Dr Ronchi's today's deposition fromAGI news (dr Ronchi is one of the GIP medical examiners)

"Dalla visione delle immagini relative al corpo di Meredith Kercher si ha "l'impressione che ci sia stata una escalation di aggressione" nei confronti della vittima "con una evoluzione da lesioni di modesta entita', superficiali, fino a delle lesioni piu' importanti che poi sono quelle che hanno determinato il decesso". E' il parere espresso in aula dal medico legale Giancarlo Umani Ronchi, consulente del gip nell'incidente probatorio sulle cause della morte di Meredith Kercher e oggi sentito davanti alla Corte d'Assise di Perugia nel processo a Raffaele Sollecito e Amanda Knox."
"Guardando le immagini - ha detto il consulente - ho avuto l'impressione che ci fosse stata una escalation di aggressione". In merito al coltello ritenuto dall'accusa l'arma del delitto Umani Ronchi ha parlato di "generica compatibilita"' o "non incompatibilita"' di questo ultimo con le ferite riportate dalla vittima. L'esperto ha spiegato come, in sede di incidente probatorio, il coltello "era quasi inavvicinabile". "L'ho visto da lontano - ha spiegato Umani Ronchi - e non l'ho potuto toccare. E' stato portato in laboratorio quasi come fosse una reliquia".

Brief translation: the impression is that an escalation of violence took place, starting with modest, superficial lesions to the most important wounds that caused the death of the victim...relatively to the knife -dr Ronchi said -" it was almost unapproachable". I saw the knife from far away and couldn't touch it. It was brought to the lab almost as if it were a relic"

I remember having read that Raffaele Sollecito actually admitted Meredith's DNA could be on the knife, because he "pricked her accidentally with the knife while they were cooking". As far as I read - and please correct me if I am wrong - Meredith's DNA has been found very close to the handle, where the blade and the handle are actually joint. How can it be there if he just pricked her with the tip of the blade? If the DNA was found so close to the handle, I would suppose that this knife had a fair amount of blood on it. Can there be any doubt this knife was used in the attack?

It must be embarrassing for the defense to be discussing this bare footprint, since the bare footprint on the mat is blatant evidence of a cleanup. The footprint is partial, lacking the imprint of the heal. And that healprint should be on the bathroom floor, but it is missing. Or are we to suppose that the blood on the sole of the foot was only partial, too, and happened to be ---by sheer coincidence!--- on exactly that part of the sole which came in contact with the mat and not on the part which came in contact with the floor? Extremely unlikely.


But it's just this extremely unlikely event that the Amanda Friends say we should believe...

"Was there a cleanup after the murder? No." http://www.friendsofamanda.org/cleanup.html

In response to your reconstruction of events, Michael, I believe that Amanda and Raffaele avoided any phone contact out of fear that the phone company might retain a copy of their conversations.

/////////

Yes, it's true Raffaele told this story (it's in his diary). However, Meredith's DNA was found in a scratch 'close' to the tip. But yes, unless it was actually on the tip Meredith's DNA couldn't have got there by a mere 'prick'. But in any case, the whole story by Raffaele is a lie (yet another). Amanda herself told police that Meredith had never once been around Raffaele's apartment, least of all gone round there for dinner.

What is also interesting is the location of Amanda's DNA on the knife. It's in the handle side 'nub' of the handle, where the handle meets the the blade. Stefanoni said this was significant because it signifies that the DNA was left by the knife being used in a 'stabbing' motion, rather then a cutting motion. And who 'stabs' food? One 'cuts' food. The positiong of the DNA is therefore consistant with it having been used to stab someone...Meredith.

Hmm....but if she had of phoned Raffaele to call him over, wouldn't a record of that call have reinforced their story? What I mean is, Amanda claims to have been concerned and wanted to get Raffaele. If she therefore called him and told him to come over, that then would have reinforced that claim. It certainly wouldn't have done any damage. Why use the phone to call Meredith to create a record of concern, but not do the same to Raffaele? It doesn't make sense not to have called Raffaele on the phone. It only makes sense if she "needed" to walk 'somewhere' or back to Raffaele's for some reason.

It also makes sense if you really not need to 'phone' the person, because... the person is already with you....

That''s possible, although at odds with Quintaville's testimony where he claims she left his shop and headed towards the cottage 'alone' on the early morning of the 2nd. Of course, there was nothing stoppong Raffaele joining her later. But in that case, why not leave with her when she went? While I think it's possible Raffaele was there earlier, I think it was unlikely. I think there was a specific reason he didn't leave with Amanda when she went and that reason also required he not go until much later in the morning. This is the fact that Amanda's reason for going to the cottage required only she go (why would Raffaele need to accompany Amanda having a shower, getting changed, doing/collecting washing?). It gives a believable excuse for Amanda to go, but not Raffaele. And if he had gone, it was broad daylight and people would have been up and about, making it likely that some passerby would have seen him, or one of the housemates may have returned home early or one of their friends may have called round and found him there. That would give him some serious explaining to do and would therefore be too dangerous.

Video from yesterday's hearing:

iff they were involved I would imagine there were many pending tasks, e.g. shopping, getting rid of incriminatory elements, telephones, etc, once they agreed to a plan there was no need to call.

Isn't it possible that they left Raffaele's apartment together, but then Amanda took a detour to buy bleach, while he went on to cottage? Nobody would have thought twice seeing them together, whether at the cottage or anywhere else, so I don't think it's necessary to assume any deep laid plan. I think they were at the cottage together that morning doing some more clean-up.

His father called him at 8:30am and the cell was the one that usually serves his home.

Do we know that he actually spoke to his father, i.e. that it wasn't a missed call?

I don't know.
In the call list it is given as a 41 second call. Seems too long for unanswered ringing.

..but about the right length for leaving a voice message?

It's certainly too short for an actual conversation.

..."I really don't want to talk...."

Michael,

Amanda and Raffaele are bad liars, and both KNOW it. Remember what Amanda said in her Nov 4/ 2007 email:

"After that, I guess I'll go back to class on
monday, although im not sure what im going to do about people asking
me questions, because i really dont want to talk again about what
happened. Ive been talking an awful lot lately and im pretty tired of
it." http://perugia-shock.blogspot.com/2009/ ... -knox.html

The translation is that she doesn't want to have to reconcile any more of her statements, the proverbial tangled web. On the morning after the murder audio records of any phone conversations would have meant more statements needing reconciliation. Besides, as she says in the same email, the suspicious circumstances she initially found at the cottage didn't disturb her much, so she could talk to Raffaele later about the matter. (And so also postpone calling the police.) And as it happened AK and RS have convicted themselves by their lies. If they'd both kept their mouths shut they wouldn't be in such a dangerous situation.

//////////

///////////////

"It's certainly too short for an actual conversation."

Maybe. We'll probably never know unless we accept Francesco Sollecito's version. D

But it could still be an unanswered call.
E.g. Filemena called Amanda three times, for 36, 85. 48 seconds respectively, and one of them was unanswered.
So the 41 seconds Sollecito call may also be an unanswered call.

Ah! So it's not certain that THE knife can be ruled out as the weapon that caused the other 2 wounds. Interesting!

This actually supports the idea that Raff wasn't at his apartment at the time. If he was, he would surely have answered and spoken to his father, since that would place him away from the cottage, and help his alibi.

Since the 41 second call was carried by the cell near the apartment, it seems to show that he was away from the apartment, but had left his phone there.

I also can't see him leaving the cleanup to Amanda while he sat around doing nothing - he certainly wouldn't trust her not to make a mistake, and she wouldn't tolerate him not helping. Anyway the two lovebirds did everything together.

My guess is that they were at the cottage together for most of the morning, even if one or the other went on an errand or two.

from the bathmat picture:
Did you notice there is a second print of a right foot? in the central area of the carpet, with a different orientation (horizontal), always the same right foot and always in diluted blood but this time very very faint, seems much more diluted and wet maybe after the foot had been washed in the bidet. The print has a fuzzy and expanded outline, but still the toe is clearly visible and the original shape and size are recognizable.

"This actually supports the idea that Raff wasn't at his apartment at the time."

His father seems to be a terrific control freak. I think if they hadn't talked, he would have called again within an hour.
So it may also be that they talked and Raffaele said that he was still sleeping, so the father called the next time at 12:40 (maybe triggered by Raffaele's bank transaction two minutes before).

"I also can't see him leaving the cleanup to Amanda while he sat around doing nothing - he certainly wouldn't trust her not to make a mistake, and she wouldn't tolerate him not helping. Anyway the two lovebirds did everything together."

If they were involved in the murder together.
But I'm still not convinced if Raffaele was there at the time of the murder.

Thanks Guermantes, that's the first view we have of the knife with a human hand next to it.

We buy fresh fish once or twice a week from the local fish market (they say that Madrid is the best port in all of Spain, it comes in overnight in refrigerated trucks, direct from the fishing boats on the different coasts).

The fish seller cleans everything for us before we take it away. I've never seen any quantity of fish blood on our hands in our kitchen. Now, if we wanted to, we could clean the fish at home, but why? The fish seller does it better than us, depending on the fish, yes, there can be some blood, but above all, it's just more smelly fish garbage the next day.

While our fish seller does use butcher-like knifes on the fish with great ability, at home if we were to clean fish, we would use smaller, "normal" sized knifes more than anything else in order to not do any harm to ourselves.

The prosecution could have asked Amanda who cleaned the fish they supposedly ate on Nov.1. I assume she would say: "Raffaele", as she also supposedly (or, very really) saw blood on his hands that night. The prosecution could then ask which knife or knives they used to prepare that last supper.

An excellent post, Brogan - especially your final point. And Mr. Knox is wrong - I don't think the jury will have a difficult job reaching a fair and reasonable verdict at all. This case, like many others, only becomes complicated when you factor-in unreasonable considerations, of which there are many, and the job of the Jury is to simply throw out the unreasonable and then see what you are left with. It seems obvious to me that both defense teams already know what the verdict for this trial is going to be and are now primarily focused on setting the stage for their arguments in the appeal process.

" and are now primarily focused on setting the stage for their arguments in the appeal process."

I think they are primarily focused on the billing.

Nick Squires for The Telegraph

Miss Knox, of Seattle, who was wearing blue jeans and a red sweatshirt with a Beatles design, appeared impassive as the purported murder weapon was shown during the testimony of a forensic expert, Prof Giancarlo Umani-Ronchi. She looked away when police photographs of Miss Kercher's bloodied body were projected onto a giant screen in the courtroom.

Mr Sollecito, in a white jacket and rimless glasses, bit his fingernails as the alleged use of the knife in the killing was discussed by experts and lawyers.

The former lovers, who could be sentenced to life in prison if found guilty, looked tired and nervous.

Journalists were told to leave the medieval, stone-walled courtroom at one point during the hearing because of the violent and sexually explicit nature of the evidence.

Wow!! The Knife actually showed up in court? When, exactly, did Knox/Mellas/Huff/FoAK stop screaming that the knife was "thrown out"? Perhaps they still are, just like they still claim that the "false confession" was "thrown out".

KOMO relies on AP

Knife unveiled at Amanda Knox murder trial

<snip> In Saturday's session, forensic expert Mariano Cingolani cast some doubt on the knife's "compatibility" with a wound to Kercher's neck, which is not considered to be the fatal one.

"Many other knives in general are more compatible with that kind of wound," said Cingolani, who was appointed by a Perugia judge before indictments for Knox and Sollecito were handed down.

Cingolani said one of three cuts on the victim's neck would have been bigger if that knife was used, given the wound's depth. However, the expert also cautioned that no firm conclusion could be drawn without knowing the position of Kercher's neck during the attack or the elasticity of her tissues.

According to Cingolani, whose team did not carry out an autopsy on Kercher's body but examined photos and videos of the procedure, the 21-year-old died of combined loss of blood and suffocation.

In my 20 years of buying fish in France, I don't know if I ever saw anyone walk away with a whole fish to clean at home. Not even in La Rochelle, which has a thriving market with freshly caught fish. Incidentally, I did buy a special knife for filleting fish from my local fishmonger in Paris. He was very reluctant at first, but ordered it for me when I told him I wanted to use it sparingly, if I decided after purchasing a gutted fish that I wanted to cut it into smaller pieces. I had found that the knives I owned did not do a good job, and I also did not like the fish smell on the knife, which can be hard to remove.

But gutting fish on a regular or even one-off in a Parisian apartment - never!

bolint wrote: "But I'm still not convinced if Raffaele was there at the time of the murder."


And I'm still not convinced there there were only three culprits. Two suspicious cars stopped in front of the cottage that night,... a light one and, later on, a dark one. And there was found still unidentified DNA on the bra. Two years after the crime Rudy's lawyers have recently hired investigators looking for more "witnesses". Huh? When one of these three sings, will more persons be charged with the murder?

///////

Nick Squires wrote:

Miss Knox, of Seattle … appeared impassive as the purported murder weapon was shown during the testimony of a forensic expert, Prof Giancarlo Umani-Ronchi.
She looked away when police photographs of Miss Kercher's bloodied body were projected onto a giant screen in the courtroom.

Mr Sollecito … bit his fingernails as the alleged use of the knife in the killing was discussed by experts and lawyers.

Feigned lack of interest and hand-to-face gestures are strong markers of deception!

Feigned unconcern. Deceptive persons will often appear casual and unconcerned and may adopt an unnatural slouching posture.

Reaction to evidence. Deceptive persons tend to be casual about observing possibly incriminating documents/evidence presented to them during an interview/a court hearing, and then shove them away, as if wanting nothing to do with the evidence. Honest persons, on the other hand, tend to take a keen interest in the documents as if searching for information, which might exonerate them.

Increased discomfort and anxiety. Psychological stress increases anxiety so much that we cannot store it internally anymore. This leads to an external overflow, explaining the fidgeting, hand rubbing, sweating, lip licking, leg bouncing etc. When you see ’stress overflow’ try asking yourself what it may mean …

How to Detect Lies

...say, like, nail-biting?

Article from Andrea Vogt:

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/410331_knox19.html

Also article from Ann Wise from ABC news.:

http://tinyurl.com/mdh425

Also from Meo Ponte, a critic of this investigation who has a few things to say.

http://tinyurl.com/m2nnl4

Curt Knox on CBS:

Thanks DLW for those links.


Hmm, Ann Wise says that the knife 'was' removed from box and bag and allowed to be examined in court:

Disclaimer: The evaluation of deception is an imprecise art, not an exact science. Accordingly, no one cue should be taken as proof positive that the person is not being truthful. All cues must be taken together as a whole to make a judgment about the person’s truthfulness.

Il Messaggero
By LUIGI FOGLIETTI.

Saturday, September 19, 2009
"Against Mignini only pretexts"

Accusations from America to the prosecutor of the investigation "is to advertise the books that are coming out"


Accused stand up. This time though the accused is not a criminal, but a magistrate, Giuliano Mignini, currently public prosecutor in the Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito trial. To have put Mignini there under the accused, is a part of the American press and publishing that do not consider the magistrate adequate to fulfill its role because of his current position that keeps him busy defending himself in another trial process at the Tribunal of Florence, together with police officer Giuttari in relation to the case known as that of the "Monster of Florence".

The best informed think the mounted controversy has a strong interest linked to publishers, a book that come out about the events in Florence, as is a film that seems would even be produced by Tom Cruise, whose subject would be taken from the book itself. Someone then wanting notoriety to gain figures and profit would not stop for the sake of false accusation before launching own product in the media.

However, what do American journalist who are following the hearings all the time at the various stages of the trial have to say of their colleagues and attack for which Giuliano Mignini is the victim?

"The so-called American controversy launched against PM Mignini and officer Giuttari (says Barbie Nadeau, Newsweek journalist) is artfully constructed. It’s used as an excuse in the US where someone in the publishing world having not had professional access to the evidence that saw the two in action, is trying now to enter it to win a position, a little fame, in short is the catch an opportunity.”

Also Andrea Vogt, a freelance working for the U.S. Seattle Post Intelligencer and some English newspapers, who says: “The two things, trial of Amanda and Raffaele and Monster of Florence, are not related, none, those who want to weave them together have more ulterior personal motives concerning the case of the "monster". They are using some elements of that case to influence the process under way here just to muddy the waters. All is not just”.

"Two completely unrelated cases - added Sabina Castelfranco CBS- except that Dr. Mignini here is the prosecutor, and for the case of the monster of Florence is under investigation. I think the thing would be relevant only if it were to be condemned: I imagine that there would be repercussions on his current position.”

What does PM Mignini say? "Either one speaks of these facts properly or should not speak, because you should also say that there is a process started upon my complaint against two magistrates, one from the Florence prosecutor’s and one from the Genoa, which hearing will be in October 21st. For which they will have to explain to me why they accused me. Sequesters related to these processes which so much has been said, had been nullified by the Court of Review by default of the "prima" of the offense, the same was confirmed by the Supreme Court and Giuttari has cited the court in Strasbourg.”
http://tinyurl.com/nb26e7

There they go with that "thrown out" stuff again. According to Mr. Knox, the footprint evidence was "thrown out" of court on Friday. OK, I'm starting to get the picture now. Every time the defense presents an opinion contrary to the prosecution the Knox/Mellas/Huff/FoAK contingent actually believes that the defense wins! Apparently we've been giving them way too much credit - I suppose this is why Knox believes his daughter will be home for Thanksgiving. You know, a typical 3rd grader knows better; perhaps we should all chip in and send them the DVD Box Sets of Perry Mason and Law and Order?

So why, exactly, did they bring in a bomb expert to say that the knife was not the murder weapon?

Jools -

Thank's for that Jools. I've added that to the 'In Their Own Words' forum in the Mignini thread for future reference

And because court appointed forensics expert Cingolani said he did not believe the large knife was compatible with one of the smaller knife wounds on the left side of Meredith's neck, Mr. Knox seems to believe that the large knife has also been "thrown out".

Is he really unaware that it has long been speculated that more than one knife was involved - one to intimidate and one to kill. It is becoming pathetic to see Mr. Knox attempt to shore himself up with such hollow statements of faith as he continues to paint his simple, cartoon-like picture of what everyone knows is a complex case. Sad.

Barbie Nadeau in The Daily Beast:

Zero Hour for Amanda Knox

Does this sound as déjà vu all over again? Meredith’s blood alcohol level(s) are still being discussed .

The first witness, Giancarlo Umani Ronchi, testified that there were traces of alcohol in Kercher’s blood. A second witness, Mariano Cingolani, also testified to the presence of alcohol in her system. Alcohol changes not only the potential dynamic of the crime, but it could affect calculations about the time of death, because alcohol slows the digestive process. The time of death is crucial for the alibis of both Knox and Sollecito.

Hi FBN. I note also that Curt was given the opportunity once again to get in the part that poor Amanda had to go through the summer without air conditioning, like 'most' Italians. I'd like to know in any case, what prison in the world has air conditioning installed for its inmates. It's a prison, not the Ritz! Perhaps, if the FOA hadn't been so aggressive in its public attacks on the Italians, Amanda may have long been allowed out on house arrest.

What annoys me most is that Curt Knox, father of the accused standing trial, (or some other Knox family member, whichever one is around at the time) has become the de facto official court correspondent for the major US networks! Is that what they consider to be 'fair and balanced' reporting? Would that be allowed to stand in a trial in the US?

Il Messaggero.
Rudy: "Why was not I in that camera"

PERUGIA - First the allegations, launched by a weekly magazine, (OGGI) that show him as the man with the windbreaker jacket and sneakers in the San Antonio parking lot around 21.00 hours the night of the murder.
Then, afterwards arrived those in writing, those even increasingly more stringent during the hearing process. Also yesterday, Francesco Vinci expert consultant for Raffaele Sollecito, juxtaposed the print of the bloody foot that remained on the bathmat with that of the foot of Rudy to indicate that those footprints are not of Raffaele and the culprit is another.
“The process has restarted but the logic is always the same, that of making me to be the only culprit -says Rudy, from prison to his defense lawyers Valter Biscotti and Nicodemo Gentile-. It seeks, therefore to mystify the reality with the help of journalists friends whom to reward the logic are ready to published false reconstructions, truly and proper utter hoax.”

Rudy did not go down with the article “published by the weekly magazine which states that the person photographed by the CCTV cameras inside the parking lot of St. Antonio on the first November around 21 hours with the jacket is me.” According to Rudy all explanations given in the article are false: “My presence in the parking lot supposedly confirmed by the fact that the photographed man was wearing Nike shoes and a jacket that is identical to the one I had in my hand when I arrived at Rome airport from Germany.”
But Rudy has a precise explanation that exonerates him: "That jacket it was brought to me in jail in Germany by my father when it came to visit me: he had just bought it. This is also confirmed by the list of clothes I had the day I entered prison. It’s obvious that it is false. It’s shameful that these falsehoods can be written. It’s a hoax. Furthermore if you look properly at the images, you can see that the person passing under the camera is white and has glasses”. Lawyer Gentile reinforcing adds: “The Sollecito defense instead of bringing technical evidence, continues with magic games. In fact, only a magician can match the imprint left by a person who wears size 43 with that of a person who wears, however, the size 46. This is the usual reconstruction soundly rejected, we must never forget, by the gup Paolo Micheli who indicted them and sent them to trial.
http://tinyurl.com/ll69t9

Hi Michael and everyone here. I have to commend your tenacity and absolute determination to get to the truth. I sincerely hope that justice will be served and that Meredith can rest in peace. My deepest condolences go out to her family and all who knew her and I admire the Italian Judicial system and its quest for the truth to be revealed. What more could the family ask now other than for the truth?
I became aware of this case through a friend whose young relative was studying in Perugia doing a Doctorate I believe and they were by chance in Patrick Lumumba’s bar on the night of the murder. When they heard about the case and he being accused they immediately contacted the police and I have no further details other than they were obviously important witnesses because they provided an alibi for an innocent man.
When I heard this I was immediately drawn to looking into the case and the more I’ve discovered the more shocking it all becomes but it also makes me more determined, like you, for the truth to emerge.
The thing which I find most damming, besides of course the afore-mentioned attempt to accuse an innocent man, is the fact that Amanda Knox and Raffaelle Sollecito’s phones were both switched off in advance of the crime and switched back on in the early hours of the morning when they were both supposedly asleep. Who switched them on then? The ghost? This reeks of pre-meditation. Why don’t they ask them about the phones in the trial– this I don’t get? Add to this the amount of times they have changed their stories and you begin to feel that sickening feeling in the pit of your stomach. Is Amanda Knox a wolf in lambs clothing? We still haven’t even touched upon forensics and guilt is stamped all over the pair of them... the blood in the bathroom and she claims to have taken a shower not even remotely perturbed by it. I consider that impossible. When you look at the photos, there’s blood all round the sink. I don’t know any girl whose blood is splashed all over the bathroom because she is having her monthly cycle. I’ve never seen it. When anyone sees blood anywhere they become a bit alarmed. The front door is open to the house, there’s blood on the floor and all around the sink and she claims to have taken a shower... It just gets worse and worse really.
The thing that’s freaking me out though and I really would appreciate a response to this is, I am convinced that there’s a possibility that Rudy is innocent. Please hear me out because I am sure we are all agreed that what matters is the truth being arrived at and surely all that anyone wants here is justice. First of all, everything that Rudy has said so far adds up. I haven’t seen where his account contradicts any of the evidence, unlike Amanda and Raffaelle.
Rudy said he was on the toliet listening to his music loud on earphones. I think this is plausible and as we know it ties into his faeces being found in the toilet. I cannot for the life of me imagine a guy who murdered someone leaving such evidence at the scene of a crime. This to me suggests innocence as does all his subsequent actions, even running away.
He say he heard a scream and ran into the room, encountered the Intruder who told him “black man – guilty man” or something to that effect. I worry terribly that if this is true then of course he thought “I’m screwed here”. I don’t care what anyone says but racism is a fact. It does exist and many people have been exposed to it including most probably Rudy. He says he tried to help her with the towels. All of this adds up and is there in the evidence. The towels are there. His footprints etc. We know there was a clean-up so why didn’t he clean up after himself if they were all involved?
In comparison, everything Amanda and Raffaelle said is contradicted by the evidence. It possible that Rudy is innocent and has been framed? Is there any way that they planned this but they planned for Rudy to get the blame? Is it likely that the reason both of their phones were switched off simultaneously was to go off and do their business. I think that in all of their plans they forgot about one thing – blood. They forgot that it would end up everywhere and thus incriminate themselves as well as him. Did they invite him there? Did they somehow set him up because they were intent on murder? I find it very difficult to reconcile his relationship to Amanda and Raffaelle otherwise. It just doesn’t make sense. If he was there to give them drugs then how could he end up wrapped up in a bloody murder? I really fear that there was only two involved in this diabolical act but three will go down for it? Long may Justice be served!
R.I.P. Meredith.

Thanks again Jools, I've filed that too

Who else could produce that explosive new evidence weve been waiting for.

From Meo Ponte REPUBBLICA

"...Nonostante i dubbi e l'assenza di prove certe (non c'è traccia di rapporti tra Rudy, Amanda e Raffaele, movente e dinamica sono tutt'ora avvolti nel mistero) l'esito del processo appare scontato e la condanna all'ergastolo di Amanda e Raffaele sembra essere inevitabile. E' probabile che per dissipare i dubbi il presidente della Corte d'Assise Giancarlo Massei sia costretto a commissionare una perizia (almeno sul coltello e sul dna trovato sul gancetto del reggiseno di Meredith repetertato con quaranta giorni di ritardi rispetto alla scoperta del cadavere) come d'altronde aveva suggerito il gup Paolo Micheli quando aveva rinviato a giudizio Amanda e Raffaele. Perizia che comunque sarà chiesta dalle difese degli imputati".

"Notwithstanding the doubts and the absence of sound evidence (there is no trace of a relationship between Rudy, Amanda and Raffaele, motive and dynamics are still a mystery), the outcome of the trial seems discounted and a life sentence for Amanda and Raffaele appears to be inevitable. It is probable that in order to clear doubts the President of the Court of Assise Giancarlo Massei will be obliged to order further testing (at least for the knife and the DNA found on Meredith's bra clasp, found 40 days after the discovery of the body) as the GUP Micheli had suggested when he charged Amanda and Raffaele. However, the further tests will have to be requested by the defense" .

Any comments?

Hello Esperanza and welcome to PMF!!


That's most interesting that your friends were some of those that gave Patrick Lumumba an alibi. They were instrumental in remedying what could have transpired to be a major miscarriage of justice caused by Amanda Knox. Of course, Patrick's reputation has been ruined to some extent, and he lost his buisness as a result. However, things could have been far worse had witnesses not come forward to lend him an alibi. I've no doubt that due to lack of evidence tying him to the crime scene he'd have been released 'eventually', but that eventually would have been a lot longer then two weeks I fear.

Phones - yes, both were switched off around the same time before the crime. However, they weren't switched back on at the same time. Raffaele's was switched on again just before 7 am on the morning of 2nd Nov, while Amanda's wasn't switched back on until just after midday. It is very difficult to prove premeditation in this case, however, as you indicate, it's difficult to erase that nagging fear that 'something' was preplanned in light of their phones being switched off more or less together, especially considering that the phone records of Amanda and Raffaele over the previous month show that their turning off of their phones was an anomoly. It is of course possible that it's just 'coincidence', only coincidences seem to follow this pair in rather large amounts and alarm bells start to ring rather too frequently. Whatever, the phones leave a bad taste in the mouth.

In regard to Rudy perhaps telling the truth...we did go through this stage and agonised about it long and hard for a period back when we were on Steve Huff's True Crime, on Haloscan. There are many factors that make it worthy of some consideration. However, we came to the conclusion, for various reasons, that Rudy was indeed directly involved and he was less then truthful. I would need a lot of space here to lay it all out, so I'll simply give an example. Rudy claims that on emerging from the toilet he was confronted by a man (which he later revealed to be Sollecito) standing with knife in hand over a prone Meredith, having just immediately stabbed her. After a tussle and an exchange of a few words, the attacker then fled with the knife. Unfortunately for Rudy, the crime scene 'proves' this to be a lie, or at least, not the whole truth. This is the blood stain of the outline of a knife (now revealed to be two such stains) on Meredith's bedsheet. These show that at some point after stabbing Meredith, the attacker either reclined on the bed touching the blade of the knife onto the sheet, or placed the knife down onto the bed to free the hands for something else. This proves Rudy's version to be false, therefore a lie.

What 'is' possible, is that Rudy started taking part in something he didn't fully understand where it was going to go. When things got nasty, perhaps after he touched Meredith where he shouldn't have and due to her reaction to that, reality hit him and went to his guts, causing a sudden need for him to vacate the room to go to the toilet, perhaps picking the further toilet so he could no longer hear what was happening. Then, during that time, due to things escalating in Meredith's room and Meredith becoming uncontrollably agitated, one of the attackers struck the fatal blow out of panic. Then, Rudy emerges from the toilet to be confronted with a situation out of control and a dying Meredith. Horrified, he lambasts the knife wielder and then attempts to staunch the flow of blood from Meredith's neck while his accomplices stand back doing nothing but watch. When he realises it's useless he decides to leave, but not before being warned to keep his mouth shut and perhaps also to get out of town.

The above scenario 'could' work and is not contradicted by any of the evidence at the crime scene. However, I'm afraid that's the best workable scenario that can be put in place for Rudy.

They may have been willing to clean Rudy's mess as well as their own afterwards, only in his panic he'd left so much, unthinkingly stepping in and putting his hands in blood. I think the decision was therefore taken to look after their own traces only, arrange the crime scene to make it look like a bungled burglary turned into a bungled rape and let Rudy take his own chances.

I have to disagree with this argument. Giovinazzo is not La Rochelle nor a city market, it is a southern fishermen village, the context is completely different, the concept of 'fresh fish' is different (I say this being of Calabrian origin). A person who is used to live with fishermen or was used to go sailing and fishing himself, might well feel ok with a whole fish to clean. But probably in this case Raffaele meant just 'cleaning' in a very general meaning.

Ok, Michael.
Would it be much too honest and professional for Candace Dempsey to check the official investigation file, that she often claims to have access to, whether if in the list of Guede’s clothes when he entered prison in Germany, if he owned a jacket like she claims -‘Taking aim at Rudy’- is the same one the guy in the cctv parking-lot camera is wearing?

At least this is what would be expected of an investigative “award-wining journalist” instead of relying on second hand information seen and lifted from a weekly gossip magazine that, strangely she praises and salivates over it’s ‘exclusive’ articles together with her crazy contact h. wilkens and enables her to produce those inaccurate posts full of lies in her blog.

Then if she were a professional journalist, at her age, she would’ve had more of a journalistic trail than the food blogging.

Hi Yummi, That profile certainly doesn't fit Raffaele. But it sure as hell fits Amanda, her step father Chris Mellas is a keen, passionate fisherman. I've no doubt that's where she got her inspiration for that little story. The reality of what actually happened that evening was not her point of reference for her fishy story, but rather Chris Mellas who's she watched in his treatment of fish in the past, leading her to believe that's how 'all' people treat their fish. In short, like much else of what she claims happened that evening and the next day, Amanda made it up...IMHO.

Yummi,
Perugia is no Rochelle but neither is Giovinazzo.I don't know if they have a fresh fish market up there in the hillside of Umbria-perhaps they have. Nevertheless I am willing to bet that any fish that RS may have bought, came from Esselunga or similar, where fish is sold gutted, and packed up in plastic wraps. And should RS have bought fresh fish at an hypothetical Perugia fish market, I don't really see why he would have given up the opportunity to have it gutted and wrapped it up, ready-to cook, since it is included in the price.

It was also a national Italian holiday that day. Would fresh fish even have been available in Perugia, late in the afternoon, that day?

In this photo RS defense, Luca Maori and Francesco Vinci.

Well, Candace is posting the story now over on the Smog, but she's putting her spin on it. Rudy says the guy in the video is white (Candace claims you can't see in the video if the guy is white or not). However, Rudy also states the man in the video is wearing glasses, Candace doesn't even mention that point (maybe she thinks nobody will notice the glasses or Rudy's observation of them if she doesn't say anything). Then, with jaw dropping hypocrisy to a point that's actually amusing, she then demands the POLICE clear up who is actually in the video...this when she has refused to believe a bloody thing the police have ever said for the past two years! So I ask you, how 'can' the police clear it up to Candace's satisfaction? I'll tell you...if they turn round and say it's Rudy Candace will be quite happy and accept it without question, declaring it to the world as an established fact. If they say it isn't, Candace will declare them to be dishonest (in so many words). Yuk.

On national holidays some supermarket chains may have been open-I believe I posted last year which supermarkets in the area were opened on that day. They may have been offering fresh fish, but you bet they would have been all shelved and wrapped up in plastic wraps ready to be consumed.

What is going on here?

Amanda Knox in court today, feeling the strain:

Yes, Nicki. I for one will never forget that pointless discussion with dishonest O8 about buying fresh whole fish on a holiday.

You bet I won't forget it either!

Thanks Nikki. One would also think that if Raffaele had gone to the trouble of buying fresh fish and then gutting it for dinner, a rather nasty operation, he'd at least remember. But in his own diary he writes (paraphrase) 'I suppose we then went shopping in Perugia and I must have bought something for dinner. I then went home and cooked some dinner', yet he can't remember what he bought and what he cooked (he hadn't even started smoking pot at this point). You'd think he'd remember having to go through all the trouble of gutting a fish and then cooking it for his new 'sex bomb' (bombs seem to be topical right now) girlfriend wouldn't you? Instead, he gives the impression he just threw something together without much effort (one gets visions of slinging a tv dinner in the microwave without even taking it out of the box...I know that's very un-Italian, but one sees at least the Italian equvilent of doing that anyway).

La Rochelle is hardly a fishing village. It is one of France's major ports. So I don't think the comparison holds. But what I really meant is that urbanites in France don't really go in for buying whole, non-gutted fish. One reason has to do with their respect for the expertise of various trades. Just as they would not go to the local boucherie and ask for a whole veal to cut up themselves at home, they would not go to the local poissonerie and buy a whole fish without having it prepared by the expert. This doesn't mean whole fish are not displayed and sold. But when they are, if you want the whole fish you pay for the whole fish, including its subsequent gutting, which is done while you watch.

It may be that Raffaele Sollecito liked to use his knife so much that he bought whole fish and gutted it at home. But on November 1, a holiday, at 8 pm? In his diary, he talks about going shopping for dinner after wandering around town.

But this all obfuscates the fact that fish blood looks nothing at all like human blood and fish don't bleed like mammals.

Funny you should say that. That's got me thinking now. Maybe he enjoyed cutting up animals? Maybe he was a weird kind of person that requested his dead animals whole, just so he could have the pleasure of chopping them up with his knives? That's how many killers and serial killers start out.

No way Sollecito would be have been able to get a whole fish in Perugia and bring it home to gut it, especially on a holiday. Unless he had gone fishing, but unfortunately Perugia is not a seaside resort, actually it's quite far from the sea.

Thanks Michael for your response. Much appreciated. There's something about the connection between the three that doesn't make sense still though to me. Unless one of them begins to tell the truth though I reckon it's going to remain like that. The whole thing is really unfathomable.

I don't understand the photos just above. In the two, the man is holding a totally different knife from the one in the white box.

And the photo Michael posted of Amanda: isn't that one from the day she testified in court? She's got the cold sore and that looks like the same shirt she wore that day. (?)

O.T.: Here we go
"NEW HAVEN, Conn. — Defending a Yale lab technician charged with murder against what appears to be a mountain of forensic evidence might mean trying to convince jurors that the crime scene was contaminated because police didn't immediately shut down the lab where the victim was eventually found, legal experts said."
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... wD9AQLDFO0

New article by FRANK

Like Esperanza, I have doubts about RG’s part in this crime. I cannot really see him as an equal partner; I don’t believe that he was a fully informed participant. And I certainly don’t believe that he participated in any prior planning, if there was prior planning. He may have been a dupe who was used by AK and RS or maybe he just bumbled into a situation that he didn’t understand and that spiralled out of control. I think that the relationship of these three and how it led to murder is the biggest mystery and I have not been able to put together any scenario that makes sense to me.

I can’t give Rudy a complete pass, though, because he apparently did sexually assault or try to assault Meredith and because he didn’t make any effort to get help when she was killed. But I do have doubts about whether he actually participated directly in the murder.

Anadara


That’s exactly the problem that I have Anadara. I can’t see him as “an equal partner”. I think he was possibly roped in but that doesn’t a murderer make him. I think it would be an absolute travesty if an innocent man spent 30 years in prison. I also think that if Amanda and Raffaelle planned this at his house she could quite easily have handled the knife before arrival at the scene of the crime. Then she may have been waiting outside in the garden or even in the kitchen listening (hence covering her ears). If they didn’t expect Rudy to be there and Raffaelle went into Meredith’s room to either frighten or kill her. Then he performed the act, she screams, Rudy appears.... and later when Raffaelle goes back to Amanda (who heard everything but didn’t see it) he says to her that there was a black man in the house. Amanda immediately thinks it must have been Patrick Lumumba (due to her earlier contact with him/ Meredith getting the job). Maybe they spent all that evening thinking that it was Patrick who’d been there... Never imagining it was another black man i.e. Rudy.

Definitely if he bought fresh fish he would have had this task to think about "I went to choose a fish", not "I must have gone to buy something".



At least this could be a good motive for killing. No but, anyway I don't think the fish story is particularly important, given that it is certified as Amanda's fantasy in all cases. The fish dinner maybe really occurred but on a previous day. Usable for 'images' or 'visions' as she says.

I second that. In my opinion this is another factor that speaks for a pre-meditated crime. They must have given this some thought before. Rudy as fall boy, time to thoroughly clean the crime scene and move the body as all other house-mates had left, these are all too many convenient coincidences in my opinion.

For example the clean-up: In countries like Spain and Italy, bleach is commonly used to mop floors and clean kitchens and I wouldn't be surprised if RS + AK thought that with cleaning up visible blood traces and footprints they would be off the hook. They didn't count on luminol. They cut off the bra without thinking of the already dried blood and that this would indicate that the bra was cut off later. They obviously thought that their staging was more or less perfect and therefore they were caught in surprise in the interviews being stuck for an answer. They thought they wouldn't be any doubt about "what really happened".

Gosh, I've felt this weird nostalgia, as if it were the changing of the seasons. Something missing. And then the above posts cleared my brain. I miss Oceania!

I share Michael's and FBN's opinion completely. Not only is the video with Curt Knox 'reporting' another proof how the Knox/Mellas clan try to deliberately twist the facts to their convenience, but also a sad example how the big channels are unable to provide their audience with unbiased information. It seems awkward to me.

From time to time you can read comments from posters who feel for the Knox/Mellas family and most comments show that they believe this family is in complete denial of the situation. Difficult to believe for me. It is undeniable that the family members deliberately told lies to the cameras in order to convince the public of their daughter's innocence. I do not associate terms like innocent or naive with that family, more being manipulative and false.

Pitiful how the usual suspects "celebrate" the "bombshells" of the defence team. Oh boy.

They are playing 'Una Paloma Blanca' over on Frank's channel. I think we can do better than that.




I'm sure this famous American with Italian connections wouldn't mind me penning new words to his old song......

(Shame I could not find a way of including 'a scientific pleasure' in my reworking)



And now the end is near;
And so they'll face the final showdown.
My friends, I'll say it clear,
They'll both go down, of this I'm certain.

They had their week of fun,
Then traveled down that evil byway;
And more, much more than that,
They did it, FOA!

Regrets they've not expressed;
They lied and lied for their redemption
They did the deed but won't confess
They took a life without compassion.

They staged a crazy break-in
To pin all blame on poor old Rudy,
But more, much more than this,
Of course they're guilty!

Yes, there were times, I'm sure you knew
When they bit off more than they could chew.
But through it all they still denied
It was them that hateful night, they were not there,
It was not us, you'll hear them say.

They've laughed, they've posed and lied.
But now its time to face the jury.
And as their smiles subside,
Their fate will be the same as Rudy.

To think they did all that;
Let's hope they pay - in a big way,
In years no less than thirty,
They did it FOA!.

For what is the truth, why won't they say?
Admit it all to slash the years.
And say the things they truly feel;
And speak the words of why they killed.
Let records show they threw the blows -
And did it, FOA!

Overflow of stress; anxiety. Amanda showed it also - at the crime scene.

As far as Curt standing up and speaking for his daughter, he's being a father. I can't fault that. The newspapers know they are getting a slanted view.

It's just very, very sad. That any human being can treat another so viciously. That the beastality of man is not far from the surface.

As far as Rudy goes, I don't believe he was a willing participant in a murder either. However, he is guilty of aiding and abetting, by association and NOT assisting a young woman in the throes of death. There is every evidence that he was there and tried to staunch the bleeding. To allow someone to die such a tragic death makes Rudy just as guilty as those who actually did the deed.
I don't feel sorry for Guede and, if he continues to lie, he deserves to do his 30 years period. The Kerchers deserve closure and the truth, no matter how horrible the truth may be. I find it grating when some try and defend Rudy or propose a situation that does not fit the evidence. He was there, his dna was in abundance and he was still there after Meredith was stabbed. This makes him just as guilty. Meredith could be alive right now if Rudy had only called for help........

Not surprisingly, Vinci attributed the footprint to Rudy Guede, the Ivory Coast native who was convicted for his role in Kercher's murder last October. Vinci also showed how a bloody shoe print in Meredith's bedroom made by an athletic trainer should be attributed to Guede and not to Sollecito. But he failed to explain how Guede could have left both a shoeprint and a bare footprint. After court, when asked if it was feasible that Guede could have had one shoe and sock off and one shoe on, Vinci said, "In a situation like that, you could easily lose a shoe." But attorney for the Kercher family, Francesco Maresca, said that Vinci's theory was "not credible." http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and- ... anda-knox/

"In a situation like that, you could easily lose a shoe." Hmmm. And did he lose his sock too?
///////////

This is the problem I have. If RG was not a “willing participant,” then he is perhaps not guilty of murder but, rather, of some lesser crime. I do think that all three were somehow involved but I don’t think they were all necessarily equally responsible.

I would not need to know a motive in order to convict a defendant; it would be sufficient for me to be convinced that the accused did, in fact, commit the crime. But the question is, for each of the accused, what was the crime? I believe that AK, RS and RG were all involved but I don’t understand the nature of their involvement, and I would feel more comfortable calling it first degree murder, or second degree, or manslaughter, or accessory (whatever the Italian equivalents may be) in the case of each participant if I had a clearer idea of what occurred and why. I can readily imagine scenarios that involve one or two of the accused but I have not come up with a scenario that convinces me that all three are equally guilty of first degree murder.

For example, I can see where an argument between AK and MK could suddenly escalate out of control and RS could jump in to support his girl friend. But how does RG fit into this scenario? Would Rudy see this as a good opportunity to join in and commit a rape/murder? That is not credible to me. Nor does it seem credible that Rudy attempted to rape MK and the other two decided to help him kill her when she resisted.

Likewise, the ‘sex game gone wrong’ scenario makes no sense to me. Would AK and RS plot a violent and criminal [but nonlethal] ‘sex game’ with RG, someone they barely knew? On the other hand, would they do so without letting RG in on the plan, not knowing what his reaction would be? If Rudy wasn’t involved in the original game plan, I don’t find it credible that he would continue to participate when fun and games turned into a full scale knife attack. And in either case, would they do this knowing that Meredith would almost certainly report the assault to the police the next day?

Perhaps we will never really know the motives of the participants even if one or more of them speaks out - there are, after all, motives which are bizarre, psychotic, or so trivial that they make no sense, and these defendants do not have a history of telling the straight forward truth, anyway. This is unfortunate, though, because if one or two of the accused were “unwilling participants,” then they may suffer punishment that goes beyond their true level of responsibility.

From Il Messaggero, quoting Monica Napoleoni on the investigation stage of the two breaks into the house.

PERUGIA-The breaks-in into the house of crime, close to solving.
Difficult to identify executors, but the motive remains.

It was enough to follow the trail of numbers, phone call by phone call, to get to the solution. Why the crime within a crime in the Meredith case, or rather the two raids at the house of murdered British student, the disappearance of her mattress and Amanda’s blanket, is marked by a phone number found on a card by police at the time of the first brake-in.
A card that was not in there before the raids. For the investigators, it appears that the first and second raids are directly related, the investigative work already conducted in the days before the theft is valid for the entire investigation. Through telephone records printouts, they were in fact able to arrive at three people suspected of having acted at night in the house of Mez. The investigation, conducted by the homicide section headed by Monica Napoleoni, starts then towards a possible solution, but with persons unknown. Investigators, however, believe that break-ins have not only executors, but also have instigators. The reason being the challenge to discredit the investigation by police into the death of Mez, it stems from a precise proper plan, probably studied by whom it wants to prove a different version, instead of the one that sees Rudy Guede, (already convicted) Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as the suspects charged of the murder. Who would be, will not be easy to determine.
http://tinyurl.com/n5x8ah

Jools quoted/translated:
"The reason being the challenge to discredit the investigation by police into the death of Mez, it stems from a precise proper plan, probably studied by whom it wants to prove a different version, instead of the one that sees Rudy Guede, (already convicted) Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito as the suspects charged of the murder. Who would be, will not be easy to determine."

Unless you happen to have been reading the writings of Harry Wilkens and LMT on Frank's blog. The two of them, plus Papa Doc?

Do not miss the comment section to Barbies article link! A poster named MacK-MacK has posted some excellent additions (well, harsh criticism is the better word) to her article. Its a MUST READ!

I think Barbie Nadeau has done her usual excellent and objective job of just telling it like it is. The hysterical criticisms hurled at her by The Entourage (remember, Edda Mellas referred to her as a "tacky" tabloid journalist on national television this summer) have been motivated by her refusal to take sides and her insistence on sticking to the facts. She is one of the rare professionals covering this case in English who has attended the trial sessions, who is fluent in Italian, who is well versed in both US and Italian culture, and who has resisted (or rather ignored?) the onslaught from the PR machine and just kept her eye on the ball. She has never claimed that the investigation was perfect, and had she, she would have been derelict in her duty.

Mack-Mack's posts add some valuable insights to what Barbie Nadeau has provided in her article.

Hi Anaranda,

All three are on this together!

They all have exactly the same main charge against them and that is of being the presume killers of Meredith Kercher.

Guede convicted to 30 years on his chosen short type of trial and at present in jail awaiting his appeal in November.

The other two remaining also presume killers; have extra charges on themselves apart from the one they share with Guede.
In their chosen type of trial and approaching conclusion, Sollecito & Knox are facing the charges of theft and altering the crime scene. Knox got one more, very serious, additional charge that her two presume accomplices don’t have and that is of the slander committed against Patrick lumumba, because she name him as the rapist and murderer!

All three are considered being equally responsible for the main crime: sexual violence and aggravated murder.

According to the investigators, police, scientific, coroners, prosecutors, numerous judges during the investigation phase and a magistrate pre-trial judge all considered that the three should face trial accused as charge as everything indicates that THE THREE CONSPIRE TO MURDER BEAUTIFUL MEREDITH!

Thanks petafly for the link. I totally agree with you. Mack-Mack comments are excellent!

No, don't think even Papa Doc would consider this insane pair good for the task!

I think the answer sits with whoever is responsible for placing a butter knife down the ravine!

Yes. And she sometimes adds her personal impression to her articles, a) because she can 'cause she has one and b) she's a self-aware journalist (and deservedly so):
She writes e.g.: "While these obvious errors might well establish reasonable doubt in an American courtroom, it is unlikely they will have the same effect here in Italy, where defendants often seem to be presumed guilty until proven innocent."

It's like an ideal case here that someone like MacK-MacK doesn't share her opinion and adds like a second and third equivalent good article to it (and is allowed to do so). That didn't happen at the cook, ever...

Yes, Jools, they all have had the same principal charged made against them and, yes, RG has been convicted, but that does not mean that in each case it is the most appropriate charge. Just because they were all present in the house that night does not mean that they were all equal participants in the crime.

What evidence is there that “THE THREE CONSPIRE TO MURDER BEAUTIFUL MEREDITH!”? While there is plenty of evidence to indicate that all three were somehow involved in the death, I am unaware of any evidence that demonstrates that there was a three party conspiracy and that “All three are on this together!” In fact, there is very little evidence that suggests a planned and coordinated crime.

As long as the three of them keep silent or continue to lie about the circumstances, it will be impossible to ever know what really happened and the specific involvement of each one. But my point was that, while it is not necessary to prove motive to get a conviction, an understanding of motivation would shed light on the degree of intent of each participant and perhaps suggest that first degree murder is not the correct charge for all of them.

Thanks for pointing out the excellent Mack-Mack comments.

His point that the pricey and omnipresent American PR efforts of Marriott et al are probably counterproductive in Italy is well taken and echoed by others.

My thought is however that "public relations" by definition has as the name implies the objective of modifying the impression that the mass audience of lay persons form about the trial and particularly about the the defendants.

IMHO, that objective *in the US* is certainly being aided and achieved by the usual shallow, sensationalist oriented, and pretty face presenter news that the US audience receives, thanks to the connection$$ and lackeys of Marriott in the mainstream media .

Am I incorrect to resent the fact that the only people that receive post trial day "air time" from NBC, ABC, or CBS is 'Courtly' Curt and 'Enuf Already' Edda.

I mean how unbiased and fair and balanced are their well coached, practiced, rehearsed, mantra- like rote replies to the usual mindlessly repetitive ever so deep penetrating questions.." How did the trial go today?" and "How is (by inference: tortured and abused) Amanda holding up?"

Hi Yummi. I'll tell you what. Back in 2005 I went to Italy (Tuscany, near Piza) for a few weeks with my Italian girlfriend and stayed with her father. During that time I went around with nothing but Italians (my girlfriend's friends) and met many others. Of the many things I learned about Italians, one thing is that when you first meet them they will ask you two questions always and they will be the first questions they ask you, and those are, although not necessarily in this order:

1. How do you like Italy? (or variation of)

2. How do you like the food? (or variation of)

I came to learn that for Italians, food is a very serious matter and is sacrelised, to the point that Italian food is the other side of the coin to Italy itself, the two can't be separated in an Italian's mind.

I can imagine Raffaele wanting to impress Amanda with his country and culture by cooking her the odd special Italian meal. However, as you say, had he done so on the night in question he certainly would have remembered it. Especially when one considers Italian food to Italians is a very serious buisness,, even more so when you have to go out of your way to select the proper produce for the occassion (such as with fresh fish and you have to go to a specific place to get it on a day they may not actually have it), then hand prepare and cook, then serve it to the girlfriend you're trying to impress...that's an 'event'.

I think you are therefore bang on correct when you say Raffaele probably did cook fish for Amanda, but on 'another' night (although I still don't believe he gutted the thing). Especially when one considers, when looking at Amanda's version of her alibi, she seems to have a habit of moving events that happened in one time slot into a completely different time slot and even inserts events that happened on a completely different day (Amanda: We had a long erotic shower together, Raffaele cleaned my ears....Raffaele: We did not have a shower together that evening).

Yes, Anadara,

You believe as you say that 'all three were somehow involved in the death'. I believe is not too different from what they have been charged: complicity of murder.

IMO They conspired or where in complicity because they made the collective CHOICE of continuing with an aggression until Meredith was murdered. Here is some examples of the escalation of crimes committed. One threatening Meredith with the tip of a knife/s while other held her on one side and another on the other side while Meredith was fighting for her life and lots more horrific things that I will not go into…

Not any one of them stopped and help Meredith or call for help, all three decided, chose, conspired as accomplices that the knife would escalate from a threatening weapon to a murderous one, at this point they exercised a choice, one which was obviously fatal.

I believe, -perhaps Yummi can confirm- that under the charge of murder they all face, they are consider equal participants.

‘Am I incorrect to resent the fact that the only people that receive post trial day "air time" from NBC, ABC, or CBS is 'Courtly' Curt and 'Enuf Already' Edda.’

To be fair, the other day Keith Miller of the NBC Today show did try to get a few words out of Mignini by the court room. It didn’t appear that Mignini had much to say to him. But before long Curt was on the screen saying something about there wasn’t a speck of evidence against Amanda. Keith then closed out the segment by saying that Amanda had several University of Washington friends travel to Italy, to try and keep her company, while she was in prison over the long hot (almost unbearable) summer.

If this trial were taking place in the US, I seriously doubt the US public would be getting play-by-play analysis from the family members of one of the suspects. On the other hand, I suppose most viewers can do the math and factor in the bias.

A friend of mine here in Seattle recently spent an evening with a couple of acquaintances she describes as "Republican Catholics". This couple brought up the name Amanda Knox and said they were friends of the family (yes, their kids go/went to Seattle Prep). In fact, they have contributed to the FOA cause. My friend, with whom I had never discussed this case, told the couple she had not really been following it, so the couple gave her the FOA-approved version of the Railroad Job From Hell. She listened and then told the couple her gut feeling was that Knox and Sollecito were somehow involved in Meredith's death. She said in her heart of hearts she just couldn't confidently state that Knox is 100% innocent. Apparently, the couple then tried to persuade her she was wrong to listen to her gut, in a way she said made her feel that their zeal was almost religious in nature. She joked at one point that she felt the subject matter was "Saint Amanda", and she said they made her feel uncomfortable.

I didn't get into the details of the case with her, except to correct some of the obvious falsehoods in the récit given by the couple -- such as the "fact" that Guede's sperm was found inside the victim.

However, I found her description of the supporters interesting. It tallies with my feeling that the conservative Catholic community has been tapped in this effort. In part it has to do with the Seattle Prep factor and how the Jesuit wing of the Church really doesn't need more black marks these days. Also, Seattle Prep admits many affluent students, many of them the sons and daughters of prominent business people -- hence the Republican Catholic moniker used by my friend. In fact, many of today's students at Prep aren't even Catholic. Amanda Knox isn't -- or at least she wasn't. It sometimes sounds as if she has converted to Catholicism since her arrest.

It is your opinion that there was a conspiracy although there is no evidence of such. And it is your opinion that a “collective CHOICE” was made but there is no evidence of that, either. Merely being present and having some involvement in the events is not at all the same thing as being equally complicit in the murder.

Rudy claims he engaged in “consensual” sex and was then was in the bathroom when the murder occurred. I do not believe that this is a completely truthful representation of his part in the crime. But it is at least theoretically possible that what he says is true or partly true. And if what he claims really is true, then his crimes are failure to aid a gravely injured person and failure to inform the authorities. These are not commendable acts but surely they fall well short of first degree murder. Perhaps he participated in a sexual assault but not in the murder.

You seem to think that, since they all were charged with the same crime, then they must all be guilty of the same crime. I think that the situation could be more complicated. That is why I think that, although it is not necessary to prove motive, there won’t be any real justice until the actions, motivations and intent of each participant are understood. Maybe, if that time ever comes, it will turn out that there indeed was a conspiracy and that all three acted equally in the murder, but right now I have doubts about that.

What I think is in cases like this where the implication can be proven, through a great amount of circumstantial evidence, but the actual role still remains unknown, basically two things may occur: 1) impossibility to assign a precise role has an influence on the penalty: the scenario carrying a 'lower' penalty is chosen as the proven one, so the person gets - let's say - 24 years instead of life 2) in case the failure to define his role is seen as: a meaning the person is dangerous or callous about the crime, as the result of a will to 'cover' or to 'claim' the whole action, then the highest penalty carried by the perpetrator is issued for the complicit. This may depend on defense's choices. The claiming of the action - even if not fully committed - can be interpreted as a green light for the stiffest punishment. The court says: since you claim it, it's your responsability.

There is something else to consider about the law. The fact that all three were in the murder's room is not obvious. This is not required by the law. Not necessarily they have to physically commit a murder to be guilty. Even if they were in another room they can be considered fully guilty in the same degree as the physical perpetrator, if just they didn't do any serious attempt to prevent him from committing a crime (not necessarily a murder) although they knew a crime could be going on.

I have the feeling that Rudy Guede may "only" have been involved in the sexual assault and not in the murder, but I believe he could have easily avoided this situation (of being suspect of murder) if he would have told the truth (supposing he is innocent of murder - which is not clear) from the beginning - something that can be corroborated by the evidence and is believable. If there is one member of this trio who thinks to be "less guilty" than the rest, why would he/she choose to remain silent about it and risk to be charged with murder?

There seems to be a disruption in this trio which manifests in:
- Rudy Guede running off alone while the couple stayed together
- Rudy offering a different version of the events that took place while the couple tried to establish they were together all night at Raffaele's apartment
- Rudy's prints not being cleaned, instead the couple cleaned their own prints and traces from the crime scene, leaving Rudy's prints behind (intention?)
- the break-in that was staged to lead the investigators to a stranger (Rudy?) rather than somebody related to the house

Maybe Rudy's appeal will shed light into the motive of the attack. For now it looks like Rudy might have been invited to the "party" as "goat". If I believe he was there when Meredith was attacked (if not, why did he leave bloody shoe prints behind?) and didn't call for help, than in my opinion he is responsible for the events that took place and he is an accessory to the crime. It is as broad as it's long.

I would have loved to see this crime quickly resolved so that the Kercher family could have had some closure about what happened and maybe why. This must be so hard for them, not only to lose their daughter this way, but to witness this prolonged trial in a foreign country together with the lies of the suspects who are not only dishonest and not believable, but who seem to be emotionless. I feel for the parents of Meredith Kercher and her family.

Lots of people talking about the length of the trial and how to make it up to the defendants in case they are found innocent: they will get an indemnity and their life back, while the Kercher family won't get anything. I honestly don't remember any trial where the victim has been so forgotten and overshadowed than in this one. So sad.

Hi Anadara,

If RG was not a "willing participant", he
a) would have stopped the others from attacking meredith (he is much taller and stronger
then the virginlike manga driven knife collector)
b) he surely would not have spent the rest of the night chilling out in a disco instead of calling
the cops
c) he would not have fled the country
d) he would have called an ambulance, trying to save her life
c) he would have spilled the beans

What still worries me though is the fact that curatolo has spotted only ak and rs

[quote="Skeptical Bystander


In fact, many of today's students at Prep aren't even Catholic. Amanda Knox isn't -- or at least she wasn't. It sometimes sounds as if she has converted to Catholicism since her arrest.[/quote]

Yes, on her myspace - profile, she wrote: religion: agnostic
I don't believe she really converted to catholicism or any other christian religion; she is clever
enough to use her brain

Thanks, petafly, for the link to the comment. It was very interesting to read.

Posted by Harry R. Wilkens at 9/19/09 10:53 a.m.

In today's interview, Curt Knox sees "the light on the end of the tunnel":
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=5322774n

Sometimes the light at the end of tunnel is a coming train.

Posted by Harry R. Wilkens at 9/20/09 4:09 p.m.
--- snip ---
The media war going on (with my Facebook and almost 2.000 followers disabled!) shows clearly that now Mignini is doing everything to keep us silent. He succeeded already with some local journalists.
--- snap ---

I cannot overlook the double standard applied here: Harry seems to be comfortable with Candace's censorship. Censorship is due to a lack of argument and a need to hide.

Candace's blog celebrating that the knife has been "thrown out"
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/archi ... 5#comments

I completely agree to you that his behaviour didn't help, but once he decided not to call the police, I actually think it has logic what he did: he tried to provide himself with an alibi rather than to chill out in the disco (he possibly thought that the only thing everybody would remember is that he was there, not when he arrived exactly) and then he fled the country when he thought that he couldn't prove that he was "innocent of murder". You surely must be a very special person to do all that. EDIT: I believe he is guilty and involved, I just have doubts that he was aware that murdering Meredith was planned to be the end of the story or that things were likely to escalate the way they did. What he did is in contrast to what the couple did.

I read somewhere that Rudy sold drugs in order to make a living, I also read the hypothesis that Raffaele might have bought pot from him (maybe on a regular basis). Could that ever be confirmed? The last thing I read about regarding the subject was that both - Amanda and Raffaele - allege not having known Rudy Guede previously.

Latest entry from Button, on the eclectic chapbook blog:

Saturday, September 19
Mez: 6.5 Inches of Torment (5#) -
Meredith Kercher Murder Case -

The centerpiece of today's proceedings was the presentation of a large butcher knife with a 6.5" blade which was allegedly used to terrorize and stab the victim through her throat. But, according to forensic experts, in addition to being repeatedly stabbed, the victim was then also strangled.

Both defendants continue to deny wrongdoing, although their alibis contain numerous inconsistencies. And, as Barbie Nadeau points out in her most recent article, Amanda Knox’s DNA was found mixed with Kercher’s blood in several places inside the cottage.

I totally agree with these points (except that RG is about the same height as RS). Besides RG had his chance in court and chose to tell lie after lie. I also agree that it is possible that RG didn't handle a knife. The opposite is also true, that it is possible that he did. The wounds point to multiple knifes being used. Anyway, the judge explained the reasoning for RG sentence really well.

I am puzzled about these two points raised by Teacher: the photo Michael posted goes back quite a while, as T. notes, evidenced by the shirt worn by Knox and from the cold sore.
No doubt she was feeling just as stressed the other day when she was shown the knife. But although the blouse/top she is wearing is the one she had under her red Beatles zip-up windcheater, just what is this knife she is being shown, and who is the man showing her the knife? The knife is by no means the one "religiously" protected /shown / examined in court at the latest hearings.
Any ideas?

Lady Macbeth: "Out, damned spot! out, I say! .... What! will these hands ne’er be clean?"

The knife isn't going anywhere, it's in.

It's also worth remembering, whatever one thinks of his testimony and his credibility as a witness, one of our witnesses does place two knives at the crime scene and in the hands of the assailants. Kokomani had Amanda pulling out a knife from her bag and brandishing it, while he also maintains Raffaele chased after him with his own knife. That makes two knives and puts them in the hands of Amanda and Raffaele respectively. There are issues with some of Kokomani's testimony and without doubt, he certainly is a shall we say - 'eccentric' character. However, there can be no doubt he was actually there since both his mobile phone and his noting of the broken down car and repair truck, something not released as information to the public prior to Kokomani's coming forward, place him at the scene. It also makes Kokomani's car the primary candidate for being the car in the entrance to the cottage drive that the mechanic says he saw. Aside from being Raffaele's, I can't see who elses it may have been. But I doubt it was Raffaele's since two witnesses heard multiple people running from the scene. If they'd of had a car, they'd have driven from the scene. Kokomani's testimony of two knives also supports and is supported by the actual evidence. This is the fact that while there is a knife with Meredith's DNA on the blade, which really only could have come from it being used on her, the stain on the bed sheet also indicates another shorter knife, one shorter then that of the kitchen knife. Now, interestingly, Kokomani's statements indicated that the knives he saw carried by Amanda and Raffaele had him stating that one of the knives was smaller then the other. Again, the prospect that there may have been more then one knife was not public knowledge before Kokomani came forward.

Hi Tiziano. As for the photo, that was included in one of the articles in one of the nationals (I forget which one) reporting on the trial the day I posted it. It's quite possible it's simply a stock photo from a few months ago that they've reused. Cost cutting in progress by the nationals?

I think maybe that knife was being shown as a comparison, perhaps as an idea to show the type of knife that was 'not' used? That sort of knife would leave very distinctive features on any body it was used on. What is certain, is that hunting/combat knife had nothing to do with Meredith's murder.

Raffaele's team would find it much easier. Just sayin'.

Steve Say from the West Seattle Herald.

http://www.westseattleherald.com/2009/0 ... al-resumes