Raffaele Sollecito in court today. Photo courtesy of Frank Sfarzo
Raffaele Sollecito in court today. Photo courtesy of Frank Sfarzo

Low Law Copy Number

It’s a very simple case for prosecutor Horsehair.

Can you convict someone with no proof? Sure! You just have to sum up all circumstantial evidence.

But is there circumstantial evidence? Sure, plenty of it!

Horsehair has indeed a time machine and brings us back to when people were still asking if Curatolo may be true, if Quintavalle may be true, if the break-in could be a fake, if there could really be blood of Amanda and Meredith in Filomena’s room, if the statements of Amanda and Raffaele could be revealing their guilt, if they could have called the 112 after the postal police arrived, if their alibi could be a false, if… if… if…

And for all these questions he has one only answer: yes.

He missed the best years of the century, when all that nonexistent circumstantial evidence was explained, by us, and then by the court. It was wonderful, but he wasn’t with us. He instead learned the case from the appeals of the accusers, and he believed them. And so naturally he sides up with them now.

Let’s enjoy some of today’s fine reasoning.

Curatolo is reliable. Why? Because he said he was certain. And we can’t doubt someone who says to be certain. We can not even doubt him because he was a heroin addict (indeed, we doubted him because he said (for instance) that Amanda and Raffaele were there from 9:27 to midnight. And we know that at 9:26 they finished watching the movie at home and that in the remaining time either they remained at home or they were killing Meredith, therefore, in any case, they couldn’t have been in the square). No problem for Horsehair: Curatolo is reliable. Just not for the time. I wonder why we were complicating our life like that when it was so easy. We –because we were not lawyers, we were not qualified– thought that if one is reliable is reliable for everything, and if he’s unreliable is unreliable for everything. And we thought that even more after having seen and heard Toto for real, a pleasure that was denied to Horsehair. The principle we learned today, instead, thanks to this great man of law, is that one is reliable in the things that are convenient to me, and unreliable when he says something I don’t like. Thank you!

Quintavalle is also reliable. And why? The same: because he said he was certain. But there are two other reasons much more poignant: because he is a store owner, and store owners have of course good memory for faces, indeed Quintavalle had said that: “I have good memory for faces”. And because he said that he had looked into her eyes, and when you look into someone’s eyes you of course can never forget and you can’t mistake anything, not even what day it was…

Horsehair quickly gets rid of the computer interactions, freshly re-provided by Raffaele’s defense to prove he was at home during the whole evening. According to Horsehair the closing of a movie at 9:26 is not important, that interaction doesn’t prove Curatolo false, so, doesn’t count towards an alibi since, as we saw above, Curatolo is not reliable about the time: he said they were in the square at 9:27 but he maybe meant 11. The other interactions along the evening –all interruptions of the screen saver, which means someone was touching the keyboard– are also per Horsehair not important, and he finds proof of that in Raffaele’s statements: Raffaele didn’t say “I touched the keyboard everytime the screensaver was starting”, but “I was on my computer”, which means “I was working on the computer”, not “I was only touching the computer”, therefore there’s no doubt that those interactions weren’t made by Amanda and Raffaele…

All like this were the arguments by Horsehair. By dropping out such high principles of law, though, he finally admitted a couple of concepts and data that were always denied by all prosecutions, and with no reason. Little things, like, for instance, that there’s no proof of guilt but only circumstantial evidence! (Kind of subscribable, no? ).

Or that those interactions in the computer there were! Yes: by denying the importance of those interactions Horsehair admitted their existence. Finally, we needed 6 years to hear that! So, unless a mosquito was touching the keyboard while Amanda and Raffaele were killing Meredith, Amanda and Raffaele have an alibi.

If this court thinks that people get convicted with a proof, not with a sea of nonsense words or with mere desires, they will acquit Amanda and Raffaele.

A clue? “People should know, because it’s unbelievable”, Nencini said today, “that the prosecution never asked to interrogate Sollecito”. Ha!

Nencini is starting to discover that there are unbelievable things in this case….Excellent.

Tomorrow Horsehair will delight us with a lesson about DNA, of which, he assured, became an expert. (why doubt him? It’s such a simple field…).

The guy is quite diffuse actually, and thanks to his precious and slow speech the whole calendar had to be rescheduled… Verdict not anymore on January 10, we’ll see when.

  • Dom American

    All you got is name-calling. As usual. The prosecution didn’t ask for Amanda to testify either and yet her lawyers put her on the stand. Bongiorno would NOT ALLOW Raffaele to testify. Could it be because HE’S AN IDIOT who couldn’t last five minutes under tough cross-examination. In less than 2 months both of their convictions will be upheld. Someday the law is going to catch up with you too Frank.

    • Please refrain from name calling and stick to the point. Frank has reported the judge’s words. The judge, not Frank, asked Crini why “the people,” i.e. the prosecution, failed to ask to interrogate Sollecito. Why don’t you address your questions to the judge?

      I know you will not because you are a troll with a fake Disqus identity. Three posts only, all of no substance.

      • Dom American

        No that is my real identity. My name is Dominic and I am American.

        The judge did not ask anything. He pointed out that the prosecution did not request to question Sollecito. Well, the prosecution did not request to question Knox either. She is the one who asked to be questioned.

        • I do not believe you are not a re-incarnation of an old-time guilter. On the substance of your response: if you want to ask the judge for the meaning of his comment, do so. Meanwhile, I’m repeating what Frank said:

          “People should know, because it’s unbelievable”, Nencini said today, “that the prosecution never asked to interrogate Sollecito.”

          Well, now the people know.

          • JLS1950

            Ahh… has “A English” switched that spell-checker and become [a] “Dom American”? I do believe you may be correct, Alex! Good catch!

    • He’s definitely not an idiot (speaking of name calling). And you’re awfully quick to spew out stuff to others for someone needing to hide DIShonestly behind their “name”.
      Tell us about YOUR law abiding self…and if you do not desire to do so, then maybe…just maybe you shouldn’t speak up so arrogantly about others and what you think of them and your perceived law problems. And then we can discuss the actual case. What is all “this”? It’s pure craziness. Hateful craziness…

    • Luigi Bubani

      I hope too.

      • Dave

        Keep on hoping. If they’re not acquitted in this trial, they will be by the European Court of Human Rights. Everybody knows the whole case is a farce… everyone, that is, except a few Italians in positions of power (who don’t want to give up that power), journalists whose based their careers on A & R’s guilt (and therefore, can’t afford an innocence verdict, either) and anybody who’s gullible enough to fall for their big scam.

        • Luigi Bubani

          The farse are the one who belive A and R are innocients.

          “Everybody knows the whole case is a farce” Everybody who?
          “everyone, that is, except few Italians in positions of power” Wrong,there are also americans who belive A is guilty.What are you talking about?
          “(who don’t want to give up that power),” And for this reason they want to send innocients people in jail?Give me a break.
          “journalists whose based their careers on A & R’s guilt (and
          therefore, can’t afford an innocence verdict, either)”
          And to save their careers are ready to ruin the live of two innocints people?
          And why their careers are connected to a guilty verdict?
          You have to much immagination.
          Things are more simple..

          • Dave

            Actually, it is the prosecution who has too much imagination, as Crini proved with his latest theory… which is as full of holes as he claims Amanda’s alibi is. For one, how could Amanda have let Guede into the cottage when she was still at Raffaele’s place? Of course, she could have been involved had Meredith’s time of death been a little later, but the contents of her stomach proved she couldn’t have been attacked any later than 9:00pm… about five minutes after Sophie dropped her off. In fact, the blood on her jacket indicated that she was still wearing it when she was assaulted, meaning that it probably happened right after she stepped inside (around 8:55pm). Amanda would have still been at Raffaele’s place, and Raffaele would have still been using his computer.

            You are right about one thing, though. Things ARE simpler than they have been made out to be. The most likely cause of the murder is also the simplest – a violent home invasion. However, burglaries don’t sell nearly as many tabloids as Satanic rituals (as Mignini presented at the 2008 pre-trial), drug-fueled sex orgies and cat-fights between hostile roommates. And, of course, we can’t forget the legend of “Foxy Knoxy”, without which nobody would have heard of Barbie Nadeau, Andrea Vogt, Nick Pisa, etc. Although I wouldn’t really call them journalists, since journalists are supposed to report the truth. Tabloidists, on the other hand, are much more concerned with entertaining their readers… and it was all great entertainment until we learned how many innocent lives were being destroyed by them.

            I’m not just talking about Amanda and Raffaele’s lives, either. You might not remember those days, but there was a time when anybody who disagreed with Mignini would be subject to harassment by the police. Ask Mario Spezi, Frank Sfarzo, Francesca Bene, Giangavino Sulas (a writer for Oggi), etc. and any one of them can tell you about his/her experiences. Bene, in fact, was bullied by the same cop Amanda had accused of slapping her on the head, and all because of a story she had published that contradicted Mignini’s crime theories.

            Of course, we can’t forget the families of the accused, either, including Patrick Lumamba’s. According to his lawyer, Amanda was responsible for his being implicated in the murder, but had you read the retraction she hand-wrote immediately after her interrogation, you might have come to a very different conclusion. That is, if you knew anything about false confessions:


            The same interrogation tactics that brought on the implication of Patrick are also likely to have caused the “inconsistencies” in Raffaele’s story at the beginning of their imprisonment… but we’ll never know for sure until we see the interrogation tapes, will we? Why is the prosecution so desperate to hide them?

    • Noel Dalberth

      Oh look, another psychic. Par for the course.

    • patrick christ

      yeah Dom lets put reporters in jail. North Korea yay!

  • “Horsehair has indeed a time machine and brings us back to when people were still asking if Curatolo may be true.”

    This is indeed amazing. Crini is doing little but reciting the same old discredited pseudo-evidence. But is it him or is it a feature of the Italian justice system? Isn’t it absurd that what was shown to be false is now presented as true again? Like that shoe print, clearly Guede’s not Knox’s.

    “The guy is quite diffuse actually, and thanks to his precious and slow speech the whole calendar had to be rescheduled…” Is it his tactic? What does he have to gain by prolonging the trial?

    • anon

      because they are sucking the taxpayers’ of Italy’s money to fund their day in the spotlight of the biggest case (circus) of the century. The salivating press & advertisers, etc Not to mention cheap entertainment for the increasingly impoverished Italians, throw the light off their politicians, the problems in their country. Exploiting a climate of anti-Americanism, anti-anything really, just all sitting in judgement of character and missing the forest for the trees, (the Brits excel at this in their “superiority” particularly over the “inferior” behavior of Americans) i.e. the true criminals in this case, one of whom will be released soon. Sleight of hand, snake oil salesmen, will stop at nothing to ply their poison. Hubris & corruption, common bedfellows these thieves of justice. They are postponing the inevitable, that those responsible for this horrific miscarriage of justice of the murder of a young woman and the false imprisonment of two young people will have to pay for their misdeeds. They know the truth, they’re paid to lie, their are others who seem to be at least, in denial, though I seriously doubt they truly are. Everyone has an agenda and for some it is truth & justice for others fame, fortune, and saving face. The whole world is watching.

      • I was appalled at Crini’s combination of outright lies, absurd theories, and attacks on science on the second day of his argument. 90% of what he said would be completely unacceptable in a US or UK courtroom. This is a cross between Soviet show trial and a witch trial.

        But could one expect otherwise after Italy’s supreme court reversed the acquittal in an opinion packed with errors of all sorts? The supreme court thought it had the competence to criticize a report from two academics with 25-30 years of professional experience, yet the court claimed that heroin does not impact people’s memory.

        How is that all possible?

        • Luigi Bubani

          Two accademics who broke the law,and did mistakes in others cases.
          The SC is right.You don’t have the intelligence to understand it.

          • You cannot argue with serious scientists on serious issues of forensic testing while claiming that heroin does not impact memory. It is like arguing with an astronomer about some distant galactic while claiming the Earth is flat.

            Not to mention that courts are in general incompetent to investigate such matters on their own.

          • Luigi Bubani

            I was not talking of the heroin experts,but of Conti.-Vecchiotti.
            As ussualy,you are making a big confusion.

          • Once again, the same court which attempted to “criticize” Conti and Vecchiotti claimed in the same ruling that heroin does not impact the lucidity of memory. I don’t see how one can take their criticism seriously in light of such a claim.

      • Luigi Bubani

        The whol world understood that you are a very confused man.

    • Dave

      A bigger paycheck, that’s what. Aren’t these guys being paid by the hour? If I was paying for that trial I’d ask for my money back.

    • Luigi Bubani

      You have to much immagination

      • This is your way of saying, “I have nothing to say.”

        • Luigi Bubani

          No,I am true,you have a lot of immagination.

          • Dave

            (LOL) That’s exactly what you said about me.

  • Love his sarcasm. If you can’t find something humerous about this whole farce, the pathetic sadness of this joke of a trial would be too much.
    I am actually very hopeful.
    We don’t have to give up on all of mankind just yet.
    I am hopeful that people will continue to become more and more interested in seeking the truth of what the heck happened. The Prosecution should really give people more credit than Prosecutor Horsehair does. People aren’t that dumb! They’ve seen too much to not smell the stench of the doings of a humiliated desperate Mignini and his henchmen in the background. He can hide but that SMELL….aaaah.

    • Dave

      Yeah, Frank is really something else. I miss Perugia Shock…

  • Noel Dalberth

    It’s so pathetic that it’s humorous. A heroin addict is ‘credible’ & a shop owner has his story straight. Funny how the story either changed or wasn’t even reported for months & when it was, the inconsistencies were similar to a comic strip! Bravo Frank.

    • phad

      “Bravo Frank!” is right. It’s great getting the news AND the truth said— with such wit to boot.

  • Dave

    Out of curiosity, why is he being called Prosecutor Horsehair? I always liked Creepy Crini better… unless Horsehair is the English translation of his name?

    • JLS1950

      You guessed it. Put crini into google translate and out pops horsehair.

      • Dave

        Hilarious! I still like Creepy Crini, though…

        • JLS1950

          Corrupt Crini – although among Italian prosecutors that seems to be a BFOQ.

          • Dave

            Corrupt Crini is good, too. Creepy Crini, though, has a certain ring to it.

          • Erik Forsgren

            Crini or Cretini makes no difference

          • Erik Forsgren

            What makes a difference is what Bongiorno Ghirga and dalla Vedova have to say about the prosecutor’s closing arguments. They will squash them altogether

          • JLS1950

            Good observation, Erik, and we are waiting expectantly. I hope they “squash” it most effectively!

            BTW – relevant a post you made elsewhere – in the U.S. we do not have one police force, but rather one for each city or town; one for each county (parish in Louisiana) covering primarily the unincorporated areas; one for each state covering highways and certain state venues like the legislature, state lands and parks, and certain courts; and several agencies at the Federal level covering specific types of enforcement: drugs, guns & explosives, general and bank-related crime, customs and immigration, etc. Kind of a patchwork, but most agencies are tied to local voter preferences. The city where I live (just outside Seattle) does not actually run its own police force per se, but contracts with the encompassing county for dedicated and contingent police services. We hear a great deal of the departments that have trouble, but the patchwork means that these are somewhat isolated. Our founders – 234 years ago and more – were pretty adamant that they did not want a monolithic, centrally-managed and hence hugely-powerful police force or government except where truly necessary. Time will tell.

          • Dave

            How about Clueless Crini? It pretty much describes his assessment of the case. The unflushed toilet isn’t even the one Amanda and Meredith used, yet we’re supposed to believe they had a row over it?

            On the other hand, one poster on “All Things Crime” made an interesting comment about burglars defecating at the scene. Somehow, the act of breaking into a place sets their bowels in motion. At least that was the poster’s explanation for it. He claims to have found a pile of turds in his own car after it was broken into, just as Guede took a dump right after breaking through Filomina’s window. Disgusting, I know, but I’m definitely seeing similarities here.

          • Erik Forsgren

            Clueless Crini might be the right name, but Franck Sfarzo made an interesting comment about Crini. He said that maybe Crini is much aware of the corruption in this case and understands that the whole case is a miscarriage of justice. So what can he do in his position as a prosecutor? Apparently he tries to deliberately make a weak case of it claiming that the murder arose as a result of quarrel about defecation. That will give the defence the advantage of squashing the whole case.

  • ha ha, and so now there’s an article about the theory of Amanda and Meredith having “issue’s” over cleanliness. So he just said that this is the theory without one detail to explain this poo theory. The poo theory??? Really??? What the heck was said to make someone want to kill someone over it? Really??? This is just hilarious.

    • Dave

      Like I said in a Facebook thread, that’s the dumbest crime theory I’ve ever heard.

      • Luigi Bubani

        This means is the right one.

        • Dave

          I’d believe it if he had any evidence to back it up… and if he didn’t keep using words like “may have” and “possibly”, in describing what he thinks happened. Even his reason for wanting them to be found guilty is questionable – “because the Supreme Court said so”. That’s not how it’s supposed to happen. If the evidence proves them guilty, beyond reasonable doubt, okay, but that’s not what I’m seeing. If anything, the evidence is proving they are innocent.

  • After the second day of Crini’s presentation, it’s clear as day he has no scruples whatsoever – he told barefaced lies, concocted new absurd theories of the crime, and attacked Conti and Vecchiotti claiming to be a DNA expert.

    Let’s perform a thought experiment and place the guy in a British or American or even German courtroom. How long would he last before the judge told him to shut up?

    • Luigi Bubani

      In america kangoroo courts I heard any lie possible,and the judge didn’t stop anybody.

      • You should stop writing these half-assed responses and learn the basics of American law. What I said is pretty much obvious and I doubt that anyone familiar with US courts will dispute it. Why don’t you look at your own justice system – the consensus being it’s probably the worst in the first world – and try to fix it?

        • Luigi Bubani

          “Why don’t you look at your own justice system”

          And, you Alex K,why don’t you look at your own system?
          Instead of putting the nose and make stupid comments,in the Florence trial?

          “being it’s probably the worst in the first world”
          And this prove you understand nothing of the italian legal system.
          You should learn the basics of the Italian law,before talking.

          • I’m stating the obvious. Read the latest Global Competitiveness Report or the OECD’s recent paper, “What makes civil justice effective”. Look at the World Justice Project’s rankings. Look at the ECHR rulings. Listen to your own justice minister.

          • Dave

            Actually, I see alot of flaws in BOTH justice systems – America’s and Italy’s. In fact, no justice system is perfect. Wrongful convictions are a worldwide phenomenon and unless prosecutors and police are held accountable they will continue indefinitely.

          • Accountability is key, I agree. But it’s also important that the US court system has a strong emphasis on due process. Precedent also helps.

            You don’t get to lie just as freely and copiously in a US courtroom even if you’re a prosecutor. The standards of evidence are much more strict in the US. There are some very real protections against judicial abuse – permanent exclusion of illegally obtained evidence, for example.

            In terms of fairness, Knox didn’t get anything remotely resembling a fair trial in Italy.

      • JLS1950

        You watch Italian “westerns” too, and you think they accurately depict the old American West, don’t you Luigi?

        • Luigi Bubani

          No.I have never thought this.

  • Theo Stobbe

    Why insulting names? Keep it fact simple 🙂

  • SG25

    Frank, so the pack didnt keep you from all this? but, the Hate mongers said you were done, how can this be you are there? Are you Phoenix like, it seems to be so, rising from the ashes?

    People should know, because its unbelievable, Nencini said today…

    Nencini didnt throw out C&V and the RIS results confirmed the other sample of the same area, confirming C&V work, and also confirming Stefonanis work that there was no blood found and the knife was not cleaned.

    Next I want to know if this Judge will find it “unbelieveable”, that Commode and Mignini spent $180,000euro when there wasnt even enough money to record the interrogation.

    • Dave

      I can’t see how he won’t find it unbelievable, with Comodi on trial for the video. If he’s reading the news, that is. In North America, judges and juries are not allowed to read the news, but in Italy the rules seem to be different.

  • So I’ve found out that most of people in Italy actually believes Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, inspite of what a few (very few) journalists would have you believe. This makes me very happy. However, the corruption is still there, and basically the POOP needs to be dealt with. Hopefully it will hit a ventilating type machine on it’s way up.

    • oz33

      where is the evidence that most italians find them innocent pinocchio?

      • please stop talking to me. Fortunately I don’t see most of your comments because I either don’t care enough to look at them or they’ve been deleted. Same with some others here. And why are you so obsessed? You clearly have no idea of who we are. I’m sorry, but I am not going to deal with someone who literally doesn’t have the ability to do anything more than name call. If you continue to comment to me I’m going to be reporting you. Same with someone named Grahame Roads.

        Note to all : Why do people attack just because other people believe differently? They simply can’t handle it. It’s not super classy or attractive. They are not able to respectfully be able to agree to disagree. This is unfortunate (for them).
        PS My nose?Really? Reaalllly???? Where’s your pic again? Just sayin’..

        • oz33

          pinocchio if you don’t read my posts why r u responding? By the way, i havnt messaged you in a while. Maybe get you “fbi” or fib husband onto me!