done, I find it difficult impossible to believe them. AK & RS haven’t made it easy for me to believe their innocence. Should there be some fact unknown to us which may prove their innocence, and which might be relvealed in future, then perhaps I may be tempted to change my mind. For now, if I want to do the totally of acts before my eyes justice, then I must maintain that AK & RS were indeed involved in this crime.

Posted by Scooby on 07/10/09 at 12:40 PM | #

Scooby - agree with all the above. Just the one slip up from RS alone would convince me of their involvement ie the ludicrous “I pricked MK’s finger while we were cooking together.” Do we know whether this claim has ever been corroborated or denied by AK? I know she admits MK never went to RS’s apartment. Do you think this will be brought up during cross examination of AK? Also does anyone know if a plumber was ever called to fix the broken pipe? I mean pipes don’t fix themselves. Or was there never any broken pipe, spilled pasta or anything else to necessitate a mop?

Posted by pensky on 07/10/09 at 05:05 PM | #

There is something so enchanting about true facts.

Posted by Professor Snape on 07/10/09 at 05:24 PM | #

So, according to Barry T., it makes perfect sense that AK, RS and Meredith had a little scuffle, somehow involving a knife and a bra clasp, but no sexual intent, resulting in bleeding wounds to Meredith’s neck not serious enough for her to phone the police. Then along comes Guede, to thieve or rape, and grabs, by the neck, a woman he does not realise is bleeding. Then, to “throw the police off his trail” (for the attempted strangulation??) he cleverly thrusts a knife in.When he twigs that it now appears he has inflicted (unintentially?) the mortal blow, he has a gut reaction necessitating the use of Filomena’s toilet.
What have you been smoking, Barry?
If others at the disco noticed a less than Spring-fresh aroma, it was likely because Guede was sweating profusely from his earlier activities, and fairly freaked out. Who indulges in a garlicky kabob before their first date with an attracive young woman? No one, because no such date had been arranged. Who attempts to stem the flow of blood by putting a victim with a slit throat on her back, and then raising her hips up on a pillow? No one who ever had the victim’sbest interests in mind. There is so much about this crime that makes little to no sense, but one thing is screamingly obvious, not one of the three, AK. RS, or RG, can possibly come up smelling sweetly. And the bloodied clothes and shoes, they would have been removed before the crime scene was sealed. Something about a washing machine, in case you forgot.

Posted by mimi on 07/10/09 at 10:42 PM | #


A plumber was called to Rafaelles appartment according to the testimony from Rafaelles housekeeper last week. Se posts on TJMK.


Posted by Fiori on 07/10/09 at 11:46 PM | #

Machine, Scooby,  thanks for your comments.  I haven’t followed this day by day. I’m not going to waste time digging up details over which we disagree. What has bothered me from the beginning is that the prosecution’s case defies logic.  It was the substitution of one African for another without questioning the basic premise that I am convinced has complicated the case.  Investigators followed the same track looking for evidence that substantiated the original theory.  Guede, as an individual and his actions as compared to Amanda’s and Sollecito’s, don’t fit. The circumstantial forensic evidence is a jigsaw puzzle with missing pieces as is the other evidence.

That doesn’t mean that Amanda and Sollecito weren’t involved.  In fact, whatever preceded their arrival in the car park, must have started the whole chain of events.  I suspect there was a fight between Amanda and Meredith, that resulted in the first knife wound in the neck.  Given Meredith’s skills in budo arts, it certainly could explain Amanda’s reaction In any event, the wound bled sufficiently to cause the saturation of the strap on her bra as well as significant additional bleeding. Whether that wound alone would have ultimately been fatal, I don’t know. From evidence given about Sollecito’s temperament, I suspect he attempted to break it up. Meredith’s reaction scared them out the door.

As to Meredith’s sobriety, she had been out to dinner.  Every dinner I ate in Italy was served with plenty of wine.  She was tired. Evidence included presence of a tampon. She told her mates that Amanda wasn’t a good roommate. All of these point to a state of mind and certainly doesn’t justify murder.  As to her ability to best Guede, the impact of a loss of blood would have been of a far greater import than how much she had to drink.       

If Guede didn’t have a history of stealing cell phones, then why was this evidence presented?  Wasn’t a stolen cell phone and laptop retrieved after his arrest?  He had just been released from jail days before the murder. Once he had come upon Meredith, had he called the police, how would he have explained why he was there without going back to jail?  Would she not have recognized him? The write-ups I have read on him presented him as a somewhat rough cut petty drug dealer and criminal. He had expressed an interest in both Amanda and Meredith.  He was without a cell phone because the police had confiscated it. Evidence has been presented he threw a rock through a window in an earlier burglary. As to the DNA on the tampon, that was one detail, about which I first read on this site.  It was what cemented the sexual element in his prosecution.

No, Meredith didn’t complete the call, but it was made after 10 PM..  Who else would have done it?  No, Corutalo didn’t testify he watched them the whole time. He placed them there between those hours.  Logic would say that if one committed the acts for which they are accused, they wouldn’t loiter about just beyond the front door. And if all three were involved, why wasn’t Guede seen by Corutalo?

It is my belief that Amanda and Sollecito believed she had killed her roommate when they were arrested. They didn’t know about the existence of a third person. Guede certainly hasn’t helped cement the prosecution’s contention either. A&M;concocted an alibi that has been blown by eye-witness testimony. Death was by strangulation didn’t happen until after 10 PM.

As to Amanda’s short call to Meredith, I have seen confusing commentary.  My belief is that it was made outside her door.  The reasonable reason for such a short call was to see if she was in there.  When she didn’t hear the ring tone, she shut it off.  After what happened the night before, she probably didn’t want to talk to her. 

I don’t envy the jurors in the decision they must make. Granted what reaches the world is distorted through synopsis and reporter’s bias. From what I’ve read, neither prosecution nor defense is providing clarity.  From all that I have seen that the prosecution’s proof has not been sufficient to justify a sentence of life in prison.

Posted by Barry T on 07/11/09 at 02:11 AM | #

So. Two ships just passed in the night? Barry, unfortunately this is again a very muddled view of the case. Really you should have taken The Machine’s advice and first developed a strong grasp of the facts. It is not a case of you two differing - he has the facts accurate and you don’t.

The police were on to Guede’s involvement long before Knox withdrew her charge against Patrick - in fact, she never did. They didn’t just substitute one black man for another, blackness had nothing to do with it, only the colorblind evidence they found on the spot did. 

The only time a tampon was ever mentioned on this site was to the effect that there wasn’t one.

Meredith had no excess of wine for dinner; she sat on a bed with three of her English friends, and ate pizza while watching The Notebook. She didn’t go home early because she was tired, she went home early because she had an essay assignment to complete.

Guede had no criminal record, so he is hardly a petty criminal - in fact, both Knox and Sollecito have more of a police record than he does. Nothing was concretely proven at this trial that he ever stole anything from anywhere.

The notion that Guede simply turned up to find a wounded Meredith and then completed the crime has no basis in the evidence presented. The several witnesses in the houses and on the steps above together told what amounts to one scenario: all three of them fleeing the house after the scream, and two of them apparently heading back later, including the only one with a motive to rearrange the scene.

Evidence from the room and the autopsy on the last day of the prosecutions’ case that three were involved at the end was truly stunning to those present in the court - as was Micheli’s report on the same subject. As was the phone-call evidence, as Finn has shown in two long posts. 

Claiming prosecutorial overreach seems the same as claiming that Co-Prosecutor Comodi, Judge Massei, Judge Micheli, and the equivalent of the FBI in Rome are all being bamboozled by one man. That really fails the test of common sense. Judge Micheli in fact repeatedly brushed right past Mignini’s arguments - and handed Guede 5 more years than Mignini requested.

Guede has been sitting in prison for these last few weeks muttering “Come on Amanda, you were there, and you know it”. Under their breaths, the jury may now be muttering the same thing.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 07/11/09 at 03:13 AM | #

How could a single person get a hold of another one, AND use two different knives (one kept between the teeth maybe?) Why use two different kives? This is just ridiculous ...

Posted by Patou on 07/17/09 at 04:39 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 Defense Experts Testimony: Daily Beast Posts The Most Detailed Report In English

Or to previous entry Why Defendants Mostly DONT Testify? Those Devils That Lurk In The Details