The True Crime Weblog Message Board

'Rudy has a serious position, but lighter than the other two defendants: for him there is the imputation of competition in murder.’…Apcom

Not sure what all this terminology means, but this article seems to indicate that Rudy is facing a tiny less serious charge of murder than the other two suspects. It may be a technicality whereby the prosecutors are saying Rudy had help, or was in competition , or was provoked by others to commit murder. And possibly a mitigating circumstance?

damian wrote:...if they were going to confess I think they would have already done it. Maybe they will confess at the trial but I think that would be very odd. It doesn't really make much difference whether they do or not. The only way in which it could alter the length of their sentence, if found guilty, is connected to article 132 of the 'Codice Penale'. This is the one I was talking about the other day. The judge will consider the suspects behaviour 'during and after' the crime. If a suspect convinces the judge that that they are aware of the seriousness of what they did, are sorry for what they did, are not likely to do it again etc, they might get a couple of years knocked off. The judge has this discretionary power when sentencing, along with many others. Clearly, if found guilty of specific crimes, the judge must pass sentence in accordance with the minimum/maximum terms laid out in the law.

This is where I think Amanda's family has really, really failed her. We have heard from the start about how the court believes Amanda is cunning and contemptuous. In the Italian system, that is the worst possible position to be in as a suspect - why, you could wind up being charged with slander or something. Family interests, with their big-budget international attacks on Mignini, the Italian system, and basically anyone who does not believe that Amanda is anything less than completely innocent have only served to aggravate her situation - it's almost like they want her to be locked away forever (I've known families who would love to do just that with their kids). While I doubt that's the case here, it's obvious that the strategy has not been to "please the court", and that's going to be a huge problem for Knox going to trial in Italy.

skeptical bystander wrote:Get off a Hilo or Kona flight, and chances are you'll see people carrying armloads of ruby-red anthuriums, arguably the signature flower of the Big Island.No wonder. No other place in the United States grows more of the heart-shaped flower that reminds people of Valentine's Day year round.

Yes, and big-isle barmaid Tara will confirm. Anthuriums, macadamia nuts, chocolate-dipped shortbread cookies, and vog are what the big-isle is all about.

FBN wrote:

Family interests, with their big-budget international attacks on Mignini, the Italian system, and basically anyone who does not believe that Amanda is anything less than completely innocent have only served to aggravate her situation - it's almost like they want her to be locked away forever (I've known families who would love to do just that with their kids). While I doubt that's the case here, it's obvious that the strategy has not been to "please the court", and that's going to be a huge problem for Knox going to trial in Italy.

This strategy emerged in unofficial channels almost from the start, and has been building in intensity, reaching a fever pitch when the Supreme Court made its ruling on April 1. Since then, it has stayed at this high level. This is in marked contrast to the silence of Knox's Italian legal team, which seems to understand better the possible utility of pleasing and cooperating with the court.

I believe there was some attempt on the part of the family (at least the official spokespersons for the family) to maintain a cooperative stance, at least publicly, until Matteini denied the most recent request for house arrest. That seems to have been the tipping point, from which we have seen such things as the interview with the Times. Behind the public front, obviously, the tipping point was reached much earlier. I would put it on or around the date of Joe T's second interview with Barbie Naudau of Newsweek.

Aloha FBN!

"Yes, and big-isle barmaid Tara will confirm. Anthuriums, macadamia nuts, chocolate-dipped shortbread cookies, and vog are what the big-isle is all about. "

You're SO right!! But we can't forget the delicious COFFEE!! (Are you bringing some back?)

Tara wrote:Aloha FBN! "Yes, and big-isle barmaid Tara will confirm. Anthuriums, macadamia nuts, chocolate-dipped shortbread cookies, and vog are what the big-isle is all about."

You're SO right!! But we can't forget the delicious COFFEE!! (Are you bringing some back?)

Kona coffee is so light and mellow (not to mention expensive if 100%) you think you are drinking tea. I'll have to locate some freshly roasted whole beans - yes, that would be worthwhile!

DAMIAN


the judge must pass sentence in accordance with the minimum/maximum terms laid out in the law.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

exactly because under Italian law the judge has no right to make it up, the judge has to lay the law down and sentence according to exact rules, the judge does not decide, the law says you do this, you get that



buono

they have now been formally charged

according to the Times

Guiliano Mignini, the Perugia prosecutor, ended his investigation last month and deposited 10,000 pages of scientific evidence, post mortem reports, and details of interrogations and phone taps. He claims that Ms Kercher was raped, strangled and stabbed in the neck. He has accused the three suspects of voluntary homicide and sexual assault. Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito have also been accused of faking a break-in and of stealing Ms Kercher’s money and credit cards. The defendants’ lawyers gave their formal reply to the documents this week. A date will now be set for a preliminary hearing, probably in late September, in front of a judge, who will decide whether there is sufficient evidence for the suspects to stand trial.

I noted this at the end of today's CNN story:

Sollecito's attorney told CNN that his client was not in the apartment.

"'We will prove that my client was not in the house at the time of the crime, but in his flat watching a movie on a computer, together with Amanda Knox," Maori said.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/07 ... er.murder/

Some have wondered if Sollecito might throw Knox to the wolves in an attempt to save his own skin. This statement appears to resolve that query.

Whoops. Misread quote above. Yes, Charlie the question is answered.

Charlie wrote:

Some have wondered if Sollecito might throw Knox to the wolves in an attempt to save his own skin. This statement appears to resolve that query.

Notice the last line of the same cnn article: "Knox's lawyers had no comment."

rob wrote:rob said :
you have not answered my question regarding the lack of bloodied/partially bloodied foot prints leading out of Merediths room. where are they? you have not answered but it is obvious to see in the photos that the tiles had been cleaned after the murder and the blood of the nike prints was diffused because of the floor or shoes being wet with a liquid other than blood.

charlie said:
I'm not sure what your question is, but I am skeptical about the significance of latent footprints in the hallway, which I think Knox created after taking a shower on the day after the murder. But the caveat is that I don't know how to analyze luminol-based images, beyond picking out the obvious shape of bare feet.


charlie i trust you are not being wilfully obtuse. the prints i am talking about are the visible to the naked eye nike prints and the lack of same exiting Merediths room. 5 year old children make play of making, recognising and following footprints in the snow, sand, mud, by the swimming pool etc. maybe their simple games are ruined by their lack of formal training and experience in examining footprints.

quoting the great mac 'you cannot be serious'.

i understand that you cannot address the fundamental question of THE cleanup inside Merediths door because the obviousness of it and the answer to it does not fit with your conspiracy theories..

OK, I think I understand your point. You are saying that the bloody shoes would have made prints in the hallway as well as inside the murder room, so the hallway must have been mopped.

I can't explain that, but I don't really have all the data, either.

Charlie Wilkes wrote:"'We will prove that my client was not in the house at the time of the crime, but in his flat watching a movie on a computer, together with Amanda Knox," Maori said.[/i]

[font=Times New Roman]If the lawyers say they can prove Knox was with RS at his house at the time of the crime, what will be the reason they'll give for his claiming Knox was 'missing' from around 8.30 onwards while he stayed at home, smoked more dope, until she returned home around 1am?

RS has her absent from the house for enough time to commit the murder, clean up, and come home. How can his retraction of the original alibi feasibly be explained away, bearing in mind he hasn't complained of any irregular treatment?[/font]

Charlie Wilkes wrote:I noted this at the end of today's CNN story:

Sollecito's attorney told CNN that his client was not in the apartment.

"'We will prove that my client was not in the house at the time of the crime, but in his flat watching a movie on a computer, together with Amanda Knox," Maori said.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/07 ... er.murder/

Some have wondered if Sollecito might throw Knox to the wolves in an attempt to save his own skin. This statement appears to resolve that query.

Charlie, the birthday flowers sort of foreshadowed this statement and the answer to the query.

RS has her absent from the house for enough time to commit the murder, clean up, and come home. How can his retraction of the original alibi feasibly be explained away, bearing in mind he hasn't complained of any irregular treatment?

Soozie, how can you say that he wasn't mistreated? I heard he was beaten about the head and neck with phallic flowers till he begged for mercy. I'd wager he'd say ANYTHING to make them stop--even things like "If I am here (in prison), it is abve all the faullt of Amanda."

Oh, no wait...He said she was with him the whole night, googllin phallic flowers on his compute--He's so romantic.

Charlie Wilkes wrote:I noted this at the end of today's CNN story:

Sollecito's attorney told CNN that his client was not in the apartment.

"'We will prove that my client was not in the house at the time of the crime, but in his flat watching a movie on a computer, together with Amanda Knox," Maori said.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/07 ... er.murder/

Some have wondered if Sollecito might throw Knox to the wolves in an attempt to save his own skin. This statement appears to resolve that query.

Wow,

Raffaele's team really do need Amanda to be on their side.

Perhaps, without her as an alibi, Raffaele has a real big problem. Letters, flowers and Luca Moari swearing Amanda's innocence at every opportunity. It's almost as if Raffael's team want to take over Amanda's defence. I wonder if Papa is offering to cover the costs?

Damian, in the absence of comment from Amanda's team is it possible for that to happen in Italy without any problems?

Brian wrote:

Raffaele's team really do need Amanda to be on their side.

Frank just posted on the exact charges against each and the number of years each faces if convicted of the various crimes.

soozie UK wrote:

Charlie Wilkes wrote:"'We will prove that my client was not in the house at the time of the crime, but in his flat watching a movie on a computer, together with Amanda Knox," Maori said.[/i]

[font=Times New Roman]If the lawyers say they can prove Knox was with RS at his house at the time of the crime, what will be the reason they'll give for his claiming Knox was 'missing' from around 8.30 onwards while he stayed at home, smoked more dope, until she returned home around 1am?

RS has her absent from the house for enough time to commit the murder, clean up, and come home. How can his retraction of the original alibi feasibly be explained away, bearing in mind he hasn't complained of any irregular treatment?[/font]

I don't know. Why did Kevin Fox confess to killing his daughter? DNA evidence proved someone else did it. No one who knew the guy believed he could possibly be guilty; they all swore he was a good father and a gentle person who would never hurt anyone. So why did he lie to the police and damn near ruin his own life?

The only answer I can come up with is that he told them what they wanted to hear.

Charlie Wilkes wrote:Why did Kevin Fox confess to killing his daughter? DNA evidence proved someone else did it. No one who knew the guy believed he could possibly be guilty; they all swore he was a good father and a gentle person who would never hurt anyone. So why did he lie to the police and damn near ruin his own life? The only answer I can come up with is that he told them what they wanted to hear.

I now understand why CW's expert-witness testimony may be required here. A question, CW: What is the overall success rate for applying the "I just told them what they wanted to hear" defense in murder cases?

FBN wrote:

I

now understand why CW's expert-witness testimony may be required here. A question, CW: What is the overall success rate for applying the "I just told them what they wanted to hear" defense in murder cases?

This is part of the problem: when a genuine phenomenon becomes a defense strategy. As a phenomenon, false confessions exist, but their existence does not allow us to predict the truth of such things with any success in the absence of other information. Once again, I suspect that how successful it is as a strategy will depend on the strength of the rest of the case.

It was reported some time ago that full transcripts of the questioning sessions exist, and indeed I have been told by more than one source that they do. I have even heard that tapes exist. If so, then we'll have some idea about how things went down.

But in the statement RS wrote in prison, which, as everyone recalls, was put up for auction and sold to the highest bidder, he certainly does not dwell on the subject of his interrogation and it must have been fresh in his mind. Incidentally, when it was released, his lawyer Maori said it would be submitted in his defense. The question of whether or not it is admissible hasn't been answered.

As for Kevin Cox, who knows why he confessed? Raffaele's case is a little different, since he did not implicate himself.

The more interesting question is why his team is courting Knox now, after months of the cold shoulder? What's in the 10,000 pages that makes the smiling team think that Raffaele needs Amanda?

"We will prove that my client was not in the house at the time of the crime, but in his flat watching a movie on a computer, together with Amanda Knox," Maori said. "

This statement is an absolute joke. It has no merit. The three defendants have systematically lied not only to the Police, but most likely, to their own lawyers and to their family members. I do not know this for a fact, but I make the claim that it is true.

So they were together, no they weren't, oh yes they were. I see. So if Amanda Knox's cell phone was pinged in the vicinity of the cottage at 8:48 pm, that does not mean that she was not also at Raffale Sollecito's flat at the same time. And if Amanda Knox, as stated by a witness, was on Girabaldi Street on the night of the murder, that does not mean she was also not at his flat as well. And if Amanda Knox's blood was found mixed with that of Meredith Kercher that does not mean she was not at his flat as well. If Amanda Knox blamed Patrick Lumumba for the murder, then she was only kidding.. If Amanda Knox's DNA is on a large kitchen knife with that of the murder victim, that does not mean she was really at the cottage, but rather watching a movie with her squeeze. If Amanda Knox's foot prints are found steeped in blood that must mean that she was at the cottage only in a dream.

Oh yes, we shall see what will happen to this vaunted defense story about where she was and where she was not. The coerced confessions are most definitely out and no longer in. Amanda Knox does not have an alibi that can be backed up by Raffaele Sollecito precisely because he does not have one either. And if it is proven that their DNA is in the cottage, then they were there, participating in the murder of the young woman, not at home watching some movie.

"The more interesting question is why his team is courting Knox now, after months of the cold shoulder? What's in the 10,000 pages that makes the smiling team think that Raffaele needs Amanda?"

Something must be there to get both sides to change their strategies. A crime was committed. The two of them have now officially been charged; reality is now setting in that they have to fight this charge. From what I have read, the two of them have been charged with 'Voluntary Homicide,' and "Faking a Crime Scene.' Those charges are forever. If Raffaele Sollecito does not attempt to give an alibi to Amanda Knox, and is charged with the same crimes as her, why they know that they better work together.

Work together to continue their systematic lying to the authorities about the extent of their involvement in the purposeless slaughter of another human being. Put quite simply, SB, they simply do not have any choice in the matter; both of them are facing 20 years to life. That is the present reality for them.

Charlie Wilkes wrote:"We will prove that my client was not in the house at the time of the crime, but in his flat watching a movie on a computer, together with Amanda Knox," Maori said. Some have wondered if Sollecito might throw Knox to the wolves in an attempt to save his own skin. This statement appears to resolve that query.

No, we saw Sollecito throw Knox to the wolves long ago. What some have wondered here is whether or not he would try to recover the body before it was too late. Maori has received his marching orders and, providing this does go to trial, if he can prove what he has been tasked with then he truly deserves a healthly bonus from Dr. Sollecito and a hip-hip-hooray from all of us here.

a2 wrote:Hi, Brian,

But I'm not sure about this line:

Le dinamiche dell'omicidio, avvenuto il 2 novembre scorso, non sono ancora state del tutto chiarite.

Google Translate: The dynamics the murder, which took place on November 2 last year, have not yet been fully clarified.

I think I'm beginning to get the picture on this:

The case will go to the pre-trial in front of a judge where prosecution and defenses put forward their arguements. Frank says this almost resembles a real trial. This judge will then decide what charge if any the suspects will answer to at the real trial.

TamTam has a bit more than the quote above

Le dinamiche dell'omicidio non sono comunque ancora state del tutto chiarite, fatto questo su cui punteranno i collegi difensivi per scagionare Sollecito, la Knox e Guede.

The dynamics of the murder haven't been fixed and unless I'm much mistaken the prosecution is hoping to tie these details up with the help of the defences at the pre-trial.

ie. Speak now if you didn't actually kill the victim but perhaps are guilty of a lesser offence, otherwise we want to try you for a crime which carries a life sentence. Please tell us how this killing actually happened. Surely a tempter for anyone who didn't actually wield the death knife. Perhaps, Raffaele's team may be worried that Amanda is actually considering what this could mean.

I have now found a comment from Amanda's team:

Could someone with good Italian try to decipher it.

Di ''atto quasi dovuto'' dopo l'avviso di conclusione indagini ha parlato anche l'avvocato Luciano Ghirga che difende Amanda Knox insieme a Carlo Dalla Vedova. ''E' una richiesta scontata - ha proseguito - e ora ci prepariamo all'udienza preliminare dove faremo valere le nostre tesi''.


La Nazione

FBN,

We have been privy to the endless games played by the defendants, their lawyers and their supporters played out from the get go.

First it was, I wasn't there, then I was, and then I was not. When I said I was there, I a saw someone else commit the crime.

Then it was, I really did not mean to say this, but I was actually with my squeeze at that time. And if I said I was there, and blaming someone else, that it was all due to Police brutaliy and coercion.

We also heard from one of the defendants that when he first told the Police about where he was, that it was a lot of rubbish. Actually, he said, he was home alone.

And about that knife. One of the defendants said that her boyfriend might have done the killing and put her finger prints on it while she was sleeping. Her squeeze said that he actually pricked the murder victim one day while cooking.

And about that DNA on the brassiere. Why that got there because one of the defendants actually borrowed the brassiere to use one day.

Then we heard one of the defendants say that he received a call from his Father at 11:00 pm, only later to learn that it was much, much earlier.

Now the main lawyer states that these two were together watching a movie while the murder was being committed.

It is a game to be played out. An attempt to thwart Justice. There is a plethora of evidence against these two defendants. It is not a tiny amount.

We got through the "Drunken Stupor" thing, and we made it through the "Coerced Confession" scam. We do not know what the next one will be, or where it will come from. I do know that whatever it is, it will not be about a search for the truth.

Justice moves slowly, but surely. It will not be thwarted.

bpcl wrote:Now the main lawyer states that these two were together watching a movie while the murder was being committed.

Maori is putting it all on the line here, isn't he? I suspect that between Dr. Sollecito's demands and the 10,000 page document this is what it has to come down to. Signing Knox to the Team would be a great bonus, but he's going forward regardless. I would not want to be in his shoes.

Brian S. wrote:Could someone with good Italian try to decipher it.

Di ''atto quasi dovuto'' dopo l'avviso di conclusione indagini ha parlato anche l'avvocato Luciano Ghirga che difende Amanda Knox insieme a Carlo Dalla Vedova. ''E' una richiesta scontata - ha proseguito - e ora ci prepariamo all'udienza preliminare dove faremo valere le nostre tesi''.

[font=Times New Roman]Here goes: "After the announcement that the investigation will end, also the lawyer Luciano Ghirga, who defends Amanda Knox with Carlo Dalla Vedova, has spoken of an "almost due act". "It's an expected request", he goes on, "and now we will prepare to a preliminary hearing, where we will assert our theory".

Is that close enough? I beat an Italian boy around the head with a dandelion and then forced him to strip and translate. So he might change his tranlsation later as there was no interpreter present...
[/font]

bpcl wrote:Now the main lawyer states that these two were together watching a movie while the murder was being committed.

And that at least takes two people to give each other an alibi.

The last human interaction with that computer was 9:10pm.

Even if that action did start the film it doesn't prove anyone watched it, merely that it was left running if and when they decided to do something else.

I'm always leaving my computer on, often even when I go out. I just forget.

Brian S. wrote:Even if that action did start the film it doesn't prove anyone watched it, merely that it was left running if and when they decided to do something else.

I'm always leaving my computer on, often even when I go out. I just forget.

[font=Times New Roman]Me too Brian, especially my PC which is often on 24/7. I often download stuff and then go out, not to commit murder, just out![/font]

Brian S.

"The last human interaction with that computer was 9:10pm."

Even so, Amanda Knox sent out a text message to Patrick Lumumba at 8:40 pm. This call was pinged in the vicinity of the cottage. Therefore, she could not have been with him at this time. Do you know the time that a witness placed her on Girabaldi Street?

These two charged suspects cannot have it both ways. Either they were together or they were not. If the cellphone and witness place Amanda Knox aways from the flat of Raffaele Sollecito, then they could not have been together. And if they say that they were together and DNA places the two of them in places that they should not be, then they were there by default.

"dove faremo valere le nostre tesi"

where we will assert our theory.

Is that close enough?



Thanks Soozie.

I came up with something similar to you.

It's that last bit I'm really interested in.

How to translate it fluently?

I guess we'll both have to wait for one of our linguists to mark our effort

Please forgive me for posting this like this, but from Frank's Shock:

Rudy, Raffaele and Amanda for:

-Voluntary murder with the aggravating circumstance of the futile motive and cruelty (life sentence)
-Sexual violence by Rudy with the help of Amanda and Raffaele (6-12 years)
-Theft of Meredith's money, credit cards and cellphones by all three (1-6 years + 206-1549 € fine).

Amanda and Raffaele for:

-Simulation of crime (1-3 years)
-Detention and transportation of a weapon (1-12 months + 50-200 euro fine).

And Amanda for:

-Slander (6 to 20 years).

If we calculate the life sentence as 70 years and consider the minimum penalty for everything, the score is:

1) Amanda: 84 years, 1 month and 256 €.
2) Raffaele: 78 years, 1 month and 256 €.
3) Rudy: 77 years and 250 €.

Or, in the event of an abbreviated trial, everything is reduced by one-third (the life sentence becomes 30 years).

bpcl wrote:"We will prove that my client was not in the house at the time of the crime, but in his flat watching a movie on a computer, together with Amanda Knox," Maori said. "

This statement is an absolute joke. It has no merit. The three defendants have systematically lied not only to the Police, but most likely, to their own lawyers and to their family members. I do not know this for a fact, but I make the claim that it is true.

Bpclwhat else is Maori supposed to say? RS computer alibi seems to be gone, it looks like his footprints have been found in the bathroom, the alleged murder weapon comes from his kitchen, his DNA is on the bra clasp. Rudy traces have been found as well, but differently from RS (and AK), he has given an explanation for this evidence from the very beginning, whereas the two haven't ,unless we buy a) the cooking party where Meredith hand was pricked, b) the shared bra, and c) the true masterpiece: we smoked a few joints and therefore we can't remember what we did.

At this point I think that all RS and AK can do to save their asses is to revert to the original version they gave, that is they were together all night.Now that RG has gone his own way, they only have each other. But that still leaves lots of explaining to do on their side , among which the claim they slept until 10 am but the mobiles were turned on at dawn, as well as the pc showing signs of human interaction only around the same time. And why AK fingered PL remains a mistery to anybody who has enough common sense not to buy the crap about the coerced confession for which no complaint has been filed so far.It would also be interesting to hear from Mr Sollecito why he first said that Knox was at his apartment all night but a few hours later he stated he had said a bunch of cazzate because she had asked him to lie for her.

I think that the judges will decide to look into the cazzate RS has said, and might decide that he has been saying cazzate all along

But it' going to be a long battle. I reckon.

Brian S. wrote:It's that last bit I'm really interested in.

How to translate it fluently?

I guess we'll both have to wait for one of our linguists to mark our effort

[font=Times New Roman]I actually did get an Italian guy to translate it, except his English might be slightly suspect[/font]

soozie UK wrote:

Brian S. wrote:Even if that action did start the film it doesn't prove anyone watched it, merely that it was left running if and when they decided to do something else.

I'm always leaving my computer on, often even when I go out. I just forget.

[font=Times New Roman]Me too Brian, especially my PC which is often on 24/7. I often download stuff and then go out, not to commit murder, just out![/font]

I do too, but according to my very "green-minded" children we all are wasting precious energy.

soozie UK wrote:

Brian S. wrote:Could someone with good Italian try to decipher it.

Di ''atto quasi dovuto'' dopo l'avviso di conclusione indagini ha parlato anche l'avvocato Luciano Ghirga che difende Amanda Knox insieme a Carlo Dalla Vedova. ''E' una richiesta scontata - ha proseguito - e ora ci prepariamo all'udienza preliminare dove faremo valere le nostre tesi''.

[font=Times New Roman]Here goes: "After the announcement that the investigation will end, also the lawyer Luciano Ghirga, who defends Amanda Knox with Carlo Dalla Vedova, has spoken of an "almost due act". "It's an expected request", he goes on, "and now we will prepare to a preliminary hearing, where we will assert our theory".

Is that close enough? I beat an Italian boy around the head with a dandelion and then forced him to strip and translate. So he might change his tranlsation later as there was no interpreter present...
[/font]

Brava Soozie! That's absolutely correct

indie wrote:I do too, but according to my very "green-minded" children we all are wasting precious energy.

[font=Times New Roman]I'm glad I was born before it was cool to be green!![/font]

Nicki,

"Bpcl what else is Maori supposed to say?"

If you read the charges against them, posted above your post, Nicki, there is a time to punt. This evidence is overwhelming to the point of disgust. Any one of the pieces of evidence is strong enough to convict them because Raffaele Sollecito has no alibi either.

If the lawyer is stating this, then it is the family stating this. The family is directing the show. What arrogance. This family lawyer has used the term "poor Meredith." Yes, Meredith is in limbo precisely because of these types of "bimbo" statements. The lawyer could have equally said, "We intend to fight these charges against our client in a Court of Law because we believe him to be innocent," or something to this effect.

Why all the bravado then? Bravado goes no where because it is hot air, nothing more.

Oh Sooz. You and he have my apologies.

Especially now I've seen Nicki's confirmation.

Where he came up with theory, I came up with thesis.

What troubles me is, how can a defence team "have a theory".

Don't defence teams "make their case" based on what their client says happened.

"assert their position"? "validate their defense" BUT "assert their theory"???

Brian S. wrote:

bpcl wrote:Now the main lawyer states that these two were together watching a movie while the murder was being committed.

And that at least takes two people to give each other an alibi.

The last human interaction with that computer was 9:10pm.

Even if that action did start the film it doesn't prove anyone watched it, merely that it was left running if and when they decided to do something else.

I'm always leaving my computer on, often even when I go out. I just forget.

I do the same thing Brian. But sometimes one of the cats (the younger one) walks on the keyboard pressing the keys and causing "feline" interaction. A while ago he even sent an email to several people. I even received a reply from two flabbergasted friends. Does RS have a cat? Most most important: would feline interaction be admitted as evidence in court?

Brian S. wrote:Oh Sooz. You and he have my apologies.

Especially now I've seen Nicki's confirmation.

Where he came up with theory, I came up with thesis.

What troubles me is, how can a defence team "have a theory".

Don't defence teams "make their case" based on what their client says happened.

"assert their position"? "validate their defense" BUT "assert their theory"???

Good point Brian. "tesi" means "theory or thesis" but also "case or contention".I think that's probably what he meant.

Brian S. wrote:

a2 wrote:Hi, Brian,

But I'm not sure about this line:

Le dinamiche dell'omicidio, avvenuto il 2 novembre scorso, non sono ancora state del tutto chiarite.

Google Translate: The dynamics the murder, which took place on November 2 last year, have not yet been fully clarified.

I think I'm beginning to get the picture on this:

The case will go to the pre-trial in front of a judge where prosecution and defenses put forward their arguements. Frank says this almost resembles a real trial. This judge will then decide what charge if any the suspects will answer to at the real trial.

TamTam has a bit more than the quote above

Le dinamiche dell'omicidio non sono comunque ancora state del tutto chiarite, fatto questo su cui punteranno i collegi difensivi per scagionare Sollecito, la Knox e Guede.

The dynamics of the murder haven't been fixed and unless I'm much mistaken the prosecution is hoping to tie these details up with the help of the defences at the pre-trial.

ie. Speak now if you didn't actually kill the victim but perhaps are guilty of a lesser offence, otherwise we want to try you for a crime which carries a life sentence. Please tell us how this killing actually happened. Surely a tempter for anyone who didn't actually wield the death knife. Perhaps, Raffaele's team may be worried that Amanda is actually considering what this could mean.

I have now found a comment from Amanda's team:

Could someone with good Italian try to decipher it.

Di ''atto quasi dovuto'' dopo l'avviso di conclusione indagini ha parlato anche l'avvocato Luciano Ghirga che difende Amanda Knox insieme a Carlo Dalla Vedova. ''E' una richiesta scontata - ha proseguito - e ora ci prepariamo all'udienza preliminare dove faremo valere le nostre tesi''.


La Nazione

Brian S. said...

Frank,

Could the pre-trial also substitute a lesser charge for those charges carrying a life sentence.

ie. If it becomes apparent that one of the suspects wasn't directly involved in the murder, the pre-tral judge could instead charge them with some kind of lesser accessory charge for the real trial next year?


2befrank said...

sure


Perugia-Shock



What will Amanda do?

Will she fall for Raffaele a second time?

OR

Do what is best for herself.

nicki wrote:I reckon.

What kind of Italian slang is "I reckon"?

Brian wrote:

assert their position"? "validate their defense" BUT "assert their theory"???

Nicki wrote:

Good point Brian. "tesi" means "theory or thesis" but also "case or contention".I think that's probably what he meant.

Putting two and two together, does "state their case" work here?

skeptical bystander wrote:Brian wrote:

assert their position"? "validate their defense" BUT "assert their theory"???

Nicki wrote:

Good point Brian. "tesi" means "theory or thesis" but also "case or contention".I think that's probably what he meant.

Putting two and two together, does "state their case" work here?

I 'd say it works fine.

Fly by Night wrote:

nicki wrote:I reckon.

What kind of Italian slang is "I reckon"?

FNB, one just never knows.

ISTM that the position taken by Walter Biscotti is also pressuring Amanda.

You can bet Raffaele will go for the full trial if Amanda decides to be by his side.

There she will risk ALL on a charge carrying a life sentence.

Because Rudy will go for the short trial and appear as a prosecution witness against her at the full trial.

The choice is your's to make Amanda.

Brian S. wrote:

What will Amanda do?

Will she fall for Raffaele a second time?

OR

Do what is best for herself.

I sincerely hope she does what is best for herself. I don't believe she deserves life if someone else "snapped". Just my opinion but 30 years sounds about right for her participation in this horrific crime if and only if she never intended to murder Meredith.

Brian S. wrote:What troubles me is, how can a defence team "have a theory".

Don't defence teams "make their case" based on what their client says happened.

"assert their position"? "validate their defense" BUT "assert their theory"???

Brian, maybe they need to come up with theories to explain away evidence against them. For instance, they'll have a theory on how the bloody footprints got there if AK and RS were at home watching a movie during the time of the murder.

Skep wrote:Putting two and two together, does "state their case" work here?

Well he didn't give anything away there.

I just have to wonder what "case" Amanda is going to state?

I saw some interesting speculation in the Italian press some weeks ago, when the investigation was closed, about which type of trial the suspects would likely opt for. It's worth remembering that the press can sometimes be better informed than they dare put in print.

They were almost unanimous in their predictions for Rudy and Raffaele.

Rudy - short trial.

Raffaele - full trial.

But none of them professed to have much idea which way Amanda would go.



and with that I will bid you all Good Night.

Brian S. wrote:I saw some interesting speculation in the Italian press some weeks ago, when the investigation was closed, about which type of trial the suspects would likely opt for. It's worth remembering that the press can sometimes be better informed than they dare put in print.

They were almost unanimous in their predictions for Rudy and Raffaele.

Rudy - short trial.

Raffaele - full trial.

But none of them professed to have much idea which way Amanda would go.

Maybe that means they know there's more evidence against Amanda than against Raffaele.

Brian S. wrote:Oh Sooz. You and he have my apologies.

Especially now I've seen Nicki's confirmation.

Where he came up with theory, I came up with thesis.

[font=Times New Roman]No need to apologise Brian. Until Nicki comfirmed it, I wasn't sure it was correct, but I guess I can tell Italian Boy he did okay and I won't torture him any further!! I thought 'theory' could have meant 'version', as in "we'll present our version."[/font]

Charlie Wilkes wrote:I noted this at the end of today's CNN story:

Sollecito's attorney told CNN that his client was not in the apartment.

"'We will prove that my client was not in the house at the time of the crime, but in his flat watching a movie on a computer, together with Amanda Knox," Maori said.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/07 ... er.murder/

So reportedly, the theory of RS's case (and on offer, AK's) depends upon watching a movie on the computer. Traces of initiation of the movie download were recovered, correct?

Yet, other activities on the hard drives of RS's and AK's computers were mysteriously eradicated through some undetermined damage whilst in custody. I suppose at some point we will hear what was found in the examination by the California computer experts.

jw

Up early today for a big day on the windows with a paintbrush.

Sparrow wrote:Brian, maybe they need to come up with theories to explain away evidence against them.

jw wrote:

Charlie Wilkes wrote:I noted this at the end of today's CNN story:

Sollecito's attorney told CNN that his client was not in the apartment.

"'We will prove that my client was not in the house at the time of the crime, but in his flat watching a movie on a computer, together with Amanda Knox," Maori said.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/07 ... er.murder/

So reportedly, the theory of RS's case (and on offer, AK's) depends upon watching a movie on the computer. Traces of initiation of the movie download were recovered, correct?

Yet, other activities on the hard drives of RS's and AK's computers were mysteriously eradicated through some undetermined damage whilst in custody. I suppose at some point we will hear what was found in the examination by the California computer experts.

jw

jw,

The drives which were damaged weren't on the computer used for the movie. That was RS laptop which survived it's custody intact.

I don't see that the California computer experts can add much to that found by the Italian techies. They may find additional things which may or may not have been documented by the investigators such as the time the movie started and when it finished. But that doesn't prove a thing.

The Italian techies say that the last human interaction with that laptop was at 9:10pm, information which can be gained by looking at the timing of the I/O from keyboard and mouse or any other input device. The accuracy of the laptop clock can be confirmed by comparison with the times given by communication that computer had on the internet with his ISP(whose clock you would assume to be correct). This kind of information doesn't require a rocket scientist. It's the kind of thing police tech labs do all the time in connection with child porn, computer fraud and the like.

More from Corriere dell'Umbria this morning.

They seem to think both Raffalele and Amanda will probably go for a full trial. Do they know something about the state of the romance which we don't?


They think Rudy will go for the short trial.

"Pure" or "conditional"?

Anyone know the difference?


La Knox e Sollecito sceglieranno sicurament eil rito ordinario (il dibattimento pubblico insomma). Più incerta la strategia di Rudy che potrebbe anche optare per un rito alternativo (magari l’abbreviato o puro o condizionato).Dall’omicidio alla richiesta di rinvio a giudizio sono trascorsi, esattamente, otto mesi e nove giorni

Sigh, one more cup of tea and I must pick up that paintbrush.

Brian S. wrote:Sigh, one more cup of tea and I must pick up that paintbrush.

Thanks Brian - be inspired! Just having dinner, myself...

The fact that RS and AK are being charged with possessing and conveying a weapon means that the prosecution has no doubt about the presence of MK's DNA on the knife.

It will be interesting to see whether the defence will contest this, and whether they will claim that it can match 'half of Italy'.

The knife implicates either and both of them: it was RS's knife, and it had AK's DNA near the handle. Of course AK's DNA could have got there at any time during the period she was with RS. The problem is how and when MK's DNA got there.

The prosecution is going to have a difficult task proving a) that MK never visited RS's flat, even fleetingly, during the two weeks that AK and RS were lovers
and
b) that the knife in question was never in the cottage at any time before the murder.

If Filomena and Laura are certain that no such knife was ever in the cottage, the defence will argue that it was brought there for innocent purposes, such as chopping mushrooms, because no adequate one was available at the cottage. In that case any of the three suspects may have wielded it.

The problem is explaining how and why it made its way back to RS's flat; and why it was cleaned with bleach.

This knife remains the 'queen of clues', as the Italian press dubbed it back in December.

rob said:
i understand that you cannot address the fundamental question of THE cleanup inside Merediths door because the obviousness of it and the answer to it does not fit with your conspiracy theories..


charlie said:
OK, I think I understand your point. You are saying that the bloody shoes would have made prints in the hallway as well as inside the murder room, so the hallway must have been mopped.

I can't explain that, but I don't really have all the data, either.



charlie i asked you and oc8 the question many weeks ago, long before the luminol hallway photos came out. PUT THE HALLWAY OUT OF YOUR MIND just look in Merediths room.

in concluding there was a cleanup i looked at the photos of the room seeing the bloody nike prints especially the one 3ft from the door showing the toe facing the bed and not the bedroom door. there should be visible whole or partial bloodied nike prints on the tiles leading towards and out of the room. one would expect them to get fainter but they would be visible. and that nike print shows diffused blood for reasons i already posted.

THERE WAS A CLEANUP. NO DOUBT. maybe the vampire did it. maybe the 'lovers'. maybe all three. maybe a pulp fiction type fixer was called. maybe even the albanian. in order to acknowledge a cleanup was done it matters not who did it.

you have really made this a laboured point when an open objective mind really should have acknowledged the obvious cleanup, visible and discernible through more than one indicator, shown within the photos of the floor in Merediths room. it is childsplay charlie not a tortuous intellectual exercise.

.

Concorso di omicidio.

If three people participate in somekind of attack agaisnt someone, they will be charged with 'concorso di...' whatever is the end result of that attack. Let's call these people X, Y and Z. Let's talk about X.

Let's say X was present at the start of the chain of events which led to the end result and initially participated. Let's say somekind of physical violence/restraint was used. Let's say one or more person had a knife and that this weapon was used to threaten the victim, maybe put to the throat. For the law, in this hypothetical scenario, the end result could be forseen. Let's say the end result is the death of the victim. If X does not intervene, does not try to interrupt the chain of events, X, along with the other two, is guilty of concorso di omicidio volontario. This carries a minimum sentence of 21 years.

Charlie Wilkes wrote:I don't know. Why did Kevin Fox confess to killing his daughter? DNA evidence proved someone else did it .... The only answer I can come up with is that he told them what they wanted to hear.

Charlie, you have to be careful when you pull one of your favourite USA cases out and compare it to Perugia:

Kevin Fox was charged with murder on the basis of his confession on video. Amanda and Raffaele were not charged with anything on the basis of their declarations, rather, those focussed the orientation of the investigation.

The Kevin Fox investigators told the FBI to not proceed with DNA testing, that the Fox confession was sufficient to send him to jail. Mignini brought in expert teams from Rome who discovered additional forensic evidence.

Kevin Fox, from the moment he walked out of his interrogation, proclaimed the abuse he suffered, and his lawyer and activists worked aggressively to right the injustice he suffered. Lawyer Kathleen Zellner "took the unusual step of filing a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Will County sheriff's office and several detectives, alleging that they had coerced Fox's confession." (from www.truthinjustice.org)

I see no sign whatsoever of the Smiling Team or Amanda's lawyers having done that here. They had a big opportunity up until last Tuesday at noon. And they did nothing. Of course, they can still use some sort of coercion argument in the actual court trial, but it would have been much stronger to have been supported by a complaint, or a psychological exam, or any other additional test which could minimally support the Evil Mignini thesis.

Why didn't you send a copy of the Preston book to the Perugian lawyers? You lost a big opportunity to help out.

I think, Charlie, that at this point, this case will proceed on the basis of DNA, footprint analysis, contrasting of alibis, telephone call records, eyewitness accounts, etc.

As for Raffaele courting Amanda once again with his suggestive flowers, I am reminded of the end of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. Instead of being surrounded by 10,000 Bolivian soldiers, the happy couple is surrounded by 10,000 pages of the investigation report. And Raffaele is suggesting to Amanda that if there is an eensy-teensy-weeny possibility of them getting out of this situation, it's a question of using their beat up horse-alibis as a flimsy shield, and go out with their guns-a-blazing.

The problem with that is that there's no possibility of a stand down. Amanda's entourage has worked hard up until now on excluding any possibility of her having any knowledge of (much less relation with) the crime. That's why, as Charlie has stated, it's not worthwhile or even logical for investigators to try to complete any questioning session with her.

Now what would have happened if the Sundance Kid had decided to not accompany Butch in his glorious exit from this world, but rather save his beat up horse, and let Butch take the lead role in assuming his responsibilities for leading the inexperienced Kid around in their criminal activities?

Could the Kid have saved himself? Or would the Bolivians have killed him anyway, given the crimes he had committed of his own hands?

=================================

I'm linking to some photos of three actors in this play: Manuela Comodi, who is now co-prosecutor together with Mignini (I guess for the Evil-Mignini conspiracy theorists, she would have to be co-opted into his terrible plans)

Also, a couple of snaps of Claudia Matteini (one we've seen before, but smaller and in black-and-white). As the case moves towards trial, Matteini's role seems to wane.

Also, a photo of Luciano Ghirga, Amanda's lawyer, who isn't quite as media-hungry as Raffaele's Smiling Team.

All these photos have appeared in recent articles concerning another case in Perugia, "Lo Scandalo delgi Appalti", some sort of bribe and kickback scandal. Marco Brusco of the Smiling Team also represents clients involved in that case.

So we see that the main characters know each other quite well.

Minotaur wrote:
The prosecution is going to have a difficult task proving a) that MK never visited RS's flat, even fleetingly, during the two weeks that AK and RS were lovers
and
b) that the knife in question was never in the cottage at any time before the murder.

a) Meredith never set foot in RS's appartment. His lawyers have also said this.

b) RS's father has poo pooed the 'prick with the knife' story. I'm not sure RS's lawyers will go with the cooking story in court but if they do, I think they'll have a hard time convincing the judge of a 'motivo giustificato' for that little trip.

La Nazione.
"Amanda, trying to 'obtain impunity for all of them and in particular for Rudy', says that she knows Rudy only 'vaguely', despite an Albanian witness who claims the 'opposite', ('this is not true' d) is accused of slander agaisnt the Congolese musician Patrick Lumumba..."

Brian S. wrote:More from Corriere dell'Umbria this morning.

They seem to think both Raffalele and Amanda will probably go for a full trial. Do they know something about the state of the romance which we don't?


They think Rudy will go for the short trial.

"Pure" or "conditional"?

Anyone know the difference?


La Knox e Sollecito sceglieranno sicurament eil rito ordinario (il dibattimento pubblico insomma). Più incerta la strategia di Rudy che potrebbe anche optare per un rito alternativo (magari l’abbreviato o puro o condizionato).Dall’omicidio alla richiesta di rinvio a giudizio sono trascorsi, esattamente, otto mesi e nove giorni



Sigh, one more cup of tea and I must pick up that paintbrush.

"Nella sua forma "pura" il giudizio è automaticamente introdotto a
seguito della richiesta dell'imputato. L'accoglimento della richiesta stessa
non è più ancorato ad alcun presupposto: il P.M. non è chiamato ad
esprimere il consenso; il giudice non compie alcuna verifica sulla
economicità della richiesta, sulla decidibilità allo stato degli atti. Nel caso
in cui non vi siano le condizioni per decidere, il giudice assume le prove
ritenute necessarie, esercitando un ruolo direttivo, completamente
svincolato dalle richieste o solo dalle valutazioni delle parti.Accanto a tale figura, il legislatore ne ha introdotta un’altra:
l’abbreviato "condizionato" disciplinato dal comma 5 dell'art. 438. Tale
norma consente che l'imputato possa subordinare la richiesta sul rito al
compimento di alcuni atti istruttori. In tale evenienza il giudice è chiamato
a valutare se sussistano condizioni di necessità ed economicità
dell’integrazione probatoria richiesta.
http://appinter.csm.it/incontri/relaz/9624.pdf

I have attempted a short translation of the legalese above. Anybody who can provide a better-clearer translation please do so, I am running out for a splash in the pool

In the "pure" rito, the PM does not have to agree, and the judge will not verify efficiency/inexpensiveness?? (economicità) of the request. If the conditions for a decision are not present, the judge considers evidence deemed necessary, totally free of the requests or evaluations by the defense/prosecution. In the rito "condizionato" the accused may subordinate the request for the rito to the completion of certain investigation proceedings. In this case, the judge will evaluate if conditions of necessity and efficiency? inexpensivness?? exist of the requested probatory integration.

Il Messaggero Umbria has quite a detailed article on what Meredith's friends have said to the police. They claim to have quotes from them. A lot of them we've heard before.
According to the paper, this happened in the Police station, Nov2.

"And when he/she (the interpreter d) accompanied Amanda to have her fingerprints taken by the scientific police, he/she looked at her in amazement while she struck herself with violence, punching her head."
http://tinyurl.com/6fqyw2

Rito abbreviato. The judge decides on the basis of the findings of the preliminary investigation; what's in the file.

Rito abbreviato condizionato. Same as above, but the defence lawyers (and/or the prosecution) can ask for a witness to be heard again, new tests done, add a new witness etc. This is limited though, but it does give the defence a bit more room for manovre. This is one thing that Frank explained quite well.

damian wrote:Il Messaggero Umbria has quite a detailed article on what Meredith's friends have said to the police. They claim to have quotes from them. A lot of them we've heard before.
According to the paper, this happened in the Police station, Nov2.

Hi Damian, it looks like Il Messaggero has repeated itself, as that same article we picked up and did a fast translation back on June 22 (I think you were off for a few days).

Messaggero Article Translated-Friends in the Police Station

AK and RS; reunited and it feels so good....

First Scenario: AK's mom said, "You'll help us or else..."

Second Scenario: Two against one is better. If AK comes clean - I'm done; then it's two against me (RS).

Third Scenario: Does it really matter? If one goes down - then the other is tied to the sinking ship and all is lost.

Fourth Scenario: RS needs an alibi - the cat, the dog, AK - anything will do at this point. Rudy pointed out the 'shooter,' and RS is knee deep. Amanda is lost any way she turns. If she admits to being at the house but not participating (from what I understand of Italian law), she's guilty. If she says she was not there but with RS and the court finds that RS was the main perp, she's guilty (switch that - same thing).

"He's (She's) a mean one, Mr. Grinch...."

betty

1/
Italy
Life imprisonment (ergastolo in Italian) has an indeterminate length. After 10 years (8 in case of good behavior) the prisoner may be given permission to work outside the prison during the day, or to spend up to 45 days a year at home. After 26 (or 21 in case of good behavior) years, they may be paroled. The admission to work outside the jail or to be paroled needs to be approved by a special court (Tribunale di Sorveglianza) which determines whether or not an inmate is suitable for parole. Prisoners sentenced for associations with either mafia activities or terrorism that do not cooperate with law enforcement agencies are not eligible for parole. Under any circumstance, however, the admission to parole in Italy libertà condizionata is not easy. An inmate that has received more than one life sentence has to spend a period from 6 months to 3 years in solitary confinement. In 1994, the Constitutional Court ruled that giving a life sentence to a person under the age of 18 was cruel and unusual.


2/
After a final sentence of conviction has been pronounced, another judicial panel, the
Tribunal of Surveillance (Tribunale di Sorveglianza), which consists of 2 stipendiary judges and 2 experts who are not judges (psychiatrists, psychologists, pedagogists, and criminologists) may apply alternative measures to detention (misure alternative all detenzione).

The principal measures of this kind are:
a) probation (affidamento in prova al servizio sociale);
b) House arrest (detenzionedomiciliare); and
c) Semi-liberty (regime di semiliberta`): only the night is spent in prison).

In addition to these penalties, which are inflicted as penal sanctions if a person is found guilty of a crime, the penal law provides for the imposition of safety measures (misure di sicurezza), on socially dangerous individuals.
According to the Penal Code, a person is socially dangerous if he or she has committed a crime and there is a strong likelihood that he or she will commit another crime in the future, given the characteristics of the offense and the offender.
The concept of social dangerousness is based on the prediction of recidivism. (Constitution, Art.25; Penal Code, Art.203).


________

If that above is anything to go by then what Frank Shock wrote about sentence lengths is incorrect.
In fact, unless it is specified at sentence time that there will be no possibility of parole nearly all European countries have similar possibilities where life does not actually mean life in prison until death, life does not mean life, unless it is specified that it MUST mean life.
___________________________________________________________________________________________

United States

Determinate and Indeterminate Life Sentence

Further information: Life Imprisonment without Parole (LWOP)

In contrast to that, there are also many states where a convict can be released on parole after a decade or more has passed. For example, sentences of "15 years to life" or "25 years to life" may be given; this is called an "indeterminate life sentence", while a sentence of "life without the possibility of parole" is called a "determinate life sentence". Even when a sentence specifically denies the possibility of parole, government officials may have the power to grant amnesty or reprieves, or commute a sentence to time served. Under the federal criminal code, however, with respect to offenses committed after December 1, 1987, parole has been abolished for all sentences handed down by the federal system, including life sentences, so a life sentence from a federal court will result in imprisonment for the life of the defendant, unless a pardon or reprieve is granted by the President

penal law provides for the imposition of safety measures (misure di sicurezza), on socially dangerous individuals.

According to the Penal Code, a person is socially
dangerous if he or she has committed a crime and
there is a strong likelihood that he or she will commit another crime in the future, given the
characteristics of the offense and the offender.

The concept of social dangerousness is based on
the prediction of recidivism. (Constitution, Art.25; Penal Code, Art.203).




Safety measures cannot be revoked unless the judge decides that the subjected person is no longer socially dangerous. (Penal Code, Art.207,208).



+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If none of the defendants, who may become convicted, admit guilt, when can such people be considered trustworthy, socially safe?

If there is denial, and no acceptance, then there can be no openly displayed remorse.

In that way, seems tome, the danger will not cease, so then, these people,if they are convicted and remain in denial and do not admit guilt, then they will be working against themselves.

How long can a person, someone like Sollecito Junior, keep up an act, all in order to uphold the family name?

It seems to me that in the case of Raffaele Sollecito, he will never admit any guilt, even if convicted.
The reason I think he will not is because of the influence of his father, where dad will not allow his son to admit guilt.

The idea behind that would be: convicted son-love was never guilty, it is a miscarriage of justice, and just like Deputy Dawg, dad can say, Thas ma buoy.

Sollecito if he admits guilt and ever gets set free then he will not be able to hold his head up in the same way that he will be able to if he denies guilt.

If he denies all guilt then on release he can continue to walk about head up high: I am innocent I did nothing.

Then it is only a question of opinion for those he comes into contact with about whether they believe himor not, but that wayt he will then still try to take his life back the one he had before Meredith dies, having not admitted guilt he will be able to go to job interviews and all the rest of it.

I think his father will never allow him to admit to anything.

For him to live with himself, I imagine the only way he can do it, and will be able to di it - if convicted and on release - is to lie to himself and ignore what happened, in fact become almost a pathological liar, inasmuch as he needs to believe it himself in order to survive and live with his own madness.

He has been coldly arrogant up until now, abandoning his so-called grand love only to shamelessly send her flowers when he needs her.

It is indescribably callous, cold and calculated behaviour and I must say, speaking of him, he too seems to be entirely unaware of how he comes across, the initial wickedness at the time of the murder does not decrease, on the contrary, it grows.

I was watching the Greta show last night (with a substitute) and they talked about this case with a Fox news correspondent in Rome named Greg Burke who has been following the proceedings. And he equates this preliminary hearing coming up in September as something we have here known as a Grand Jury ( in this case a Judge). Except that it would be much quicker as the Judge doesn’t have to go thru all of the evidence, and basically looks at it to see if there is sufficient evidence for the case to proceed to final trial. He predicts that it would only take a day or so for each defendant, after which the Judge makes a decision . I understand that it will be a new Judge, but I’ve lost count as to how many Judges have already looked at this case, so I’m wondering what if anything will change between now and the Corte d'Assise trial. Greg Burke also feels that the defendants defense teams will make a large issue as to how the evidence was collected ( for obvious reasons), and if there was any sloppy workmanship when collecting samples leading to degradation and cross contamination.
Another large issue to me will be if the incarceration can be extended for another year. Each of these defendant’s are theoretically facing life sentences so I would think that the Judge will be keeping this in mind along with their deviant behavior when rendering that decision.

damian wrote:Il Messaggero Umbria has quite a detailed article on what Meredith's friends have said to the police. They claim to have quotes from them. A lot of them we've heard before.
According to the paper, this happened in the Police station, Nov2.

"And when he/she (the interpreter d) accompanied Amanda to have her fingerprints taken by the scientific police, he/she looked at her in amazement while she struck herself with violence, punching her head."
http://tinyurl.com/6fqyw2

Thanks, Damian!!

It would seem that some of the 10.000 documents are beginning to emerge. HOWEVER we should not forget that La Repubblica was in possession of many of the verbali of 2nd/3rd November before RS and AK were arrested. That was a moment when everyone thought that it was an opportunistical break-in that had gone wrong, and the leaks were to bolster the usual stories of Drugs Sex and Rock-'n-Roll among sudents.

My point being that we don't know if this article is based on documents cherry-picked from the famous 10.00; or whether it is makes use of verbali on file since 4th or 5th November.

In any case, we now have a much better picture of what went on in the interrogations of 2nd 3rd November, including many people whom we have previously not met, such as Natalie, Amy and the interpreter.

[Thinking of which, Daman, what do you acutally do in Perugia when you're not playing footie on Thursday nights? You wouldn't happen to be an interpreter, would you?]

In any case, here is a translation of the article:



The certainty of Meredith’s English friends and the doubts of Amanda Knox, accused of being one of MK’s killers.

The detailed account of the two Italian flat-mates, accurate and consonant, and the very many contradictions of the American girl. From the statements of the witnesses the figure of Amanda emerges as a girl without inhibitions, who liked to be the centre of attention and who didn’t like sharing the limelight with others. And to such a degree that, in order to stay the queen bee, she went so far as to betray herself. As far as the charge [of murder] goes, it was in the confined space of the waiting-room in the Perugia police station ten hours after the discovery of the violated corpse of MK, that the key to the crime was found. When AK and RS, her Italian sweetheart, French-kissed each other and asked to go home because they were tired, while the others were weeping over the death of their friend. And when Amanda, alone with the interpreter in a corridor of the police station, had an attack of nerves and started, all by herself, to beat her fists against her head violently.

Sophie Purton, the last person to see MK before her encounter with death and a key witness in this inquiry, told the police what happened in the waiting-room while she was waiting to be heard: “I asked: ‘Amanda, can you tell me exactly what happened, because I don’t know anything’. And she said to me ‘I know everything; what do you want to know?’ I said to her: ‘Tell me all that you know, because I know nothing and I’m interested in knowing what happened; tell me everything you know.’ And she said: ‘Her throat was cut and then she was put inside the wardrobe’ and then she told me how she was found. She said that her throat had been cut.”

Another friend of MK, Natalie, agrees with this version: “While I was in the police-station, when I expressed the hope that MK had not suffered while dying and had perhaps died suddenly, Amanda said that, on the contrary, she had suffered for a long time and must have died slowly and painfully because they had cut her throat.” And Samantha adds another detail. Who knows, maybe it’s only a loose exclamation; but for the police it has a different significance. Amanda said: “Fucking bastards”, referring to the killers. And when Amanda made this exclamation which I have referred to [some text seems to be missing here; and the use of quotation marks is sloppy to say the least: M’taur].

How could Amanda have known that, the police wondered. When the door of the room was opened the only person who saw anything was Filomena who noticed only a foot and cried: “A foot, a foot!... Oh Meredith!” Ak’s reply, made several months later, that she was was seeking to explain that she had heard the police saying that MK had died from a cut throat and had therefore deduced that her death was long and painful, does not convince the Prosecuting Magistrate Giuliano Mignini. Neither does it convince the police, who were also attemptng to draw a psychological profile of the girl [i.e. AK] from what the witnesses said during questioning.

Amy, another friend of MK, said: “I remember that Amanda said on the night of 2nd November, when I ask her, ‘Are you thinking of leaving, of going away from Perugia’, she told me that she had asked , referring to herself, Laura and Filomena: “ What will we do with the house? Will we have to find a new house to go and live in?...” And I remember that, when I heard AK saying these things about the house, I thought to myself ‘but how can she be thinking of another house under these circumstances?’; and it seemed very strange to me indeed.”

And then there is the in-house interpreter of the police-station, who was called in to hear Amanda and MK’s friends in the police-station as witnesses, and who remembers seeing the two sweethearts, Amanda and Raffaele, hugging and kissing: “They hugged in the waiting-room of the police-station, and they kissed as if they were at – I don’t like to say it, well almost as if they were at -- a party.” And when he/she accompanied AK to have her fingerprints taken by the technicians, s/he was amazed to see her hitting herself violantly, beating her fists against her head.

And everyone who encountered her says that she seemed to be cold, without emotions. As Sophie said: “Well, when I met AK that evening in the police-station, knowing that she was one of the girls who lived with MK in the same house, I approached her to express my sorrow, my sympathy, and to embrace her. But she froze with her arms at her side, not wishing to share my embrace; and from the expression on her face she didn’t seem to be experiencing any particular emotion and didn’t seem to be upset at all. Then, at a certain moment, I was taken together with her to have our fingerprints taken. And that was the moment when I understood that she had a relationship with Raffaele because, before going downstairs, that is to say before going to the office, or technical laboratory, she greeted RS by kissing him. Then I realised that they were a couple.”

It was only a few weeks ago that the two flat-mates of MK and AK gave further information abut a conversation that the four of them had had together. That was on 30th October. Two days later MK would be murdered. “At some time on that day, we reminded AK and MK that after the Ognisanti long weekend, that is around 5th November, we would have to pay the rent. MK immediately said that she had already had it, and that she could give it to us at once. I told her to wait until 4th November, so that we all could put it together then. Amanda didn’t ever speak to us abut money, and thus we didn’t know if she had credit-cards or other means of day-to-day finance. The only thing he said was that Lumumba hadn’t paid her, and she was therefore thinking of stopping working there. Also on 30th October, MK had said, among other things, that she had money enough at the time because she had won a scholarship or something of the kind, as well a having two credit-cards, one of her own and one to which, perhaps, the University money was paid. Amanda was present throughout the time we were having this discussion.”

On the night of the crime, 250 euros as well as the credit cards of poor Meredith, disappeared from the house on via della Pergola.

Kermit wrote:Hi Damian, it looks like Il Messaggero has repeated itself, as that same article we picked up and did a fast translation back on June 22 (I think you were off for a few days).

Apologies, Kermit; I missed this too. In fact on June 22 I was within 80 minutes by train from Perugia, and on that evening, asking my Italian friends, in all innocence, about the Perugia murder, they all said it seemed to have gone cold!. There was so much noise on this forum over that weekend, that I simply skipped through the inevitable blather, and missed your invaluable contribution on the way. And I have also now wasted my time translating it afresh!!!

But the fact that it appeared on 22 June, only shortly after Mignini's submission his atti, tends to confirm my suspicion that the article is based on the early leaks of the verbali, and not on the content of the atti.

And Damian: My point about the knife is that, legally, it is not possible to prove that someone has never been somewhere, as oposded to proving that someone has indeed been there. RS's lawyers may say that MK had never been to RS's flat; but MK's might argue that she had, on some trivial occasion early in AK and RS's relationship, without RS being aware of the fact. I, personally, am sure she never was; but proof is proof, and assertion is assertion, as everyone know.

Thanks again for your stream of information from the coal-face.

DLW wrote:

I understand that it will be a new Judge, but I’ve lost count as to how many Judges have already looked at this case, so I’m wondering what if anything will change between now and the Corte d'Assise trial.

The new judge is Paolo Micheli (sp.), the only one left according to Frank. In addition to Matteini, we have seen Bufali and Ricciarelli, back in December, plus the Supreme Court team, which I think was a five-person "college," including the presiding magistrate. Am I leaving anyone out?

Minotaur wrote:

And Damian: My point about the knife is that, legally, it is not possible to prove that someone has never been somewhere, as opposed to proving that someone has indeed been there. RS's lawyers may say that MK had never been to RS's flat; but MK's might argue that she had, on some trivial occasion early in AK and RS's relationship, without RS being aware of the fact. I, personally, am sure she never was; but proof is proof, and assertion is assertion, as everyone knows.

Actually, I would think RS's lawyers might wish to claim the contrary, ie, that MK had been to his flat. AK has already stated that MK never visited RS's flat, and I would think the lawyer for MK's family would also not argue that she had been to his flat if there is reasonable certainty that she had not. This is one of those aspects of the case where the only person who could tell us for sure is unfortunately not able to do so. What Lara and Filomena will probably be able to tell us is how many times they saw RS at the cottage, how often AK slept at the cottage after meeting RS on or about October 18, and whether RS ever spent the night at the cottage. My spider sense tells me that, since he had his own place, the new couple spent their time alone together at his place and not at hers.

Minotaur wrote:

RS's lawyers may say that MK had never been to RS's flat; but MK's might argue that she had, on some trivial occasion early in AK and RS's relationship, without RS being aware of the fact. I, personally, am sure she never was; but proof is proof, and assertion is assertion, as everyone know.

I understand your point about absolute proof. But in this case, there're subjective observations by witnesses, tons of circumstantial evidence, conflicting and changing alibis, tapped phone conversations, and inevitable arguments about the veracity of the forensic evidence. I am certainly not an expert, and I haven't read anything by Doug Preston, but the phrase "preponderance of evidence" keeps occurring to me. I think that unless the defense has some presently unknown, undeniable proof of innocence, the preponderance of evidence will determine whether the case moves past the preliminary trial, and possibly detrmine the verdicts at the actual trials. The preponderance of evidence points to the suspects' guilt imho.

skeptical bystander wrote: AK has already stated that MK never visited RS's flat

I've missed or forgotten that. Could you remind me where and when she said it?

skeptical bystander wrote:Minotaur wrote:
Actually, I would think RS's lawyers might wish to claim the contrary, ie, that MK had been to his flat..

My point exactly. The lawyers seem to have got their knickers in a twist, just like their clients.

Minotaur wrote:

I've missed or forgotten that. Could you remind me where and when she said it?

It was reported at the time RS and Doc S were floating the story about RS pricking MK with a knife while cooking at his flat, but I don't have the citation at hand. I'll look later today (have to go out now), or you could check one of the reliable sources in English or Italian. In English, I am sure it was in the Times and elsewhere. I believe AK is on record as stating this, in response to official questioning on the subject.

Minotaur wrote:

skeptical bystander wrote: AK has already stated that MK never visited RS's flat

I've missed or forgotten that. Could you remind me where and when she said it?

What I want to know is where and when AK stated that MK never visited RS's flat. This has nothing to do with assertions about cooking. Please clarify.

The preliminary hearing will be on September 16.

thanks Damian

good news

You're welcome.

[font=Times New Roman]Hi Damian - do you know (or does anyone know), what kind of coverage we'll get from the trial? I ask, because I assume it's different in each country. For example, when Ian Huntley (murderer of 2 10-yr-old girls) went to trial here in the UK, the full transcript from each day was available online. Not the same as seeing the trial, but still incredibly revealing to read his actual words.

It was a truly horrible crime, and naturally there was a lot interest in it. The Perugia trial is guaranteed to attract a lot of worldwide attention, so I wondered whether we'd have any 'access' to any of it, so to speak.[/font]

Thanks for the info SB, I count 8 judges that have had a opinion on this case so far.

Yesterday when I was looking thru numerous articles I bumped into one that had an interesting theory about what the police thought (as related by a reporter) about Meredith’s mysterious cell phone call to her bank at around 10:15 pm or so. Their theory is that Meredith would not have been able to make that call. That one of the suspects (most likely Amanda, I don’t see how Rudy could figure it out) called in order to lead police to believe that Meredith was still alive at that time. They also don’t totally discount that it could have been done by mistake (e.g. redial or one button program). IMHO if it was done by mistake, it was a very fortunate mistake since it was the suspects intent to lead police to believe that this was all about a break in burglary/robbery that led to murder.
Many possibilities.

Minotaur wrote:
You wouldn't happen to be an interpreter, would you?]
.

No Minatour, I'm not an interpreter. Sono in pensione.

Hi Soozie. In Italy, as far as I'm aware, cameras are allowed into the court only if the defendants say it's OK. It's not common. I'm not sure about the transcripts. I'd be surprised if they'll be available in their entirety but you never know. I imagine there'll be chunks of it in the papers.
Chiatti, the monster of Foligno, was in court yesterday. I saw a bit of footage of that but I think it was from someone poking a camera through an open door or a window.

damian wrote:Hi Soozie. In Italy, as far as I'm aware, cameras are allowed into the court only if the defendants say it's OK. It's not common.

[font=Times New Roman]Thanks Damian. I can't see any of the defendants agreeing to let cameras in. Well, except perhaps for Knox, who may want to show her admirers how hot she still is. But they say the camera adds 8lb, so maybe not [/font]:lol:

http://www.truecrimeweblog.com/

Steve had some nice things to say about Skep and some words of wisdom for people hiding behind anonymous and/or fake posts/emails.

indie wrote:Steve had some nice things to say about Skep and some words of wisdom for people hiding behind anonymous and/or fake posts/emails.

[font=Times New Roman]So Mellas was named and shamed. Good, it's plain creepy and sly to attack from behind 'anon'. [/font]

Minotaur wrote:

What I want to know is where and when AK stated that MK never visited RS's flat. This has nothing to do with assertions about cooking. Please clarify.

Well, it does actually. This could help you locate the source: it was when RS and/or his father speculated that the DNA of the victim could have gotten onto RS's kitchen knife when they were cooking together in his flat that it was also reported that Knox, apparently unaware of RS's claim, had already stated that MK had never been in RS's flat. The speculation about the cooking incident is also written in RS's diary.

I don't have time to locate the exact quote right now. Others here may be able to help point you in the right direction. Knox could always say now that this dinner at Raffaele's did actually take place; but she has limited credibility and only Raffaele to back her up on that one. I doubt anyone will make any claims of this sort. Because they can't be proven or disproven, they aren't worth much.

By the way, Steve Huff's article is very insightful about the press coverage of this case.

Soozie, both the preliminary hearing and the shortened trial are closed to the public. The full trial is open to the public.

Good point there Skep about Knox



Asked how she explained the presence of both hers and Ms Kercher's DNA on the kitchen knife thought to be the murder weapon, Ms Knox replied "I don't know, I can't understand it". She said "Mez" - Ms Kercher's nickname - had never been at Mr Sollecito's flat, where the knife was found

Minotaur wrote:

Minotaur wrote:

skeptical bystander wrote: AK has already stated that MK never visited RS's flat

I've missed or forgotten that. Could you remind me where and when she said it?

What I want to know is where and when AK stated that MK never visited RS's flat. This has nothing to do with assertions about cooking. Please clarify.

****************************************************************************

"Asked how she explained the presence of both hers and Ms Kercher's DNA on the kitchen knife thought to be the murder weapon, Ms Knox replied "I don't know, I can't understand it". She said "Mez" - Ms Kercher's nickname - had never been at Mr Sollecito's flat, where the knife was found. Il Messaggero said she appeared unaware that Mr Sollecito has claimed that he, Ms Knox and Ms Kercher had cooked together in the kitchen of his flat."

The entire article can be seen at the Times Online as Skep suggested:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/w ... 067558.ece

By the way Minotaur, this was Amanda's statement to the Judge.

Steve's piece,

Yes, good.

I do not happen to share his opinions on Ms Knox, in Britain, in comparison with other cases, there really has not been an awful lot on the case, not at all.

And in Knox's case it was her false accusations that led people to take a disliking to her, for she had claimed she heard Meredith being harmed, she heard screams, then she woke up next day at her boyfriend's flat in his bed. Everything in between was a blank.

You can blame the attention to Knox on the sex but it has and had absolutely nothing at all to do with the interest from the public in Ms Knox at all, whatsoever.

So even when it turned out to be untrue that she had seen Patrik going into Meredith's room WITH Meredith, the damage had already been done, when people imagined Knox having ignored Meredith and allowing her to die,

later when it became untrue, and it turned out she'd 'only' accused an 'entirely innocent man' of rape and murder, a man that had helped her out with a little job that she had not made an effort to carry out to satisfaction, people had no more faith in her good word because her words were diseased and she appeared to be a wicked cow, no matter how pretty.


The interest was sparked by the idea that a young girl, a fellow woman, would ignore a woman in distress when, as she said, she had an idea of what was happening to Meredith in the room, yet ignored Meredith's cries, in this way she conjured up a picture of herself as being merciless and cruel to have done nothing to help Meredith and instead let her be raped and killed that way.

It was this that caused ordinary folk start despising Amanda Knox, because to ignore another woman, if knowing she was being harmed, shocked people at the very thought of it.

But more so because of the bombastically stupid, degenerate excuse of 'I woke up next day not knowing what I had done from the point of the screams onwards' was just incredibly weak and unbelievable, an insult to any ordinary person's intelligence.

Nothing at all to do with such a prurient interest in sexual aspects.

To me none of that is interesting at all, and judging by the majority of good people here for instance, those aspects are also not what garnered specific interest in this particular case.

Other cases in Britain have had much more coverage, I'd say the coverage in Britain has been quite minor. And it has not only been in Italian media or British, it has been reported nearly as much in other countries too, which does not amount to that much at all.

Well done Tara
just do not expect any acknowledgement for your help,

for all are blatherers in the eyes of her royal highness!

a2 wrote:Minotaur wrote:

RS's lawyers may say that MK had never been to RS's flat; but MK's might argue that she had, on some trivial occasion early in AK and RS's relationship, without RS being aware of the fact. I, personally, am sure she never was; but proof is proof, and assertion is assertion, as everyone know.

I understand your point about absolute proof. But in this case, there're subjective observations by witnesses, tons of circumstantial evidence, conflicting and changing alibis, tapped phone conversations, and inevitable arguments about the veracity of the forensic evidence. I am certainly not an expert, and I haven't read anything by Doug Preston, but the phrase "preponderance of evidence" keeps occurring to me. I think that unless the defense has some presently unknown, undeniable proof of innocence, the preponderance of evidence will determine whether the case moves past the preliminary trial, and possibly detrmine the verdicts at the actual trials. The preponderance of evidence points to the suspects' guilt imho.

Hi A2 and thanks for your kind words yesterday. I always like to read your posts, have done from the start. I agree with you about the 'preponderance of evidence'. This will be the thing in the full trial that the defence teams will have to dismantle. If they don't, I think their clients will be sent down. They will either have to get this evidence thrown out or convince the judge that there is another plausible explanation for the dna on the knife, the footprints, the lies, the bleach, the witnesses, the washing etc etc.

Kermit wrote:

Charlie Wilkes wrote:I don't know. Why did Kevin Fox confess to killing his daughter? DNA evidence proved someone else did it .... The only answer I can come up with is that he told them what they wanted to hear.

Charlie, you have to be careful when you pull one of your favourite USA cases out and compare it to Perugia:

Kevin Fox was charged with murder on the basis of his confession on video. Amanda and Raffaele were not charged with anything on the basis of their declarations, rather, those focussed the orientation of the investigation.

The Kevin Fox investigators told the FBI to not proceed with DNA testing, that the Fox confession was sufficient to send him to jail. Mignini brought in expert teams from Rome who discovered additional forensic evidence.

Kevin Fox, from the moment he walked out of his interrogation, proclaimed the abuse he suffered, and his lawyer and activists worked aggressively to right the injustice he suffered. Lawyer Kathleen Zellner "took the unusual step of filing a federal civil rights lawsuit against the Will County sheriff's office and several detectives, alleging that they had coerced Fox's confession." (from www.truthinjustice.org)

Sure. Different case, different circumstances, different country, different legal culture. But the underlying question is still there: Why did an innocent suspect lie to the police?

Who cares has nothing to do with this case

Charlie wrote:

But the underlying question is still there: Why did an innocent suspect lie to the police?

I think the question here is a little different: Did an innocent suspect lie to the police?

I don't think this has been established yet.