THE PROSECUTION TRIES: “GIVE 30 YEARS TO AMANDA KNOX”

Extremely Weak Arguments Brought Against Knox and Sollecito
Frank Sfarzo in Florence, November 26, 2013

How can you accuse Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito when you have nothing tangible in your hands? With opinions, and the opinions brought by the prosecutor were, in my opinion, all wrong. Interesting, though, and appreciable, that he underlined every one of his opinions saying that that was true “in my opinion.” It looks like he’s preparing the audience for when the defense will speak, and explain why his opinions are only opinions, and there’s no proof to convict Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. You can tell that he’s just doing his job, he’s paid to accuse, and he accuses, quite weakly actually.

By accusing, indeed, he helps. Yesterday, for instance, as we have seen, by maintaining that they had not alibi, he finally acknowledged that there are interactions on Raffaele’s computer during the crime, providing him and Amanda with an alibi. An honesty we are not used to. We don’t have this time a prosecutor who hides exonerating data, but just interprets them with his (highly demolishable) opinions.

Today as well he threw on the table a couple of things quite useful to the defense. He reminded us that not only Amanda was busy for the night (until Patrick’s text message freed her), but Raffaele as well, until the Serbian girl stopped by at 8.40 pm to say she didn’t need him anymore.

So, they weren’t planning to do anything. Why should they all of a sudden have gone to harm Meredith? Why should they have brought the knife to the cottage? Crini gives up: we don’t know, and “we don’t need to find a reason.”

So, Crini admitted not being able to find a reason why the Marietti knife should have been brought to the cottage. And the defense knows why nobody can find that reason: because that knife was never brought to the cottage.

Why Crini doesn’t at least try, why he so easily raises his hands and offers such a help to the defense is clear: he’s just doing his job; if they buy it it’s fine, otherwise never mind, he certainly wouldn’t lose his job or go to jail. This is not his war: someone else, not him, was in a police station where according to defendants a prosecutor and his cops committed some crimes. Someone else, not him, hopes to get from Amanda and Raffaele millions and millions and millions of dollars.

So, he doesn’t know why they brought the Marietti knife, but he knows that it’s the murder weapon and that it was then “very washed” by them. “Very washed,” but some DNA remained on the blade, and he doesn’t know why only the DNA remained from that super washing but not the blood (plus, there was also dirt on it, so, what “very washed”?).

Crini knows that there was another knife, a smaller one (of course: the accusers are obligated to say that since another wound on Meredith’s neck is too tight for Marietti). It’s clear to him that the smaller knife belonged, that one too, to Raffaele. How he knows, we don’t know, but he knows that the smaller knife wasn’t Rudy’s even if he was used to attacking people with knives, but it was Raffaele’s, even if he wasn’t using pocket knives for attacking people, even if no blood was found on his pocket knives. It’s just his opinion. So, the big knife… the small knife… Raffaele very generously provided the whole of the hardware… In Crini’s opinion Raffaele went there with TWO KNIVES! Damn, Amelie has really bad effects on young people… And why did Raffaele bring the Marietti if he already had his pocket knife? Crini doesn’t say. Rudy, instead, provided the “software,” and stinky.

And here we are, in the shit again, the trademark, the core of this case. The shit in the big toilet proves the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele.

Because if you leave the toilet in such a way, in Crini’s opinion, it is not because the victim came back home while you were on the toilet, but because you are high on some substances (drugs or alcohol).

Rudy was dazed, therefore Amanda and Raffaele were too, and that’s why they went to attack Meredith with two knives, both provided by Raffaele.

So this is the reasoning: Amanda and Raffaele were under the influence of drugs not because a drug test said so, but because Rudy was under the influence of drugs. And Rudy was on drugs not because a drug test said so but because he left the shit in the toilet. Will Nencini find this reasoning logically impeccable? I think not even Crini hopes so.

Two Shades of Black

Crini was then conquered by the racial argument, and recalled that Amanda accused Patrick because he had the same color of skin as Rudy. Another impeccable argument? (Are we sure, by the way, that the color of their skin is the same or they are different shades of “black”?)

So, Crini plays a little bit with concepts. Why not? Reasonings are always interesting. Then he plays with numbers. Why 25 years of jail? No: the right number is 26. Nothing but 26! He asked 26 years of jail for Amanda and Raffaele.

And why only 3 years for Amanda for having signed a statement in which she says clear things like “he was in her room, and I imagined what may have happened.” Damn Amanda, what a joke she made to us that night, she didn’t tell us what happened, we had to interpret that she meant that Patrick had killed Meredith. Even though that’s a crime, and for Crini it deserves 4 years. Nothing but 4! (Had she signed “Patrick killed Meredith” how many years would she have deserved? 50?)

Here we should recall why Amanda is still being tried for calumny when she was definitely convicted for that: because the prosecution appealed against the granting of the extenuating circumstances, and the Cassazione accepted it. So, she can’t be acquitted for calumny, her conviction can only be confirmed or increased. And Crini does his job, and seeks an increase.

So, Crini asked for Amanda 26 + 4 years, which if accepted, with the “continuation,” would probably grant her something like 27 years and a half.

Three Shades of Black

Then the interested people, those who hope to make a lot of millions from this case, started.

Patrick’s lawyer is the only survivor in the team of the accusers, from the early days of the case.

The old actor never gets too tired to play the same show again, even if the theater goes empty, as it happened today, even if nobody listens.
So for at least the 6th time he described Amanda as a she-devil, dirty outside and inside, etc. To be precise he said, this time, “dirty outside because she’s black inside.” So we have some minor changes, and a new shade of black.

Again he explained that she accused Patrick because he was also black. A racial argument that, as we have seen, had a wide fortune. The disk, however, plays always the same music, you know it by heart.

Talking about calumny, tomorrow we’ll see what happened to Amanda’s other trial and why someone needs her conviction.