Wednesday , 22 October 2014

AMANDA KNOX & RAFFAELE SOLLECITO APPEAL: BONGIORNO, AN ATTACK TOO POLITE

Raffaele Sollecito in Court

Raffaele Sollecito in Court

Defense with Luca Maori to close on January 20th, Verdict on the 30th

Florence, January 9, 2014

“I was arrested because they thought there was my shoe print under Meredith’s body,” Giulia Bongiorno said, making a parody, in her theatrical interpretation, of a weeping Raffaele.

“No, no, no,” Bongiorno added. “Sollecito is wrong. He was arrested because he was the boyfriend of Amanda. By consequence, the shoeprint had to be read as his, even if it was completely different.”

Bongiorno wants to demolish the myth built on Amanda Knox as a dominatrix of men, a pusher of committing crimes, etc. In Bongiorno’s opinion, they wanted to blame Amanda because she was the ideal scapegoat. She was the ideal scapegoat because by blaming her the investigators would have cured the fears of Perugia, which was worried for the presence of a killer who was entering people’s houses and was still free. The thought that the crime came from a sex party gone wrong, and had been elicited by a foreign girl, would have reassured Perugians.

Frankly, we think that things are much more simple and prosaic than the brainy theory of the signorina Giulia, who probably forgets they thought at the beginning the killer was Patrick, while Amanda and Raffaele just had unspecified roles in the crime. Only after the discovery of Rudy and the exoneration of Patrick did the “killers” become, in the imagination of the accusers, Amanda and Raffaele.

After the romantic vision of the cops as mass healers, Bongiorno gave her version of the night of November 5/6. Slaps, threats, constrictions, psychological torture? La signorina Giulia seems never to have heard of such rumors, or of calling them so. Insults. Only insults, maybe. Amanda said they insulted her, they denied it. And to know who to believe we have the notes of the wiretapped conversation between Raffaele’s aunts, signed by Napoleoni and Zugarini. The two took note as well of their insults to the ladies they were spying on (unbelievable but true). And Napoleoni and Zugarini performed the interrogation of November 6, so it’s reasonable to think they insulted Amanda. Plus, they didn’t give her or Raffaele a lawyer.

That’s it. All the fault of Amanda’s false confession, in the opinion of Bongiorno, goes to the interpreter Anna Donnino, who instead of working as an intepreter, worked as a psychic, and convinced Amanda to believe she had been present at the crime. Because, in the opinion of Bongiorno, Amanda didn’t just repeat what they, with a slight insistence, asked her to imagine, but she really believed she had been present at the crime. So, Bongiorno really places value on those statements. Those statements fill 3 minutes’ time. But Bongiorno doesn’t ask herself what happened in that police station in the remaining 8 hours, aside from the intense convincing activity of “the interpreter”…. And if she doesn’t, why should Nencini do it?

So Patrick brought very detailed accusations against the cops. Then he even retracted them, as typically some victims do. Amanda and Raffaele also have denounced abuses in their books, in one complaint and in one appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. Even the Perugia Prosecution Office accuses four of the cops now. And the Court of Perugia confirms.

So, there kind of starts to be a lot of people, and qualified, to complain about those cops now. But Bongiorno absolves them. We understand that she defends Raffaele (or “Sollecito”, as she now coldly refers to him), not Amanda. We didn’t think she was representing them, too.

As for the “simulated break-in,” Bongiorno projected the picture of the lawyer, of whom she didn’t even remember the name, climbing it. Nencini: “I just see a guy hanging from a window, that doesn’t say anything to me. Don’t you have the video?” But no, la signorina Giulia, after having been paid 150,000 euro, didn’t even bother to burn a video. Not the one of the lawyer (of whom we do remember the name — Delfo Berretti), nor the one of the BBC, the existence of which she probably doesn’t even know. She probably has more important things to think about.

 For the rest:

- A good, but not impressive, explanation of why the DNA can’t be on the bra clasp, and also on The Knife.

- The non-scientific inspections, with tens of people entering the house before December 18 (when the bra clasp was recovered).

- The garage camera that proves that Amanda and Raffaele called 112 before the police arrived (we hope the judges followed the complicated account of the minutes and of the camera clock which was ten minutes behind, not ten minutes ahead as the cops, with no reason, had maintained).

- Rudy was spotted out by the same garage camera at 7:40, then walking around the cottage. So, he must have broken into the house before Meredith (spotted out by the same camera at 8:50) came back, and that’s why he assaulted her (from behind, in Bongiorno’s opinion).

- Why the murder weapon was of course a smaller knife.

- About The Knife, Bongiorno insisted that the only way it could be the murder weapon is if they used it for threatening her, and by mistake it went into Meredith’s throat (kind of suggesting to the judge, if he really wants to convict, that the one who, in the prosecution theory, was holding the knife, committed a manslaughter…).

- An excellent new interpretation of Raffaele’s talk to the carabinieri: he told them that the thieves hadn’t stolen anything. That proves that he wasn’t simulating a theft, as the prosecution maintains.

- As we remember, Bongiorno closed the first trial with a question. “Are we sure the blood downstairs was from the cat?” Now she developed that argument, showing the pictures of the large stains of blood in the apartment downstairs, recalling that even Giobbi was surprised that a cat could have so much blood. And she found one of the blood tests from downstairs that says “human blood.” So, the others that say “cat blood” could be wrong, and the whole story of via della Pergola could be different, involving people other than “Sollecito.” Just raising a doubt (she probably thinks that if the judge has a doubt he would tell us…).

A good defense by Bongiorno, but certainly not what we were expecting. No ovation was drawn this time. She had in her hands the match ball, but she didn’t close the game. Amanda and Raffaele by now can have hope only in the half-day for Luca Maori on the 20th, and in the few minutes Carlo Dalla Vedova will have to specify his concepts. They have the match ball now, will they score?

Frank Sfarzo

  • Luca Cheli

    I agree that she should have shown the Channel 5 video with the young Perugian climbing the wall (Bongiorno even participated to that show), however saying that the investigator concocted a sex game scenario to avoid having to deal with a possible serial killer also implicitly implies that seriously considering a real break-in was out of the picture from the start.

  • Shea100

    It sounds as if she’s setting it up to give the judges an avenue for finding Raffaele not guilty, and Amanda guilty. Horrible.

    • Artemisia Gentileschi

      That’s true. I was in the courtroom and listened to her speech. She is a great, clever lawyer (don’t forget she was Andreotti’s lawyer!) and managed to put her message underneath a great rhetorical structure.

      She spoke about “the process of the half parts”: “half a shoe print”, “half a knife”, “half a confession”, “half an evidence”, “half examination of evidences”. But in Italy we also have a have a common, sweet way of describing our partner in a couple. We call him or her “our sweet half”, “la nostra dolce metà”.

      She said Sollecito wasn’t only “Amanda’s boyfriend”, but the message which arrived to the audience was: “He was her half part… the innocent part. I don’t want to discuss about her, but I know HE is innocent”. But obviously, the result is that (in her speech) SHE is guilty.

      Then, as a guilter I must admit that Bongiorno made all her efforts to build a convincing speech… but in reality she was quite desperate. The speech was very weak. No one was impressed (look at Nencini’s face) because it was clear that se had no ways to attack the structure of the prosecution.

      It was only rhetoric. Good rhetoric, but nothing more.

      • John Boy

        But what is the structure of the prosecution?

        What are they actually claiming happened?

        Based on what?

        • SG25

          There is no structure of the prosecution and they have failed in creating a solid case they can consistently stand by. They rely on corruption and egomania to be upheld.

          • John Boy

            funny how when you ask simple questions like what exactly is the prosecution claiming, you don’t get answers.

            it’s almost as though pro guilt people are ashamed to mention Crini’s poo rage theory.

          • Artemisia Gentileschi

            I din’t answer to your second question, I’am sorry. You wrote: “What are they actually claiming happened?”

            They suppose Meredith and Amanda argued that night. The contingency was the toilet was uncelan and Amanda had a different “style” in cleaning the house. Meredith probably argued also because she realised that some money had disappeared from her drawer.

            Amanda had come home with Sollecito and Guede. They were drunk and probably had taken drugs. It was Halloween Night.

            The row degenerated and Amanda probably prompted Guede to bother Meredith. The escalation took more or less one hour to happen and end in the murder. They first blocked her phisically then phisically tortured her, then took the knives (a Halloween bad joke?). They blocked her and put her naked. They harassed her and kept her still using the knives. She got harmed. Guede was well known for often being out of control, and probably he was so that night. Then when they were too far beyond the acceptable, they decided to kill her.

            You also wrote: “as a British person it’s unbelievable that Italy allows such things to be said in court”, but I don’t clearly understand which words you are talking of.

          • John Boy

            They suppose Meredith and Amanda argued that night. The contingency was
            the toilet was uncelan and Amanda had a different “style” in cleaning
            the house. Meredith probably argued also because she realised that some
            money had disappeared from her drawer.

            There is not one shred of evidence to support this. There is no reason for Amanda to leave Raffaele’s apartment. There is no reason for Guede to be there. Accusing Amanda of stealing money for no reason is just baseless slander. Who took the money? Rudy Guede, the man whose traces are on Meredith’s purse.

            The row degenerated and Amanda probably prompted Guede to bother Meredith. The escalation took more or less one hour to happen and end inthe murder.

            Again, this is misogynist fantasy. Not a shred of evidence. Why do they go to the cottage? Why is Rudy there? Why would he take orders from Amanda? What is Raffaele supposed to be doing while this happens? Why does Amanda have a knife? Does Rudy also have a knife? What time do they arrive at the cottage? How do you know the confrontation lasted an hour? How do you claim to know anything about the details of the confrontation? What was the time of death? What happened immediately afterwards? Why are there no traces of Amanda in the room if she was torturing Meredith? Why are there so many traces of Rudy?

            “as a British person it’s unbelievable that Italy allows such things to be said in court”, but I don’t clearly understand which words you are talking of.

            I’m talking about non evidence based character assassination. We don’t allow that in England. A mistrial would be declared and the lawyers concerned prosecuted for contempt of court.
            Italy’s system is very different from other systems.

          • Artemisia Gentileschi

            “Italy’s system is very different from other systems”
            I don’t know British System, but I imagine it as better as ours. On the other ay, I know that US system is worse than ours.

            You talk about “non evidence based character assassination”. That is not true, but I cannot convince you if you start from a racist point of view.

            Non evidence trials are common in the USA, not in Italy. You can observe it youself. Look at the number of poeple in jail in USA and in Italy. We have a very different rate.

            This is a trial based on EVIDENCES, not on fantasy. I am very troubled about racism against Italian justice system, because it is like a cloud that obscure the single persons and cases.

            You perhaps know Stasi’s case. He probably murdered his girlfriend. The judge said “I am 99% convinced that he is gulty, but I have no real evidence”. He is now free. So Italy cannot put people in jail WITHOUT evidences, like in the US. It’ very different.

            I appreciate your contempt for “non evidence based character assassination”, but this is not the case.

          • John Boy

            You talk about “non evidence based character assassination”. That is not true, but I cannot convince you if you start from a racist point of view.

            Do not accuse me of being racist. That’s pathetic.

            The trial has been full of ludicrous personal attacks on Amanda which have been nothing to do with the evidence. That you would even seek to deny this is ridiculous.

            You know nothing about the US system which is based on principles of the English system. If you attack America, you attack us too.

            Isn’t Stasi on trial again, by the way? Were you trying to pull the wool over my eyes thinking I didn’t know that?

          • Artemisia Gentileschi

            That is not pathetic. That’s the point.
            Don’t you think the trial is wrong because Italy is a medieval country? I think the main problem is the prejudice.

          • John Boy

            I think the trial is wrong because your system has no standards, in essence.

            Ethics standards, forensics standards, that kind of thing.

            Combine that with overpowered prosecutors, no restraints on the media (except critics of the prosecutor) and some very strange cultural ideas about likely explanations for crimes, and you have a witch hunt.

            I’m not using the word mediaeval. I’ve been to Italy a few times, nice place.

          • Artemisia Gentileschi

            Soryy, but I have alwasy considered Britain different form the USA.

          • John Boy

            of course it’s different.

            But we have more in common with America than Italy.

          • JLS1950

            The American justice system is based on English Common Law of the 1760’s, with several very notable protections added to try to prevent abuse. There are courtroom practices in Great Britain which would NOT be allowed in the U.S. – for example a criminal trial judge in the U.S. is NOT allowed to “sum up” the case in any way – that is entirely for the prosecutor and the defense attorney to do. Also unlike in Italy, the trial judge does not sit with the jury in deliberations either in the UK or in the U.S.

            That you call the UK justice system “better” than Italy’s (it is) and the U.S. justice system “worse” demonstrates only that you have a deep anti-American bias and are quite wholly ignorant of both systems. Moreover, it demonstrates that your anti-American bias is prejudicing your thinking about this case.

            I have been saying for about 4 years now (certainly at least 3-1/2 years) that Amanda Knox is being persecuted in proxy for the nation and the government of the United States. She is not being accused and tried (and convicted at least once) because of evidence – of which there is none and never was any – but simply because she is American. It all boils down to Cavalese, to the Milanese Imam, and to Calipari and Sgrena. Amanda Knox is being singled out arbitrarily and “punished” for these incidents (never mind Abu Abbas and the Achille Lauro hijackers that you let go) because the Italian pride requires that “someone must pay” – and really does not care who as long as it is a vulnerable American girl. (Is that because of Sgrena? Or is is for the women on the cable car? Or is it just pure Italian male Chauvinism?) In any case, it is all a very thinly-disguised blood feud. You Italian Montagues have found Juliet, and you’re determined that she die for the blood of Mercutio – willing even to slaughter your own Romeo in order to accomplish your vengeance upon the American house of Capulet.You are insane with blood-lust.

          • Luca Cheli

            The toilet, the toilet? Aside from this being the last invention of an ever changing prosecution case (impianto accusatorio tanto per capirci bene), it seems to come directly from a “Amici Miei” movie and indeed those movie were set in Florence.
            A turd in the toilet is a new Cuban Missile Crisis? Do you know what is the solution to that dramatic international crisis? IT IS FLUSHING THE TOILET!
            E io che pensavo che nessuno potesse prendere sul serio quella st…quella teoria dello sciacquone non tirato!

        • Artemisia Gentileschi

          Hey… it’s not true that you don’t reeive answers!! I was in bed, I am in Italy!! :-D

          I can understad your point of view. Italy has lost a lot of credibility during the last decades, principally because of Berlusconi’s trials.

          Anyway, the structure of the prosecution is solid, and that’s the reason why they have decided not to analise all the evidences. Bacause it was not logically necessary. Thay always forget to say this in the media.

          Yes, they are based on actual evidences and reliable witnesses. The evidences are of different kind.

          First of all, the DNA of Amanda and Sollecito has been found in several rooms in the house. I cannot understand why some people continue to say that there is no Amanda of the crime scene.

          Secondly, the body showed that the murder was committed by more than one person. They claim there were three people in the room. Meredith had 47 injuries and no sign of defence. She has never been able to defend herself.

          Thirdly, there are several footprints of both Amanda and Sollecito.

          Moreover, Amanda and Meredith’s DNA has been found mingled in several drops outside the room.

          Someone had cleaned all the house before the police arrived.

          Someone had organized all the objects in the room as to simulate a robbery. But several things were illogical. First of all, the stone used to break the window had fallen ON the clothes spread in the room by the robber.

          Then Amanda said different unjustified lies. She said she was forced by the police, but in the reality she began liying before.

          And so on. But the most important fact is that in the first trial, Guede was condemned for “complicity”, not for the entire murder. That’s because the evidences were clear: there were more than one person in the room, and several footprints everywhere. Nevertheless the trial was vitiated by corruption and the interest of several lobbies (Americans) and the freemasonry (Italian). That’s because several people have a PERSONAL interest in discredit Mignini, like Mario Spezi (personally involved in the Narducci Trial).

          And so on…

          • John Boy

            let’s just take these one by one.

            First of all, the DNA of Amanda and Sollecito has been found in several rooms in the house

            this is meaningless. Amanda lived there and Raffaele had visited several times. This is not not evidence.

            Secondly, the body showed that the murder was committed by more than one
            person. They claim there were three people in the room. Meredith had 47
            injuries and no sign of defence. She has never been able to defend
            herself.

            The body showed only that it had various bruises and stab wounds. Extrapolating multiple attackers from this is a non science based fantasy.

            Thirdly, there are several footprints of both Amanda and Sollecito.

            Not one footprint can be positlvely identified as being anybody’s. Again, this is fantasy, not science. Even if luminol footprints could be identifed as being Amanda’s they are meaningless since not made in blood as per the TMB test.

            Moreover, Amanda and Meredith’s DNA has been found mingled in several drops outside the room.

            Again, Amanda’s DNA in the house where she lived, meaningless.

            Someone had cleaned all the house before the police arrived.

            Luminol showed nobody had cleaned the house.

            Someone had organized all the objects in the room as to simulate a
            robbery. But several things were illogical. First of all, the stone used
            to break the window had fallen ON the clothes spread in the room by the
            robber.

            The stone did not fall on any clothes. You obviously havent looked at the photos.

            Then Amanda said different unjustified lies. She said she was forced by the police, but in the reality she began liying before.

            You need to be specific. Vague claims are no good.

            Do you realise that what you have presented here is not accurate and regardless would not qualfy as evidence of murder in my country, the UK, or Amanda’s, the USA?

          • Artemisia Gentileschi

            I realise that you have not catched the point.
            I dont’ evaluate as meaningful none of your comments.

            Firstly, the is a science which analises how many people have grabbed a person, it is not based on fantasy!! :-D

            The DNA was found in bood drops, not generally in the house.

            The footprints have been clearly identified, I don’t know why you say the opposite.

            Luminol showed they HAVE cleaned the house! :-D

            YOU haven’t looked at the fotos. We followe different canals, that’s obvious. And I was in courtroom.

            I can be specific, but I don’t have a day to spend here. I can address you to various sites if you need some pieces of information.

          • John Boy

            Firstly, the is a science which analises how many people have grabbed a person, it is not based on fantasy!! :-D

            Rubbish. Any claims to be able to tell the number of attackers from Kercher’s injuries are not science. They are conjecture. You don’t appear to understand the difference. In fact the majority of pathologists in the first trial stated the injuries could have been inflicted by a single attacker.

            The DNA was found in bood drops, not generally in the house

            Because the blood drops were where they tested. They didnt test generally in the house..

            The footprints have been clearly identified, I don’t know why you say the opposite.

            Not a single footprint has been positively identified as anybody’s. THe footprints are vague luminol outlines. Explain what scientific method was used to positively match the footprints.

            Luminol showed they HAVE cleaned the house! :-D

            Luminol showed the exact opposite. There were no smears or marks of cleaning. Dust was all over the floor, undisturbed. Explain how you think the luminol demonstrated a cleanup had taken place.

            YOU haven’t looked at the fotos. We followe different canals, that’s obvious. And I was in courtroom.

            The rock did not fall on any clothing.. The rock impacted a paper bag and tore the sitde of it before hitting the floor. The glass pattern in the room shows the rock was thrown from outside.

            You can pretend that what is being presented in your court is evidence. You can pretend that it’s science. But objectively speaking, it’s not.

            This is before we even start on the crimescene being trashed and contaminated from the first few minutes onwards.

          • Artemisia Gentileschi

            THAT IS NOT TRUE.
            I am sorry.

          • John Boy

            you need to demonstrate things not just make assertions.

            Get down to specifics. Provide reasoning.

            We British pride ourselves on common sense. I don’t see common sense in the prosecution case. I see fantasy.

          • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

            That’s why most British believe Foxy Knoxy is guilty!

          • John Boy

            I don’t think so, but I haven’t seen any recent polls.

            your point is meaningless anyway. even if most British people did think that, they would not necessarily be right.

          • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

            Well it contradicts your belief.

          • John Boy

            no it doesn’t.

          • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

            Yes it does Teresa.

          • John Boy

            you probably need to understand the subtleties of adult communication.

            Refraining from childish insults would be good too.

            Read my initial statement again and try and relate it to the statements you are making. Spot the difference.

          • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

            Is Mother Teresa an insult?
            Many people would be flattered but you don’t have common sense to see that.

          • John Boy

            nothing about the aggressive and uncivil tone you have adopted indicates that your renaming me as ‘Teresa’ is anything other than a puerile insult.

          • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

            How can the tone be established correctly?
            I would argue it would have to be heard to make the correct assumption.
            Bye

          • John Boy

            I think you mean come to the correct conclusion not make the correct assumption.

            Also one does not need to literally hear a person’s voice to establish the tone of their written comments.

          • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

            Yes conclusion is better however I still beg to differ.
            Anyway chat later Teresa.

          • John Boy

            goodbye, and good luck with your education.

          • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

            Maybe you should start your sentence with a capital letter before questioning my education Teresa.

          • John Boy

            such conventions aren’t necessary in informal online communications.

            using words correctly and reasoning correctly are rather important though if one wants to be viewed as credible.

          • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

            ok teresa no capitals!

          • John Boy

            also, you do know the phrase is ‘beg to dffer’ not ‘bet to differ’?

            Carelessness or ignorance?

          • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

            i know go and check babe no error there!
            remember to keep on topic teresa no capital!

          • John Boy

            SPEECHFREEDOM1976
            Yes conclusion is better however I still bet to differ.

            Should be ‘beg to differ’.

            Is English your first language?

          • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

            I wrote beg to differ babe!
            Thanks for a rivetting chat Teresa.
            Stay in touch and remember KEEP ON TOPIC!

          • John Boy

            oh but you wrote ‘bet’, not beg.

            Screenshot taken.

            And it’s ‘riveting’ not ‘rivetting’.

          • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

            Sorry for the errors Teresa now spank me!
            Screenshot taken i.e. photoshop good one!

          • John Boy

            bye now.

          • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

            Bye Teresa!

          • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

            You say most British pride themselves on common sense.

            Then why do most British believe Foxy Knoxy is guilty?

            Before you say that is not the case – if you read articles on English websites regarding this case most English people believe she is guilty in the comment section.

          • John Boy

            well there are certainly a group of dedicated regular trolls in the comments sections of various articles.

            however, that’s meaningless.

          • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

            yer good one!

          • Luca Cheli

            It’s more true than your points, but it is not surprising to listen to the same stuff over and over…even if some of that stuff is heard by now only online and not in Court. You are another estimator of the Italian judicial system for how it has performed in recent well known case (Perugia, Garlasco, Parolisi, Avetrana)? Good for you. I’m not at all. For your information Scasi’s acquittal has been quashed by that same highly esteemed First Penal Section of the Court of Cassation which quashed Knox and Sollecito’s acquittals, but at least this motivation report was more formally correct than the masterpiece written for Knox and Sollecito. By the way I think Scasi is innocent and I also read both the motivation reports for his two trials and it does not seem to me that the judges wrote “I am 99% convinced that he is gulty, but I have no real evidence”, indeed the appeal judgement explicitly stated that it was not even a matter of reasonable doubt because the evidence had not even reached such a level of proof that one had to resort to the concept of reasonable doubt. I guess you would say “guilty” also about Parolisi and Avetrana.

          • http://winterings.net/ Alex K.

            The blood drops came from the shared bathroom. Both girls’ DNA must have been all over the place. Stefanoni’s broad swabs were bound to mix blood and DNA. Nothing to see there.

            Outside the bathroom, there was in all likelihood no blood because TMB tests came back negative. Just mixed DNA. Substrate tests were not run so we don’t know how much of Amanda’s and Meredith’s DNA was in Filomena’s room outside of the luminol-revealed spots. Nothing of value.

            The rock was thrown from the outside, no doubt.

          • http://winterings.net/ Alex K.

            “Nevertheless the trial was vitiated by corruption and the interest of several lobbies (Americans) and the freemasonry (Italian). That’s because several people have a PERSONAL interest in discredit Mignini, like Mario Spezi (personally involved in the Narducci Trial).”

            You just gave yourself away, Macchiavelli.

      • http://winterings.net/ Alex K.

        A logically structured case must be rooted in facts, and all the evidence presented by the prosecution has been disproved by the defense and/or independent experts in a way that leaves no doubt about Amanda’s and Raffaele’s innocence.

        You’re just another Luigi Bubani (or rather you are the same poster), lying and viscerally anti-American.

      • BostieMom

        >the message which arrived to the audience was: “He was her half part… the innocent part. I don’t want to discuss about her, but I know HE is innocent”. But obviously, the result is that (in her speech) SHE is guilty.<

        The problem with your illogical theory is that Raffaele STILL SAYS AMANDA WAS WITH HIM ALL NIGHT. It's ludicrous to think that an innocent Raffaele is going to chance going to prison..yet again… for a woman he'd dated for a week 6 years ago.

        • JLS1950

          Just amazing, isn’t it? As if “guilt” could be painted on somehow.

        • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

          Hi Bostie do you like the pic of my doggies?

        • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

          Hey Bostie – you pleased with the verdict obviously your “evidence” wasn’t evidence after all was it?

        • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

          you’ve been very vocal up until the day of the verdict?
          r u ok?
          is ur daughter ok?
          ur doggies ok?
          im concerned!

    • SG25

      The guilt mongers have been hoping for the split for 6 years now, its never happened and isn’t going to.
      Nencini has the RIS info, he has the C&V report he upheld. This is far more important than Mascara still bootlicking the idiot Mignini or some motive of a fight over poop left in a toilet.

  • Proud Kercher Family Supporter

    Frank, I’ll give you credit for at least telling it how it was. I think this is a case of a lawyer knowing her case is unwinnable and trying to make sure her own career doesn’t suffer.

    PMF recently did a careful reconstruction of the timeline and it turns out that most likely the second 112 call came after the Postal Police were already at the house. Also you might want to look again at the garage camera at 7:40 (and not the one edited by Oggi) because that person is white.

    If I were Amanda right now I’d hop on a plane and go to Florence and confess. It would probably save her years in prison. The opportunity won’t come again. Cheers!

    • SG25

      The reason the prosecution dropped most of their case is because it failed, so they leave Crini to create a new motive of Rudy being a disgusting pig and leaving poop in the toilet.
      Will the Judge and Jurors eat this soup? I doubt it.
      The Kerchers will be better off once away from the inbred Perugia pack.

    • John Boy

      the problem i have with the idea of R calling 112 after the Postales had arrived is that apart from not being true, it makes absolutely no sense.

      what is the purpose supposed to have been?

      he had already called 112, and now some different police were there at the scene on a different matter. fine. no need to call 112 again, these police will do.

    • Artemisia Gentileschi

      I totally agree with you.
      And if I were Amanda, I would have done it months and months ago.

      • John Boy

        Amanda made the right decision.

        Because the trial was held in absentia, if this verdict goes against her, Italy will have to present their case in a US court for a probable cause hearing.

        I wonder how a US court will view the case. I would imagine it would be laughed out of court in short order.

        • Artemisia Gentileschi

          I dont’ think so

          • John Boy

            An American court cannot accept the Italian forensics because they don’t qualify as forensics due to the incompetence with which they were carried out.

            What else is there? a fantasy about toilets? A heroin addict who doesnt know what day it is?

            What if the Americans call Mignini, Stefanoni and the Perugia police as witnesses? If they lie in an American court they will be jailed.

          • Luca Cheli

            Constitutional issues due to the role of Guede’s ruling in the motivation report that quashed the acquittal would probably be by themselves a major obstacle to any extradition. I clearly mean “US Constitution”, but since the extradition would be from the US, that’s the one that counts.

        • JLS1950

          Due to trial in absentia, it appears to me that the treaty language itself gives the Executive (that would be Obama or the A.G.) the right to just say “NO!” I think the jury acquittal and release from custody will also be seen as a violation of the Fifth sufficient to prohibit American assistance in extradition, but it may take just the right argument. The point is not that Italy violated double jeopardy, but rather that it would be a violation of double jeopardy in the U.S. for the U.S. government to infringe Knox’s freedom after a jury anywhere acquitted her and she was released.

          • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

            Is it true you are close friends to Amanda Knox’s stepfather?

          • John Boy

            why would you be stalking the identities of posters? that’s a bit weird and threatening.

          • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

            It’s a legitimate question – it reveals if somebody is biased don’t you think? Why is that weird?

          • John Boy

            Well for one thing, it’s of zero relevance to the case, for another I’m sure stalking is against forum rules. Shall we just ask Bruce if it’s OK for you to stalk people and settle the matter?

          • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

            You can ask. I just asked a genuine question if that is stalking go for it! Do you know what stalking is or you didn’t learn that in the great UK?

          • John Boy

            yep I know what stalking is, that would be what you’re doing.

            I notice you’re also harrassing another poster, Bostie Mom, with off-topic posts directed at her personally.

          • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

            Now you are stalking me I love Bostiemom she is awesome!
            Are you the moderator?

          • John Boy

            i couldnt care less about your identity, merely your actions on this forum, which are off topic and in violation of the rules.

          • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

            Well stop messaging me!

          • John Boy

            why? you can’t stop someone responding to your posts as long as they are not breaching any rules.

            it’s a discussion forum. if you don’t want to discuss, you’re in the wrong place.

          • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

            I’m saying you are complaining and don’t like my position on here then go and cry somewhere else!

          • John Boy

            the topic here is not the identities of other posters.

            that was the problem with your posts.

            How about discussing the case?

          • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

            Well I asked you a question further down regarding something check that out and answer it rather than being Mother Theresa!

          • John Boy

            restate the question please and i’ll be happy to answer it.

            i’m not about to trawl through your posts to find something that may or may not be there.

          • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

            happy with the verdict babe?

        • Ghislane1000

          You are clueless of your own laws on extradition I see.

    • http://winterings.net/ Alex K.

      “PMF recently did a careful reconstruction of the timeline”

      Wow, that’s convincing.

    • DENVER

      Here we go again, the same guilter MO.
      Start off with: “Frank, I’ll give you credit,” like you’re his buddy?
      Then finish off with: Amanda, go confess!!!
      What a crock…
      DENVER

  • John Boy

    I am going to have to post this just to show the stunning level of ignorance of this pro guilt Italian.

    Artemesia Gentileschi wrote:
    Amanda had come home with Sollecito and Guede. They were drunk
    and probably had taken drugs. It was Halloween Night.

    :facepalm:

    • Corrado Massa

      John, it’s not ignorance, it’s hate. I admire your patience.

    • http://winterings.net/ Alex K.

      She (or he) gives her (his) agenda away with this: “Nevertheless the trial was vitiated by corruption and the interest of several lobbies (Americans) and the freemasonry (Italian). That’s because several people have a PERSONAL interest in discredit Mignini, like Mario Spezi (personally involved in the Narducci Trial).”

      You can’t get far arguing with this person, can you?

      BTW Mignini’s theories about Narducci were so bizarre that even the Supreme Court put them down to rest earlier this year (ruling Narducci simply killed himself, case closed).

      • John Boy

        This is also Mignini’s own theory.

        People are conspiring against him to make him look nuts.

    • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

      probably did happen – I’ve never heard this scenario before. How can you 100% disprove it?

      • John Boy

        the bolded part of the sentence gives you the clue.

        • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

          How you doing Teresa?

  • http://winterings.net/ Alex K.

    “And she found one of the blood tests from downstairs that says ‘human blood’.”

    Unbelievable. Simply unbelievable. What kind of investigation was that? They failed to test the semen – mind-bogglingly enough – and now it turns out they failed to test the human blood!

    Or they did, and it turned out to be either Rudy or someone else. Not Amanda or Raffaele of course – that would have been trumpeted from the rooftops.

    It just shows – once again – it was NOT a real investigation but a railroad job.

    • JLS1950

      So after killing Meredith, Rudy used the keys to get in downstairs and left some blood there? His? Hers? This is getting stranger and stranger… and more and more odorous.

      • http://winterings.net/ Alex K.

        All I know is (a) the residents of the downstairs apartment grew and distributed marijuana; (b) Rudy was a close acquaintance of the residents'; (c) “Stefano’s… bed was stripped of linens, which was odd, and the comforter he used was shoved up at the top of his bed, with blood on it” (from “Waiting to Be Heard’); (d) contrary to earlier reports, human blood was found downstairs.

        • JLS1950

          That needs to be investigated thoroughly. Meredith had a key to the lower flat.

          • http://winterings.net/ Alex K.

            It should have been investigated. They knew there was human blood in the boys’ digs in 2007 and did nothing. Why?

          • JLS1950

            Alex, you know what I have long held on this case. I cannot prove it, but I think this was dirty from even before the body was discovered – from even before Meredith was attacked. It has all been about a cover-up more gigantic than Watergate.

          • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

            How you feeling with that guilty verdict babe?

          • http://winterings.net/ Alex K.

            Don’t babe me, slug.

          • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

            what’s up hun i mean babe?

          • http://winterings.net/ Alex K.

            Go back to fellating your Italian buddies, stinker.

          • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

            hot!

          • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

            u ok babe? i am very concerned you pro knox people are very fragile hun!

          • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

            i’m concerned for you babe. Now don’t follow mandy’s footsteps and go to the knife draw!

        • http://michellesings1.blogspot.com/ Michelle Moore

          Oh, he probably SLEPT there..like he did at the Nursery on 2 separate occasions.

          • SPEECHFREEDOM1976

            Hey Michelle why did you lunge and harass the prosecutor in Italy?
            REMEMBER KEEP IT CLASSY!