Posts Tagged ‘amanda knox’

“Rudy Guede is the Forgotten Killer” – Knox’ secret message to Rudy Guede

December 12, 2020

“Rudy Guede is the Forgotten Killer”

So claims Amanda Knox on her Labyrinth podcast and her written press release (which she also reads out).

RUDY IS OUT OF JAIL

This was a response 10 Dec 2020 to the news report 4 Dec 2020 of Rudy Guede being relased on ‘community service’ for the rest of his sentence, having served twelve years. He was sentenced to sixteen years imprisonment in 2008, which means his sentence does not finish until 2024. Thus, being on some kind of probation or parole seems to suggest Knox and Sollecito are safe from his publishing a tell-all book just yet, as one of the conditions of early release is ‘playing the game’ and tacitly acknowledging guilt for the crime you served time for. This is one reason we have not heard anything from Guede, apart from – unusually – the RAI3 – Italian state TV channel with Franca Leosini in which he pointed the finger at Knox as being present at the crime scene, and kept up the alibi he had already given in court.

RAPID RESPONSE FROM KNOX

So why would Knox respond so rapidly and heartily to Guede’s release on community service, within days? The speed by which she put out a response suggests she was greatly excited by this news. Firstly, 4 Dec 2020 coincides with when she and Sollecito were first found guilty after a long merits trial. The professionalism of the podcast indicates a touch of a smooth marketing attempt, with the audio having an opening and closing clip of her mother, Ebba Mellas, ringing her up ‘about the news’ and expressing concern. Then we have Knox vehemently expressing her anger that ‘Guede has never taken responsibility for the rape and murder of Meredith Kercher’.

“RUDY IS A BURGLAR“

In her written press release, she claims Guede was on a burglary spree, culminating at a nursery in Milan ‘where he was found with a knife’. She omits to mention he was cleared of burglary, the knife he had in his backpack came from the nursery drawer so he didn’t have it when he arrived. He was still there in the morning, so his claim he went there to spend the night after a party rings true. He didn’t need to beak in as an acquaintance gave him access, as confirmed by the nursery owner in court at the trial. So an arrogant open lie by Knox right there. Guede had no criminal record as of the point of Kercher’s murder. Arrogant, because she presumes the reader knows nothing about the case. She feels confident about lying and thus providing Guede with a motive in the minds of her readers.

HUSBAND AND WIFE CHAT SESSION

Knox and Chris Robinson, her husband, then have a ‘chat session’ in which Robinson puts forward the theory that murders are mostly committed by young men of Guede’s age group. Guede was twenty years old at the time. Another, ‘Therefore, of course he must have done it!’ – moment, ignoring that Knox herself was also twenty and Sollecito twenty-three. Knox claims that Guede not taking sole responsibility for the crime meant many people suffered as a result. However, the courts found overwhelming evidence of multiple attackers. Knox and Sollecito themselves brought out as their key witnesses, Luca Aviello, a mafia gangster, and Mario Alessi, a child kidnapper and killer, as providing alternative suggestions as to who the ‘other attackers’ might be, if not themselves. The prosecution, the defence, the pathologist, and the judges all agree there were multiple attackers, beyond a reasonable doubt.

Given it is for the police and prosecutors to bring the correct charges and the courts to find the correct verdict and supply the prescribed sentencing, it is hardly the onus of Guede to offer exoneration to Knox and Sollecito, as courts rarely believe anything a prime suspect says anyway on the assumption, ‘They would lie about their own involvement, wouldn’t they?’.

WHY IS KNOX EXCITED BY GUEDE’S RELEASE?

So what is the reason behind Knox’ excitement about Guede’s release into the community?

There are a mixture of possible reasons for her public address, other than the obvious one of wanting to remain in the news as a person of interest herself.

Not having been able to communicate openly with Guede before, now she can address him directly. She taunts him as ‘being a coward’. Clearly she is angling for a response or reaction from him. Her rationale to the public she avers to be addressing is that she is ‘upset’. But why would she be? She had her own sentence annulled. He is in Italy on probation, she is in the USA. They will not be meeting in the street any time soon. She was not the victim of the crime. If the courts ‘got it wrong’ as she claims, for she berates them for ‘giving Guede a lesser sentence’: conspiracy to murder instead of murder – then that is down to the courts. She aggressively asserts Guede alone was responsible for the ‘rape and murder of Meredith’ and ‘there were no other suspects’. Unless she is a detective, how would she know this? The final Supreme Court who annulled Knox’ and Sollecito’s sentence states clearly in its written reasons that there were multiple attackers and it was indisputable that Knox was present when Kercher was murdered. It also clearly states that Knox named Diya Lumumba as the rapist and killer of Kercher ‘to cover up for Rudy Guede’. Knox never mentions that she still has a conviction for her false accusation of a Black man she knew was innocent, nor that her four years in jail were not ‘wrongful imprisonment’ but the correct sentence for Calunnia, of three years (which roughly corresponds with the US ‘Obstruction of Justice’ – five years maximum imprisonment in most states – or perverting the course of justice in the UK which has a similar sentence to Italy’s). There was also one year on remand, for which she has not claimed compensation. Sollecito tried to but had his case thrown out because the pair were proven by the courts to have lied, lied and lied again about their movements and whereabouts as of the time of the crime. So now she is challenging Guede to ‘admit you were the sole perpetrator’.
Perhaps she is desperately worried about what Guede might say, now that he cannot be prosecuted for the same crime and having served almost all of his sentence. Now he is out and about living like a normal person. So, her broadcast and press release is a pre-emptive strike. Attack being the best form of defence. Get the public on your side. Arise sympathy in the reader/listener about all the ‘pain’ Guede made everybody suffer, especially in respect to yourself. Warning: this man is a coward! Do not believe him!
But what if it is something else? A coded message to Guede, as one co-crime partner to another? Think of how when you meet an old friend and you reminisce together. Perhaps it is an old boyfriend and you would rather your current one did not know. So, instead of openly talking about the time you went to the cinema together, you might allude to it instead. You might say remember that time ‘Oceans Seven’ was showing but I couldn’t go because I was washing my hair and hint, ‘I know secrets about you’ so if you agree not to tell on me, I can reward you in some way. Read the following extract and substitute ‘I’ for ‘he’ and ‘I’ for ‘he’:

I’m [he’s] upset that he’s [I’ve] never acknowledged his [my] crimes, that he’s [I’ve] never been held fully accountable, and that I [he] continue [s] to bear the burden of his [my] infamy.

PAIN

Knox talks about Guede inflicting ‘pain‘, which is what a sadist does, but perhaps it takes one to know one?
Knox plays ‘the race card’ by bringing in her friends ‘who are men of color just like Guede’ but they really were innocent but had to wait much longer than twelve years for their exoneration. Here the logic becomes illogical. This is because the point being made is not the sentencing or their presumed innocence or guilt but ‘I have friends who are persons of color’. It is an “I am not a racist,” declaration, even though Knox did falsely accuse a ‘man of color’ as the perpetrator of Meredith Kercher’s death, yet Knox never, EVER, mentions that crime she did indeed commit and remains convicted.
Knox complains that the press are ‘humanizing’ Guede whilst vilifying herself. She claims she ‘bears the burden of his infamy’. However, Guede has no control over the press, so why blame him for one’s own press coverage? Knox is banking on most readers of her quasi-anguished plea of not knowing any of the facts of the case. Knox and Sollecito were charged and convicted of Aggravated (first degree) Murder because of the overwhelming evidence against them. The sentence of 26 years for Knox was annulled after intervention from the same very sympathetic US press and PR agencies Knox now claims are her tormentors. She was given her own column in the West Seattle Herald newspaper owned by her husband’s grandfather and edited by his Uncle Ken Robinson, wherein she was free to promote her own agenda of having being victimised by Italian police and Italian justice, which she repeated with the Netflix film. The truth is, Guede has never been humanised. He is always portrayed as the African drifter and prolific burglar and drug dealer. The Black guy.
The issue of who let Guede into the cottage in the first place is one she prefers to ignore; hers and Sollecito’s trumped-up story of a burglary-gone-wrong was firmly disproved by solid forensic evidence that ‘the burglary’ scene was half-heartedly done and was effected after the murder, to put investigators off the scent. It is not possible for Guede to confirm he came in through the window because it is proven not to have happened. The window was proven to have been smashed from the inside. Guede came in through the front door.
I believe her excited press release contains a coded message to Guede. First, she is inviting him to respond to her. Secondly, she sees him as a threat so is manipulating him. This is apparent from the following:

I don’t need to know his reasons, what was going through his mind that night. But I would like to know if he cares now. If he cares about what he did to Meredith, what he did to me.

Translated: ‘I don’t need to know your reasons, what was going through your mind that night [of the murder]. But I would like to know if you [still] care [about me] now. If you care what [you made me do] to Meredith, what you did to me [by causing me to be upset that evening]. Contact me and let me know if you [still] care about me. And maybe we can come to some arrangement. [Thanks for covering up for me so far.]’ …

’You could end all that [my appearance of guilt] in a second.’

So, when she proclaims Guede as ‘the forgotten killer’ she implicitly acknowledges there are other killers: the known killers. However, they are not taking any responsibility. And they need never need to if you, Guede, could contact me and we’ll talk about this.

Tags:#amandaknox #rudyguede #raffaelesollecitomeredithkercher, amanda knox, raffaele sollecito, rudy guede
Posted in Justice for Meredith Kercher | Leave a Comment »

AMANDA KNOX – DOES SHE SUFFER FROM FALSE MEMORY SYNDROME?

May 1, 2020

Knox claimed at her trial she suffered from false memory

AMANDA KNOX – DOES SHE SUFFER FROM FALSE MEMORY SYNDROME?

In her testimony at the trial for the Aggravated Murder of Meredith Kercher, co-defendant Amanda Knox claimed her initial accusations and confession to being at the crime scene were based on faulty memory due to coercion by the police. For example:

AK:

According to me, it depends on the situation. I can only talk about my own experience, which was, that I had to, forced myself — because they told me that I had to remember something else — to recall something else, so I forced myself so hard, that I was trying to imagine the reality that I had apparently forgotten, and I got confused as to whether the things I had imagined were really memories or just imagination. Because they were fragmentary. They were just images of things I had seen in my life, for example Piazza Grimana, that I saw every day, Patrick, whom I saw almost every day. These things, which were fragmented, I didn’t know if they belonged to that evening, to that sequence of events, or that line of reasoning. I didn’t know, and not knowing what was reality and what was my imagination, this was the state of confusion.

She had made a voluntary statement a few days after the murder claiming she had been present at the murder and had witnessed from another room Meredith’s harrowing screams and hearing thud. DNA, blood, luminol and subsequent circumstantial evidence after the murder of 2 Nov 2007 meant Knox was charged, together with Sollecito a few months later in the following year.

ak statement

Knox’ signed statement

Knox gave several reasons for having claimed to have been present at the murder and for naming Patrick Lumumba, whom she knew to be innocent and was subsequently convicted for criminal calunnia and served three years for it. She has never paid Lumumba the damages she was ordered to pay by the court for his wrongful incarceration as a result of her criminally malicious claim

One reason was that the police had coerced her by slapping the back of her head, interrogated her ‘for 53 hours’ – a claim she maintains today, even though police records show she was only at the police station of her own free decision for a couple of hours before she made the startling claim, totally unexpected by the police, who correctly immediately terminated the witness interview.

In her testimony she claimed further, she had experienced a ‘flashback’:

flashbacks

Prosecutor G Mignini cross-examining Knox on her claim she had a false memory

Another reason was that the police had told her Sollecito had withdrawn his alibi for her – which he had and has never reinstated it – and that she was threatened with thirty years in jail.

The third reason, which she uses as a PR meme in her various tours of Innocence Project events is that she suffered from ‘false memory’ syndrome and even teamed up with psychologist Saul Kassin, whose pet subject this is.

An early open advocate of Knox, Nina Burleigh rushed out a book to present Knox’ side of the story. It was Burleigh who introduced the theme of Rudy Guede as ‘a drifter’ and claims he was aged ‘twenty-seven’, when in fact he was twenty at the time. To help Knox with her case Burleigh introduces the idea – which Knox latches onto – of False Memory syndrome, caused by being under duress.

kassin

Saul Kassin

In The Fatal Gift of Beauty by Nina Burleigh p 234 Burleigh cites Saul Kassin as a proponent of false confession. She draws attention to the case of Barry Laughman, 24, who in 1990 was ‘falsely convicted’ of the murder and rape of 85-year old Edna Laughman in 1987.

laughman newsclip crop

Laughman was legally categorised as a ‘moron’ and when told his fingerprints had been found at the scene, he confessed and it wasn’t until later that his blood sample DNA was ‘excluded’ by a left-over sample years later.

laughman's fingerprint

At the time of his interview Laughman was not told that all the police had at the time was a whorl fingerprint and was led to believe they had his prints. 35% of the population has whorl prints.

There had been three finger marks on Miss Laughman’s arm and Laughman was seen to have had an injured pinky finger, leading police to note that he was only able to grasp with three fingers.

This syndrome, Burleigh implies, is also why Knox ‘falsely confessed’, because the police (a) used the same Reid technique as had been used against Laughman way back in DNA prehistory in 1988, when matching blood type analysis was the norm rather than DNA testing and (b) because Italian police applied a good cop/bad cop method of interrogation, called the Reid Technique Thing is, at that stage, Knox was not a suspect and the police were still at an early investigation level. Knox had attended the Questura of her own accord to keep Sollecito company, who had been called in.

‘On September 8, 1987, Troopers Holtz and Blevins requested that Plaintiff and his father return for more questioning. When Plaintiff and his father arrived, Trooper Holtz took Plaintiff into an interview room alone. At the time of this second questioning, Plaintiff was twenty-four years old with an IQ of 69-71, which was lower than 97.5 % of the population. He was classified as “a moron” under then existing mental health classifications.

Under current mental health classifications, Plaintiff would be considered mildly retarded.

After approximately an hour of interrogation, Troopers Holtz and Blevins claim Plaintiff confessed to the rape and murder. Although Trooper Holtz had a tape recorder, Plaintiff’s confession was not recorded. Rather, Trooper Holtz is heard reading the confession statement to Plaintiff and asking whether it is correct. Plaintiff’s voice is only heard on the tape saying “yes.” https://casetext.com/case/laughman-v-commonwealth

So, is Burleigh claiming Knox, too, like Laughman, is technically a ‘moron’ – the offivial legalese of the day – and easily manipulated into essentially lying? She states in her book, ‘After sixteen years in prison DNA evidence finally proved Laughman innocent, and he was set free’.

laughman newsclip

Newspaper report of the day

On June 20, 2003, the motion was granted and the DNA evidence was ordered to be tested and compared to samples taken from Plaintiff. In a report dated November 5, 2003, the DNA analyst concluded that, “Barry Laughman is excluded as a source of the DNA obtained from this sample.” [ibid]

Can Burleigh reasonably claim this is an equivalent case to that of Knox or Sollecito? The reason for its inclusion in her book and her self-professed advocacy of Knox, it seems, is to underline Saul Kassin’s theories about why someone would confess to something so incriminating as being present at a heinous crime scene. So here we have the launch of one of Knox’ key PR memes: she only named Patrick Lumumba and described being present herself whilst Patrick raped and murdered her room-mate…because of (1) false memory and (2) the Italian ‘good cop’ in the form of Anna Donnino making sympathetic noises about how trauma after an accident can affect your memory.

Barry Laughman’s case, whom Burleigh cites as an example of false memory

b laughman

Barry Laughman

When Barry Laughman was a small boy, he injured his pinky finger. At the time, it didn’t seem like a life-threatening injury. But it would eventually turn out to be very serious indeed.

In 1987, when Laughman was 24, a female neighbor was found murdered. The police quickly zeroed in on Laughman after noticing that he couldn’t bend his little finger. The victim had been found with three small bruises on her arm, as though someone had gripped her with only three fingers. This seemed to match Laughman’s damaged pinky.

Laughman had an IQ of 70 and was mentally the equivalent of a 10-year-old child. He eventually agreed to confess after police trooper John Holtz told him that a fingerprint found at the crime scene had a whorl pattern, as did Laughman’s fingers. Holtz wasn’t lying, but he neglected to tell Laughman that whorl fingerprints are extremely common, found in 25–35 percent of the population. In reality, Laughman’s specific fingerprints were not found at the scene.

Armed with his confession, the prosecution secured Laughman’s conviction. A short time later, DNA testing became standard practice and defense attorney Mark Beauchat mailed key evidence samples to anthropologist Mark Stoneking for testing. According to Beauchat, Stoneking called him to say that he couldn’t perform a conclusive test and then never returned the evidence. According to Stoneking, he was never able to carry out a test, because Beauchat only sent the evidence from the crime scene and ignored his request for a sample of Laughman’s DNA to compare it to.

Communication apparently broke down between Stoneking and Beauchat after this, with Beauchat believing that the evidence had been lost or destroyed, when Stoneking had actually taken it to Germany with him. It only resurfaced in 2003, when investigative reporter Pete Shellem tracked Stoneking down. (In his defense, Stoneking told Shellem that he “had no idea what the case was about.”) DNA testing quickly cleared Laughman, albeit almost a decade after it should have.

https://listverse.com/2016/04/10/10-convicted-murderers-who-confessed-but-didnt-do-it/

PCR/DQ Alpha DNA testing was done in 1993 by Cellmark Diagnostics. It tested the vaginal swabs collected from the victim, but the results were inconclusive.

Kassin, in the course of his studies as a psychology student, became interested in the works of Stanley Milgram, famous for his experiments which showed that people will often just ‘obey authority’ (Milgram’s own interest aroused by the phenomenon of German Third Reich prison camp guards obeying orders to perpetrate acts of extreme crimes against humanity). Kassin’s interest moved to criminal psychology and he was intrigued to find out why some people confess to shocking crimes they did not commit, as in the early example of Marty Tankleff:

tankleff

Marty Tankleff

In one of the most striking examples, Marty Tankleff, a Long Island teenager, came to breakfast one morning in 1988 to find his parents stabbed on the kitchen floor, his mother dying and his father in a coma. Detectives thought Tankleff was not sufficiently grief-stricken, so he became their prime suspect. After hours of getting nowhere, a detective said he had called Tankleff ‘s father at the hospital and that the injured man said Tankleff had committed the crime. (In truth, his father died without regaining consciousness.) Shocked beyond reason, Tankleff confessed. He spent 19 years in prison before a growing body of evidence set him free.

Exonerated or Vacated?

However, when one investigates further the reasons for the above apparent ‘exonerations’ (Laughman, Tankleff) we find that they are more as a result of ultra-persistent defence advocates, such as those active in US Innocence Projects. Laughman was cleared because the early blood sample had deteriorated and a defence advocate pursued a scientist who still had a residual sample he took to Germany who, eventually, under pressure from the advocate, in 1993, claimed the DNA ‘excluded’ Laughman. This is curious wording and tells us little. Does it mean it is someone else’s DNA or more likely, it failed to identify any DNA or enough DNA loci up to legal standard due to poor quality? We are not told. In the case of Tankleff, his case was vacated according to Wikipedia, for reason of: “The issue in this case is not whether there is evidence, but whether there is sufficient evidence.”

Is Evidence Insufficient without DNA Proof?

‘Insufficient evidence’ is, of course, the unusual final verdict for Knox and Sollecito, rather than a straight forward not guilty, when their convictions were annulled, in 2015. So, who then, did kill Edna Laughman and Marty Tankleff’s parents? No-one knows, is the answer. The confessions of the two that they committed the crime at the time, together with a fingerprint in the Laughman case and a blood spot in the Tankleff one counts for nothing.

Of course it is better to see a guilty man go free than an innocent man punished for a crime he did not commit.

Ten Million Dollar Settlement

The area of legal jurisdiction opposed Tankleff’s claim for compensation after being freed, although he won in the end. Knox and Sollecito have received zero compensation as they were not actually exonerated.

A prosecutor and detective who worked the case plan to argue against the settlement before it’s approved. They believe the jury got it right.

“Tankleff has argued for years that his confession was coerced, but he has never even attempted to explain the incriminating blood proof, which even his lawyers admitted to a federal appeals court ‘was self-evidently damning’ evidence of Tankleff’s guilt,” said Leonard Lato, a former prosecutor represented Suffolk County in Tankleff’s appeal.

The Advance of DNA Testing in Criminal Trials

The progress of science cannot be halted and DNA identification has helped courts in that there is a further source of evidence to access. If there is an error in the collection phase of forensics, as in the Laughman case, when the blood sample taken in 1988 had deteriorated by 1993 and with the advances in DNA testing, no legal standard match could be found come 2003, should this make the entire trial and conviction void, given the other evidence of fingerprint, three-finger bruising, blood spots and explicit confessions?

With every pro comes a con:

Does a lack of DNA evidence prove a person is innocent?
Should a confession count for nothing in a court of law?
If an error is made in forensic testing does that void a trial?
Is there any genuine evidence for Saul Kassin’s false memory syndrome?

It would appear to be the case that the public and the press are now demanding definite DNA evidence of guilt rather than the current legal standard of ‘Beyond a Reasonable Doubt’ based on all of the evidence in a fair trial. In other words, is a lack of a strong DNA trail grounds for ‘insufficient evidence’ despite the presence of other evidence, such as a confession, luminol footprints or fingerprints, as in Knox’ case?

Can a detailed confession to a crime be even proven to have been ‘false memory’?

Tags:amanda knox, Barry Laughman, DNA evidence, innocence projects, italy, Marty Tankfell, meredith kercher, psychology, raffaele sollecito, rudy guede, saul kassin
Posted in Justice for Meredith Kercher | Leave a Comment »

Aviello – The Truth

December 27, 2019

AVIELLO: THE TRUTH.

bongiorno-maori

How Aviello was bribed to bend the trial of Amanda Knox & Raffaele Sollecito

Lucia (formerly Luciano) Aviello

Luciano Aviello, a key defence witness for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito during their trial for aggravated murder, has been cleared of the serious count of calunnia, (calumny) in a little reported acquittal in January 2018. The news came via an obscure news item in Italian newspaper, UMBRIA24, which reported:

He [Aviello] accused his brother of killing Meredith Kercher but eight years after that slander the court acquitted him because “the fact does not exist”. The trial against Luciano Aviello, repentant of the Camorra, who during the first instance trial to Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito wrote five letters to the defenders of the American student, blaming the brother of the murder [of Meredith Kercher] on Via della Pergola. Aviello, a 49-year-old Neapolitan, among other things had told investigators that he had known Sollecito during his period of detention in Terni prison. (Google translation)

Aviello was cleared by an Italian court of the Italian equivalent of ‘Obstruction of Justice’ for allegedly giving the court false information in order to deliberately sabotage the trial. In his defence, the transgender 49-year-old claimed he had been bribed to throw the case into chaos by Sollecito’s attorney, Giulia Bongiorno. He told the Appeal court during the Kercher trial he had been offered €30,000 towards his sex change operation.

bongiorno

Attorneys Guilia Bongiorno and Luca Maori acting for Raffaele Sollecito

Aviello had numerous convictions for mafia activities and was a notorious ‘informer’ according to Sollecito in his book, Honor Bound, who had to be kept in isolation, protected from other prisoners.

Sollecito claims in his book that the Squadra Mobile (Flying Squad) in Perugia had set him up to become friends with Aviello in the hope he would confess to the crime. Aviello claimed Sollecito confessed that Amanda killed Meredith in an erotic game. Sollecito claims that when he realised what Aviello had been saying about him, he cut him off as a friend and Aviello was moved away from Terni prison, shortly after.

sollecito

Raffaele Sollecito: Then and Now

Strangely, Aviello was introduced to the trial by Sollecito’s defence to testify that the real killers were Antonio, Aviello’s brother, and a mysterious Albanian. Given Aviello’s long record of being an unreliable witness and numerous convictions for slander, many consider it remarkable Knox’ attorney Carlo Dalla Vedova called Aviello as a key witness, in collaboration with Sollecito’s attorney, Luca Maori.

The testimony of Aviello, unsurprisingly, was completely dismissed and Aviello told he would be prosecuted for criminal slander (obstruction of justice in an investigation). He had written five letters to the Prosecutor Manuela Comodi setting out his wild claims.

How Hellmann gagged Aviello’s claims of bribery by the defence

After the trial in which Knox and Sollecito were found guilty of aggravated murder, the case went to automatic appeal. The judge, Hellmann, refused to allow Aviello to be questioned in the the witness stand on the issue that he had only made his claims because of the bribe by Sollecito’s defence, leading the prosecution to appeal against this, as a point of law.

In the next stage automatic appeal to the Supreme Court, Judge Chieffi ruled Hellmann erred in not allowing Aviello’s testimony to be heard that he had been bribed by Bongiorno to make the false claims, in order to bring chaos and confusion to the case.

Advocate Bongiorno is quoted as saying she would take legal measures to defend her reputation. To date, there are no reports she has ever sued Aviello for his accusations.

Judge Chieffi sent the case back down to the Appeal Court, this time presided by Alessandro Nencini. See my article on the Nencini Papers Day 2, 4 Oct 2013.

Aviello gets a second chance at Nencini’s court

One of the edicts of the Supreme Court was that Aviello must be heard for his bribery claims. The date for Aviello’s testimony was set for Day 2 of the Appeal, 4^th Oct 2013. This time, Aviello appeared in female clothing, claimed he or she was undergoing gender reassignment surgery and asking to be called ‘Lucia’.

Once again, Aviello changed his story and was back claiming again that his brother and an Albanian were responsible for the savage murder.

Aviello’s three versions

Judge Nencini was dismissive of Aviello’s testimony, remarking on Aviello’s “three versions” of his story. Knox’s lawyer, Dalla Vedova, objected to this on the grounds that there had only been two versions. Nencini smiled and said: “Don’t forget the next!”

nencini

Dr. Alessandro Nencini

To complete the farce, two of Aviello’s fellow inmates at Terni came forward to inform investigators that whilst in prison with Sollecito, he had bragged that Solllecito said his father Fransesco would give him €70,000 to disrupt the trial.

The upshot of all of this tomfoolery is that Aviello stood trial recently on the charges of obstruction and slander, related to the above shenanigans, and CLEARED of wrongdoing, by fact that ‘the act does not exist’.

Confused? You won’t be

The legal implications of the verdict are one or more of the following:

Aviello made the allegations his brother and an Albanian committed the crimes in good faith
Aviello was indeed bribed to cause chaos in court
Aviello was called by the defence lawyers for Knox and Sollecito to disrupt proceedings
The court deemed the matter of Luciano Aviello, star witness, was too trivial to prosecute, as the police themselves did not bother to investigate Aviello’s obvious tall story
The Squadra Mobile did set Aviello up to inform on Sollecito. He then made up a story about his brother instead, being a compulsive liar
The defence were happy to have a compulsive liar and criminal with eight convictions for slander and others for Mafia activity

In his book, Honor Bound, co-written with Andrew Gumbel, 2012, Sollecito claims Aviello was transferred away from the same prison as his because,

“I can only assume this was because his presence there no longer served any useful purpose to the authorities.’

He adds, ‘Much later, I sent him a present, an embroided handkerchief, to express my gratitude.’

Why Aviello was put forward

The most likely reason the Sollecito defence wheeled in Aviello – and child murderer, Alessi, who claimed Rudy Guede had confessed to him in prison – is that the Amanda Knox defence – Dalla Vedova – and Bongiorno and Maori, for Sollecito, knew that the ‘Lone Wolf’ theory, so beloved of the pair’s supporters, did not, and could not, stand up in court and thus, tried to present an alternative scenario of the proven presence of ‘multiple attackers’, other than their clients. The original merits hearing, Massei 2008, the Nencini Appeal hearing, 2013, and the final Supreme Court, Marasca-Bruno, 2015, all categorically confirm in their verdicts the evidence proves multiple attackers, beyond all reasonable doubt.

You will note, Amanda Knox prefers to never mention this inconvenient matter of fact. She claims to this day: ‘One attacker: Rudy’.

Make of that what you will.

Aviello – who is he?

Born Luciano Aviello, he originates from the Spanish Quarter of Naples. According to Wikipedia:

Quartieri Spagnoli (Spanish Quarters) is a part of the city of Naples in Italy. The Neapolitan language is stronger here than anywhere else. It is a poor area, suffering from high unemployment and strong influence of Camorra. The area, encompassing c. 800,000 square metres, consists of a grid of around eighteen streets by twelve, including a population of some 14,000 inhabitants.

Aged 49 in January last year, when he was cleared of criminal slander (=obstruction of justice, similar to the Amanda Knox charge and her conviction), Lucia (formerly Luciano) Aviello, would have been aged 42 when he first appeared at the Hellmann appeal in 2011 – as a defence trial witness (merits) called by Dalla Vedova and again at the Nencini trial, aged 44, two years later. Nencini was directed by Supreme Court Judge Chieffi to hear his testimony, Aviello having been dismissed by Judge Claudio Pratillo Hellmann at the now notorious hearing in 2011 which he freed Knox and Sollecito. That hearing outcome was subsequently rescinded and the evidence of Aviello expunged from the records.

Aviello sent five letters to the court

Aviello had contacted the authorities several times up to the trial claiming to know the real killers. There are five letters recorded by the courts. His claim was that Knox, Sollecito and Guede were innocent and that the crime had been committed instead by his late brother and an Albanian. He averred that they had chanced upon the ‘poor English girl’ during a burglary, who had started screaming so one of them had swiftly ‘stabbed her in the neck’ and then tried to silence the screams by placing a hand over her mouth. Aviello claims he and his brother were living in Perugia at the time.

Blood-stained clothing

Aviello claimed the brother appeared in blood-stained clothing and had an injury to his right arm. The crux of his story is that he was asked by his brother to hide the murder weapon – a knife – and a set of keys under a stone in a garden in Perugia, which Aviello claims he then set about doing under a pile of bricks.

Aviello at the time of his testimony was serving a 17-year prison sentence for being an associate of the Mariano crime family of the notorious Secondigliano district of Naples, an improverished mafia-controlled area rife with drug-dealing, prostitution, extortion and money-laundering. The 17-year sentence suggests he was not small fry. His story remained consistent, too, even repeating his claims at the ensuing Nencini court, despite the threat of a criminal charge of slander.

Two witnesses called by the prosecution in June 2011 backed Aviello up, Cosimo Zaccaro, a fellow inmate who claimed Aviello bragged of having been offered €59,000 by Bongiorno, Sollecito’s counsel, and Alexander Ilic, his cellmate, who said Aviello claimed he’d been offered €158,000 by her.

Zaccaro was in prison for a variety of charges including drug, fraud, and theft.^[48] His previous charges include three charges for slander that resulted in two convictions.^[49] Zaccaro had originally met Aviello in the informants section of Ivrea prison in 1987.^[50] He testified that Aviello had told him that he knew Alessi but he did not necessarily believe that was true and that Aviello was likely just bragging.^[51] Zaccaro also testified that one day Aviello was crying which led to them talking.^[52] Aviello confided in Zaccaro that Sollecito was paying him to testify at the trial and cause confusion.^[53] Aviello told Zavvaro that he had been given €70,000 and that it was in a bank in San Paolo.^[54] Zaccaro also testified that Aviello had a letter from Raffaele Sollecito thanking him for all he was doing for him.^[55] –

Alexander Ilic:

Ilic testified that he met Luciano Aviello in the summer of 2010 at Ivrea prison.^[56] Aviello had told him that he had met Raffaele Sollecito while at Terni prison and that he had since met with Sollecito’s lawyer Giulia Bongiorno.^[57] Ilic testified that Aviello claimed that the Sollecito’s were paying him €158,000 to testify at the trial.^[58] Aviello planned to use the money for gender reassignment surgery.^[59] Ilic testified that Aviello had papers about gender reassignment and that he showed him one that had the signature of Raffaele Sollecito although Ilic did not know the exact content of the signed paper.^[60] In addition Ilic told the court that Aviello had neckerchief that he said was a gift from Raffaele Sollecito and that Sollecito had sent Aviello books to study while in prison.^[61]

The claim of being bribed by Sollecito’s counsel would have been in response to Aviello’s defence against the perjury charge that he only said what he did because he was bribed by Bongiorno.

There was also the police officer, Chiacciera, Marco:

A police officer that investigated Luciano Aviello.^[62] The testimony was short but Chiacchiera told the court two items that are of interest to the credibility of Aviello’s claims. The first was Aviello’s involvement in the murder investigation of mafia member Salvatore Conte. Conte had been killed by his own organization because he was considered a risk due to his cocaine addiction. The police had thought telephone intercepts figured out that the murder was committed by Marcelo Russo at the order of Salvatore Menzo.^[63] In November of 2007 Luciano Aviello contacted Dr. Paci the prosecutor in this murder requesting that he be heard because he had relevant details.^[64] In March of 2008 Aviello was interviewed by the police regarding Conte’s murder and he told them a involved story including several additional murders and about a plot to kill a magistrate using explosives.^[65] The police attempted to confirm Aviello’s claims but that went nowhere. Aviello had told the police that two bodies were buried near a tree in a field but when the police excavated the field they found nothing.^[66] Further, the story Aviello told them did not make sense given the location and how the murders took place.^[67] A second attempt to confirm Aviello’s claims resulted in Aviello being allowed out of jail for the day to lead police to another body.^[68] Again Aviello was unable to produce a body to support his story.^[69]

Chiacchiera also investigated Aviello with respect to his claims regarding the murder of Meredith Kercher. Aviello was a defense witness who claims that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent and that his brother killed Meredith in a botched art theft. Aviello claimed to be living in Perugia at the time and that fact is central to his story. Chiacchiera testified that he attempted to confirm Aviello’s claims of living in Perugia at the time of the murder. Chiachhiera told the court that he was able to determine that Aviello had two cellphones at the the time but that neither of them had ever connected to a Perugia cell tower.^[70] Chiacchiera also told the court that Salvatore Menzo the individual with whom Aviello claimed to be living was actually living elsewhere in Italy.^[71] Lastly, Chiacchiera attempted to find anyone who had seen or interacted with Aviello in Perugia and was unable to find anyone who knew him.^[72]

Then there was Monica Napoleoni, who was the first senior lead police officer on the scene (the first was the postal police returning one of Meredith Kercher’s phones, found abandoned):

Monica Napoleoni was also tasked with looking into Luciano Aviello’s story that his brother and a unknown accomplice were the real killers. Aviello had said he was living at #11 Via della Pergola (the murder happened at #7 Via della Pergola) but when Napoleoni went to find #11 no such address exists and after checking with civic records that address has never existed.^[73] Amanda Knox’s lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova pointed out that Aviello was not certain and that he had said it was perhaps #11.^[74] Napoleoni told that court that she had checked all the neighbouring properties and Aviello had not been a resident at any of them.^[75 SOURCE: The Murder of Meredith Kercher

Multiple assailants or ‘Lone Wolf’?

Let’s recap: Aviello was secured as a witness by Dalla Vedova to claim the multiple assailants were other than the accused: Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. Crini, for the prosecution at the Nencini appeal put it to Aviello that he had been ‘convinced’ to make up this story by Bongiorno. Bongiorno claimed his testimony was irrelevant. Francesco Sollecito, Raffaele’s father. said it was ‘laughable’ to claim that he or Bongiorno had offered to pay off Aviello.

$fracesco$

Francesco Sollecito, father of Raffaele: ‘My son has never seen a dead body, never mind killed anyone.’

Yet Aviello stood by his claim to the very end that he was bribed to subvert justice and at the end of January 2018 he was cleared. So what exactly was this about?

The Naples Camorra

Being a member of the notorious Camorra Aviello, is ipso facto anti-state and anti-police, not to mention governed by an oath of omerta (=silence: thou shalt not grass) nor help the police in any way.

Who are the Mariano family of Secondigliano in Naples?

Robert Salviano who wrote a book about the Camorra writes in an excerpt in VANITY FAIR:

“in 2010, the Secessionists themselves split into two groups—veterans of the war with Di Lauro, known as the Old Colonels, and upstarts led by a notoriously violent kid in his early 20s, known as Mariano, who rides around not on a motor scooter but on a powerful dual-purpose Transalp motorcycle, wearing a full-face helmet in the fashion of killers.”

In 2016 it was reported that, ‘Police posed as hotel staff to capture the fugitive Salvatore Mariano, who had been on the run since March, and was one of the most-wanted members of the Italian mafia’, supposedly one of the 100 most dangerous fugitives in Italy, wanted for drug-smuggling. This was the world in which Aviello lived, as a Mariano family member.

‘Harrowing scream’

So, let’s take Aviello at face value. He was offered a substantial amount of money (he claims), towards an expensive sex-change treatment, by Bongiorno, acting for Raffaele Sollecito. Two of his prison buddies come forward to verify he had boasted of being given this money in exchange for muddying the waters of the trial for the defence. The core story is that his brother Antonio– who was then a missing person – was essentially the perpetrator, together with a mysterious Albanian named ‘Floris’. He describes the nature of the attack, including the screams and the hand over the mouth remarkably accurately. There are finger bruises found around Meredith’s mouth and both Guede and Knox also mention hearing the screams, as did an independent neighbour, who described it as ‘harrowing’.

Where is the missing key to Meredith’s room?

Aviello then says he was approached by a blood-stained Antonio claiming to have the murder weapon – according to Aviello, this was a flick knife – and a set of keys. Aviello was offering to lead the police to the spot where they were hidden.

What if? What if Bongiorno and Sollecito did plot to substitute the real murder weapon with a fake one? And what about the missing key belonging to Meredith? Did Sollecito supply Aviello with a copy of it or was it the real one?

Mafia

Of course, Aviello being who he is, a mobster involved in Serious Organised Crime, with no respect for law and order, was never going to be taken seriously and indeed, the police never did take him up on his offer. The courts thought he was a joke, with the judges making quips about his truthfulness, or lack thereof. However, we have to ask, Why did the Sollecitos and indeed, Knox – via Dalla Vedova, who actually went to Turin to video tape Aviello’s allegations – resort to this tactic? Did they have an alternative knife and did they have possession of a set of keys?

‘Just a ploy’

In an interview with CSmonitor, Barbie Nadeau is quoted as saying, ‘“I think it’s a ploy by the defense to show that the trial was unfair and that some of the witnesses that the prosecution were allowed to call were ludicrous,” says Barbie Latza Nadeau, the author of “Angel Face – The True Story of Student Killer Amanda Knox.”

“As a mafia turncoat, he was considered credible enough to be used by the state in mafia-related matters, so Knox’s defense are asking why he shouldn’t be heard on this case.”

But suppose the police, prosecution and the courts had taken Aviello seriously? It would appear Knox and Sollecito tried to ‘fix’ the trial. In Italy, defendants are allowed to lie. Indeed, they are expected to. However, it does seem Aviello is vindicated in his claim he was bribed by Bongiorno and incited by Dalla Vedova to knowingly lie and mislead the trial.

The court accepted his story as to why he lied.

With form as long as his arm and serving a 17-year prison sentence, together with a history of mafia thuggery – he is said to have killed a dog – it must have seemed like a miracle to Aviello to have been acquitted! Especially against the word of a now powerful far right politician, in Bongiorno, and the establishment, as represented by the court and the state prosecution service.

As singer Tom Petty once put it:

‘Even the losers get lucky sometimes’.

Sources: UMBRIA24, The Murder of Meredith Kercher com, Court documents.

Extract from the Chieffi report:

2.1.6 Violation of Articles 190, 238 para 5, and 495 Criminal Procedure Code, with respect to the order rejecting the Prosecution’s request for a [new] hearing of Luciano Aviello. Aviello was examined on 18 June 2011 at the request of Knox’s Defence, but he subsequently retracted [his statements] before the Public Prosecutor, who then submitted a request for a new hearing that was denied, even though the original statement [SEE EXPLANATION BELOW] had been received in evidence, in which [i.e., in the retraction] the convict declared that he learned from Sollecito in prison that it was Amanda [SEE EXPLANATION BELOW] who had committed the murder, in the course of an erotic game and also over a question of money, with the knife known as Exhibit 36. [The Prosecutor General argues that] the Hellmann Court did not explain the dispensability of the evidence, seeing that, amongst other things, the interview statement [SEE EXPLANATION BELOW] was received (and it is not clear how it could have been used); the more so in that the statement [SEE EXPLANATION BELOW] made reference to confidences on the part of Sollecito, which could not have been held to be irrelevant for the purposes of the proceedings. Accordingly, the Hellmann Court of Appeal ran afoul of the aforementioned laws, having evaluated only the retractions contained in Aviello’s declarations but not the new statements concerning the confidences allegedly received from Sollecito, as well as violating Article 511bis, 511 para 2, and 515 Criminal Procedure Code for having arranged the receipt of a statement not preceded by an examination of the party concerned.

Tags:amanda knox, aviello, camorra, italy, perugia, raffaelesollecito
Posted in Justice for Meredith Kercher, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito don’t want you to know what they did on the eve of the murder of Meredith Kercher

June 19, 2019

Not only were the pair decreed by ALL the courts to have lied ‘umpteen times’ (Marasa-Bruno), they never have revealed what they did that evening.

The time from when they left the cottage at between 4:0 and 5:00 in the evening up until 9:00 or even 11:00 pm remains mysterious. It is fascinating both omitted to tell police they were in the Old Town of Perugia until about 9:00-ish that evening. In Waiting to be Heard and her Prison Diary which she knew was being read by prison staff Knox doesn’t mention going into the Old Town at all.

Sollecito in Honor Bound and in his police statements is equally evasive. However, police knew they were there and Sollecito only mentions it when they do.

Why lie? What are the pair trying to hide?

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Police also pinged Rudy Guede in the Old Town, who claimed he had popped by for a kebab (the one that caused him an upset stomach inside the cottage).

Tags:amanda knox, meredith kercher, news, raffaele sollecito
Posted in Justice for Meredith Kercher | Leave a Comment »

Amanda Knox and the ECHR: Why the judgment is defective

February 6, 2019

Italy’s defence against ECHR and why it was rejected

CDV AND AK

Knox barrister Carlo Dalla Vedova and Amanda Knox

Summary: The main issues revolve around the question of admissibility. I have identified two or three possible grounds of appeal on points of law. They are:

Italy submitted that date-wise, the application by Knox had been submitted too early as the hearings had not yet been finalized. ECHR rejects this saying that the hearings finalized very shortly after. As far as I can see, this is not so.
The ECHR relies on comments by Hellmann Appeal Court, which was largely superseded and outranked by Chieffi Supreme Court, to argue factors of free will.
The ECHR relies heavily on police minutes and the fact interpreter Donnino and a police office, RI, fail to record details of their expressions of familiarity with Knox, or make a note that (i) Knox was asked if she wanted a lawyer and declined, (ii) that start and end times are not recorded, and that (iii) hours are condensed into minutes. Is it an error of law to assume these police minutes represented a failure of procedure?

ECHR PANEL

ADMISSIBILITY

This takes up the larger part of the ECHR deliberations. We can see that the dates are out of time and we can see it is keen to ‘get round’ this. The relatively minor issues of police eagerness to befriend Knox, albeit misguided and improper, has clearly outraged the ECHR.

“I. PRELIMINARY REMARKS

The subject of the dispute

The Court notes from the outset that the applicant’s complaints relate solely to the criminal proceedings at the end of which she was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment for slanderous denunciation of DL and not to the other proceedings. of which she was the subject.

Failure to exhaust domestic remedies in respect of the complaints under Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 (a) and (c) of the Convention

The Government submitted that, at the time of the introduction of the application, on 24 November 2013, the applicant’s conviction for slanderous denunciation was not final and that, therefore, this part of the complaint should be declared inadmissible.

The Court reiterates that the exhaustion of domestic remedies is assessed, with certain exceptions, at the date of submission of the application to the Court (Baumann v. France, No. 33592/96, § 47, ECHR 2001- V (extracts)).

However, it also recalls that it tolerates the completion of the last level of domestic remedies shortly after the filing of the application, but before it is called upon to decide on the admissibility of the application (Zalyan et al. Armenia, Nos. 36894/04 and 3521/07, § 238, March 17, 2016, and Škorjanec v. Croatia, No. 25536/14, § 44, March 28, 2017).

In any event, in the present case, the Court notes that the conviction in question was confirmed by the judgment of the Court of Cassation filed on 18 June 2013, at the end of three degrees of jurisdiction, and that the reference to the Assize Court of Appeal concerned only the existence of the aggravating circumstance.

In view of the foregoing, the objection raised by the Government must be rejected.”

Was the ECHR application premature?

By the ECHR’s own rules, as stated above, the submission was lodged 24 Nov 2013, when all domestic channels were supposed to have been exhausted. The calunnia conviction against Lumumba had been finalised through Chieffi & Vecchio Supreme Court 18 June 2013. However, the second – and completely separate – case of calunnia brought by the police and prosecutor did not go through Boninsegna until 14 Jan 2015, on whose motivational report Knox and the ECHR heavily rely, over a year later.

Knox was acquitted by Bonisegna, hence, there was nothing for her to appeal against. Further, Boninsegna had nothing at all to do with the merits of the Lumumba callunia, tried in 2009 and upheld at every stage, even by the egregious Hellmann court, whose judgement was largely expunged.

Why does the ECHR rely heavily on Hellmann and Boninsegna and not the superior Supreme and final court of Chieffi?

Even curiouser, Knox and the ECHR also rely heavily on quoting Hellmann of 3 Oct 2011. Yet Hellmann was overrided and superseded by the superior Chieffi Supreme Court, finalised 9 Sept 2013.

The ECHR quotes Hellmann at some length, when it surely should have referred to Chieffi.

As an example, the judgment, translated from French, quotes Hellman as follows:

The Court observes that, in its judgment of 3 October 2011, [Hellmann] the Court of Appeal also emphasized the excessive length of the interrogations, the applicant’s vulnerability and the psychological pressure suffered by her, a pressure which was likely to compromise the spontaneity of his statements, as well as his state of oppression and stress. It considered that the applicant had, in fact, been tortured to death, resulting in an unbearable psychological situation from which, in order to extricate herself, she had made incriminating statements in respect of DL (see paragraph 85 (8) and (10) above). ).

Yet the Chieffi Supreme Court in spiking much of Hellman’s lower court judgment writes:

So Knox was in a position, even after an initial although long moment of bewilderment, amnesia and confusion, to regain control of herself and understand the gravity of the conduct she was adopting; at the very least, in the days immediately following her heedless initiative she could have pointed out to the investigators that she had led them in a false direction, availing herself of the support of her Defence team, given that in the meantime she had acquired the status of a suspect. Her persistence in her criminal attitude (discovered only through her taped conversation with her mother) proves the clear divergence with behaviour that could be interpreted as an attempt at cooperation, as the Defence would have it, and does not lend itself to evaluation as a response to a state of necessity, the very existence of which depends on a condition of inevitability and thus on the non‐existence of any alternatives, so that it cannot even be recognized [as existing] as [her own] erroneous hypothesis. Neither can the exercise of any right be invoked, given that the right of [self] defence does not extend under the legal system of any constitutional state to the point of allowing one to implicate an innocent person so seriously – it is worth recalling that he [Lumumba] underwent a period of incarceration uniquely and exclusively on the basis of the false accusations of the defendant.

How Material is Knox’ Claim of being denied Legal Assistance?

Having ruled in favour of admissibility, the ECHR ruled that as the nature of Knox’ complaints of being hit and being placed under great duress triggered at least the lowest level of a potential Article 3 complaint, that of degrading and inhuman treatment, Italy should have taken it upon itself to launch an investigation of its own initiative into the allegations made against the interpreter [Donnino] and another officer [RI]. ‘RI’ claimed to have cuddled Knox, stroked her hair and held her hands. This, the ECHR rules, had the effect of undermining Knox’ dignity and independence of will.

It has several criticisms surrounding this behavior including the fact it is not minuted in the police notes, and nor is the start and end times of the supposed ‘interrogations’ at 1:45 and 5:45.

The serious issue of course though is that of being allowed a lawyer. The ECHR writes of Italy’s defense (‘the Government’)

The Government observes that the statements made by the complainant on 6 November 2007 in the absence of a lawyer were declared unusable in relation to the offenses under investigation, namely the murder of MK and the sexual violence perpetrated at against him. However, it states that, according to the established case law of the Court of Cassation (judgments Nos. 10089 of 2005, 26460 of 2010 and 33583 of 2015), spontaneous statements made by a person under investigation in the absence of a defender can in any case, be used when they constitute, as in this case, an offense in themselves. He added that the applicant had the assistance of a lawyer when the first indications of his responsibility for the murder of Mr K appeared.

In addition, the Government alleged that the applicant had been sentenced for slanderous disclosure not only on the basis of the statements made on 6 November 2007, but also on the basis of “a multitude of other circumstances”, recalled in the judgment of conviction of the Assize Court of 5 December 2009 (see paragraph 80 above).

The complainant submits that she was not informed of her right to legal assistance during her hearings on 6 November 2007, since a defense lawyer was not appointed until 8.30 am that day, and denounces the impact of the use of this evidence on the fairness of the proceedings.

Admissibility
Noting that this complaint is not manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 35 § 3 (a) of the Convention and that it does not face any other ground of inadmissibility, the Court declares it admissible.
Application of general principles to the facts of this case

The applicability of Article 6 of the Convention

146: <snipped various case law>

The Court notes at the outset that the first question in this case is whether Article 6 § 1 of the Convention was applicable to the facts of the case. It recalls in that regard that, on 6 November 2007, the applicant was heard twice: at 1.45 am and 5.45 am

It notes that the two statements were originally collected as part of the police’s acquisition of summary information, during which time the complainant had not been formally investigated.

With regard to the statements taken at 1.45 am, the Court reiterates that the guarantees offered by Article 6 §§ 1 and 3 of the Convention apply to any “accused” in the autonomous sense of the term. the Convention. There is a “criminal charge” where a person is formally charged by the competent authorities or where the acts of the latter on account of the suspicions against them have a significant impact on his situation (Simeonovi, cited above). , §§ 110-111).

Applying this principle to the present case, the Court therefore wonders whether, at the time of the hearings, the domestic authorities had reasonable grounds to suspect that the applicant was involved in the murder of Mr K.

It observes in that regard that the applicant had already been heard by the police on 2, 3 and 4 November 2007 and that she had been tapped. It notes that the facts of the case also show that, on the evening of 5 November 2007, the attention of the investigators focused on the applicant (see paragraphs 12-14 above). She notes that while she went to the police station spontaneously, she was asked questions in the corridor by police officers who then continued to interrogate her in a room where she had been interrogated. subjected twice, for hours, to close interrogations.

In the Court’s view, even assuming that these elements are not sufficient to conclude that, at 1.45 am on 6 November 2007, the applicant could be considered to be a suspect within the meaning of its case-law, it is necessary to note that, as the Government acknowledged, when she made her 5:45 statements to the public prosecutor, the applicant had formally acquired the status of a person under indictment. The Court therefore considers that there is no doubt that, at 5.45 am at the latest, the applicant was the subject of a criminal charge within the meaning of the Convention (Ibrahim and Others, cited above, § 296). .

(b) The existence of overriding reasons for the restriction of the right of access to a lawyer.

Knox and her lawyers again has a second bite of the cherry and rehashes what was surely res judicata by Chieffi:

2.1.16 ‐ Inconsistency and manifest lack of logic in the reasoning concerning the failure to recognize an aggravating circumstance in the aims underlying the confirmed offence of calunnia. [The Prosecutor General argues as follows:] In upholding the offence of calunnia as charged against Ms Knox, the second instance court ruled out any link with the murder. It was not explained on what basis the court had inferred that the young woman had been stressed by the interviewers and that therefore she had committed the calunnia to “free” herself from the questions of the investigators, seeing that none of the young people who were living in that house, none of Ms Kercher’s friends, and many others in the days immediately following the murder, all of whom were summoned and interrogated, had the insane idea of committing a calunnia to free themselves from the weight of the unpleasant situation.

<snip>

[43] The objective facts are therefore absolutely irrefutable, as was deemed in both trials; whereas the argument adopted from a subjective point of view, according to which the young woman resorted to extreme behaviour by giving the name of Lumumba only in order to get out of a situation of mental discomfort into which she was driven by the excessive zeal and unjustifiable intemperance of the investigators, cannot be well‐founded given that – as it was ascertained – the accusation of Lumumba was maintained after her first statements and re‐affirmed in the letter, which was written in complete solitude and at a certain distance in time from the first uncontrolled reaction in response to an insistent request for a name by the police.

[Chieffi, Supreme Court, 9 Sept 2013]

In other words, the Chieffi Supreme Court overrides the lower Hellmann Appeal Court in its claim that Knox blurted out Lumumba’s name because of stress. Yet the Knox defence, Dalla Vedova and the ECHR relies on Hellmann rather than Chieffi.

The whole issue of whether Knox was denied a lawyer, I am sure could be an article in its own right.

CONCLUSION

So, we have a heavy reliance on the judgments of Hellmann and Bonisegna, when it seems to me, Hellmann is overrided by Chieffi who upholds Hellmann’s own final conviction anyway and Boninsegna is well past the earliest admissibility date, quite aside from not being directly involved in the Lumumba calumny at all.

Having ruled that objections by Italy can be swept aside, including that of failure to exhaust domestic avenues, the ECHR then goes on to rule on Knox’ lawyer status without proper reference to the latest and highest courts. I can understand the argument that Italy should itself have investigated the police brutality alleged by Knox anyway. The rest of the reasoning seems misguided in light of what higher courts than those referred to have found.

Sources:

JUDGEMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CASSATION OF THE REPUBLIC OF ITALY (PRESIDED OVER BY DR SEVERO CHIEFFI) IN THE MURDER OF MEREDITH KERCHER

Translated from Italian into English by www.perugiamurderfile.org 9 September 2013

ECHR recent judgments List of judgments and decisions

The Murder of Meredith Kercher.com ECHR

Tags:amanda knox, boninsegna, chieffi, dalla vedova, echr, hellman, italy
Posted in Justice for Meredith Kercher | Leave a Comment »

Amanda Knox demands $10,000 to talk to law students

January 28, 2018

Amanda Knox after the dramatic annulment in 2015

Acquitted ex- murder defendant hires herself out for talks

Row over Knox charging to speak to students

A media storm erupted when it transpired that the acquitted murder defendant was paid ‘up to $10,000’ to speak in front of law students at Roanoke College last week

Amanda Knox is reported as having registered as a speaker with an entertainments agency. Her entry shows she expects between US$5,000 – US$10,000 plus expenses for an appearance.

Kercher Attorney slams the enterprise as ‘inappropriate’

The Meredith Kercher attorney, Fransesco Maresca is quoted deploring her tactlessness towards the victim’s family.

ANSA, the Italian News Agency, reports him as saying:

“I hope I can convey how inappropriate this behavior is and how the family of Meredith Kercher can be adversely affected.“

‘Demonized’

The gist of Knox’ talks are that she is a victim of ‘demonization‘ by the Italian prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini and the press. In particular, Nick Pisa of the DAILY MAIL, has been hammered in the Netflix documentary, ‘Amanda Knox‘, as writing salacious reports during the trial. The Netflix film was also shown at Roanoke College the day before as the background to her talk, which was on the theme of ‘Truth Matters‘.

Attendees at the event report Knox spoke ’emotionally’. Her book Waiting to be Heard was also on sale at a discounted price.

Misogyny

Knox maintains she is the victim of misogyny and a belief the aggravated murder was part of some kind of satanist rite by the Roman Catholic prosecutor. Court records do not support her claim that this was the grounds for her prosecution, although the fact of Halloween – the murder took place 1 Nov 2007, the day after – as was her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito‘s penchant for self-proclaimed satanist Marilyn Manson, his expressed wish on FACEBOOK for ‘extreme experiences‘ and the violent manga material found at his apartment, were observations brought up by Mignini at the initial remand trial before Judge Matteini. Matteini concluded the crime was so serious and the likelihood of Knox absconding to the US was high. Thus she remanded the pair in custody.

Convicted, then unexpectedly freed

After the pair were convicted in 2010, after a trial, the convictions were upheld by the Appeal Court. The case was taken to the Supreme Court, who annulled the conviction in 2015 on the grounds of a ‘flawed investigation‘ and ‘undue press influence‘. The judges, Marasca and Bruno, did however, remark in their written reasons that it was a judicial fact she was certainly present at the cottage during the murder, did wash off Kercher’s blood from her hands and did cover up for Rudy Guede, also convicted.

‘The burglary scene was staged”, the courts ruled

The final Supreme Court ruled that the burglary was staged. In the Netflix film, Knox claims, ‘Guede was the local burglar and he burgled my house.’

The pair were freed for the legal reason of ‘Not Guilty due to insufficient evidence‘. The words, ‘innocent‘ and ‘exonerated‘ do not appear anywhere in the judgment. In addition, the conviction for falsely accusing Patrick Lumumba of the assault and murder was upheld, for which Knox served three years, in addition to one year in remand.

Raffaele Sollecito bid for compensation rejected

Knox’ co-defendant Sollecito failed in his attempt to win €500,000 in compensation last year, as it was deemed he lied time and again to the police, thus excluding himself from any because of misconduct during the investigation.

‘I was wrongfully imprisoned for four years’ Knox tells audiences

In her latest move, Knox is touring America demanding up to $10,000 per event claiming she has been declared innocent and exonerated. She tells audiences that she was ‘wrongfully imprisoned‘ for four years. However, that conviction, for Calunnia (=US equivalent Obstruction of Justice) against Patrick Lumumba has never been overturned, and remains on her record.

Amanda Knox has an application to the European Court of Human Rights outstanding, since 2013, claiming a breach of Article 6 (right to a fair trial) and Article 3 (torture).

Tags:amanda knox, ANSA, bruno-marasca, Fransesco Maresca, general, italy, matteini, meredith kercher, Mignini, netflix, news, perugia, raffaele sollecito, roanoke college, rudy guede, supreme court
Posted in Justice for Meredith Kercher | Leave a Comment »

What Marasca-Bruno Supreme Court said about Raffaele Sollecito

February 7, 2017

Bongiorno, Sollecito, Maori legal team

Compensation claim by Raffaele Sollecito

UPDATE

BREAKING: Claim thrown out! ‘ANSA) – PERUGIA, FEBRUARY 11 – Rejected by the Court of Appeal of Florence, the claim for wrongful imprisonment advanced by Raffaele Sollecito, finally acquitted of the charge of having participated in the murder of Meredith Kercher. He asked over 500 thousand euro for almost four years in jail before being released from prison. As learned by ANSA Tuscan courts have held contradictory his statements in the initial survey. ‘ – Too many lies in the early stages.

Motivation Report of the Florence Compensation Claim Dismissal now available:

This translation was done by a group of unpaid volunteers who are regular posters on the Perugiamurderfile.org message board devoted to discussing the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy, in November of 2007. The translation and editorial team was international in its make-up.

It was completed in February 2017, having been undertaken for the sole purpose of promoting a better understanding of this complex case, and to ensure that the facts are readily available to the English-speaking world without selective emphasis, misstatement or bias.

It has been translated on a “best efforts” basis, and has gone through multiple rounds of proofreading and editing, both to ensure its accuracy and to harmonize the language insofar as possible. Persons fluent in both Italian and English are invited and encouraged to contact PMF if they find any material errors that influence the meaning or intention of the judges. All such corrections will be investigated, made as required and brought to the attention of the public. The original Italian document is twelve pages long.

As with any translation, some terminology in Italian has no direct equivalent in English. Explanations have been provided where relevant. Similarly, readers are encouraged to submit any questions about legal or other concepts that may arise as they peruse the report. Our goal is to make the report as clear and as accurate as possible; to this end, it will be amended whenever doing so promotes this goal.

As the report was written and published in Italian, that language prevails in the event of a dispute over interpretation. This English-language version is provided for readers’ convenience only; accordingly, it is a free translation and has no legal authority or status.

This translation may be freely copied or otherwise reproduced and transmitted in the unedited pdf format, provided that the translation or any excerpt therefrom is accompanied by the following attribution: “From the translation prepared by unpaid volunteers from http://www.perugiamurderfile.org to promote a better understanding of the circumstances surrounding the death of Meredith Kercher and the case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in the English-speaking world”.

The compensation claim

Raffaele Sollecito, represented by his attorneys throughout the process, Avvocato Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori, is currently claiming compensation for ‘wrongful imprisonment’ in respect of the four years he served of a sentence of 25 years handed down for the Aggravated Murder of Meredith Kercher, 1 Nov 2007. The conviction was controversially overturned by the final Italian Supreme Court in March 2015, and its Motivational Report published – some three months late – in September 2015. It was only then Sollecito was able to commence compensation proceedings, as the Italian Penal Code provides for this, given, its long-winded legal process whereby defendants accused of serious crimes (i.e., one with a sentence of over three years custody) can be held on remand whilst awaiting trial. In theory, this should only be for up to one year.

The issues with the Marasca ruling

The Marasca verdict is considered controversial because Sollecito and his co-defendant, Amanda Knox had been found guilty at the first instance trial court (merits), which was upheld on appeal. It is unusual for the Supreme Court to have not remitted the case back to the Appeal (second instance) court as the Penal Code – as is standard in the UK and the USA – does not allow the Supreme Court to assess facts found at trial. The correct procedure is to send the disputed evidence back to the court which in the opinion of the Supreme court erred. Marasca did not rule a Section 530,1 ‘Not Guilty’ acquittal, but a Section 530, 2 ‘Not Guilty’ ‘insufficient evidence’, which some say is similar to Scottish Law, ‘Not Proven’.However, the wording used, proscioglimento indicates a pre-trial ‘charges dropped’, rather than ‘acquittal’ (assoluzione).

Sollecito and Knox made several applications against being held in custody whilst awaiting trial and were turned down at every stage, including appeals and an application for ‘house arrest’ in lieu.

The prosecution opposed the application on the grounds of the seriousness of the crime, and in Knox’ case, the standard ground that she might flee the country, as a foreigner to Italy. In addition, the prosecution had used special preventative powers to isolate the defendants (Knox, Sollecito and Guede) to prevent tampering with witnesses, a power which had been added to the Penal Code to assist in the fight against mafia gangs who did intimidate witnesses, often through their lawyers. Therefore the law allowed the prosecutors to deny the defendants an attorney until just before their remand hearings.

Sollecito’s challenges

However, the award of compensation for having (a) been held in remand, and (b) serving a sentence until such time the conviction was overturned, is not automatic. The applicant has to show that they are factually ‘not guilty’, i.e., cannot possibly have committed the crime, perhaps because the ‘real perpetrator’ has come to light, or ‘new evidence’ presented. Neither of these scenarios apply in Sollecito’s case. Whilst a defendant is allowed to ‘lie’ and indeed, does not need to swear an oath in testifying, this only holds true if they are guilty. Marasca did not find Sollecito or Knox, ‘Not Gulty’ as per Article 530,1, the common or garden ‘Not Guilty’ verdict.

Further, Sollecito refused to testify at his own trial, and made various misrepresentations and lies to the police. He argues in current tv and radio show rounds – for example, in the recent Victoria Derbyshire BBC morning show – that as he was a ‘collector of knives’ and had always carried a knife around since age thirteen, ‘To carve on tables and trees’, he explains, and thus argues, the police should not have viewed this with suspicion when he attended the questura carrying one in the days after the murder.

Sollecito’s other difficulty is that Marasca, whilst criticising the investigation as ‘flawed’, and this being the main reason for acquittal, it nonetheless cuts Sollecito little slack.

How Marasca cuts Sollecito little slack

From the Marasca Supreme Court Motivational Report, Sept 2015:

It remains anyway strong the suspicion that he [Sollecito] was actually in the Via della Pergola house the night of the murder, in a moment that, however, it was impossible to determine. On the other hand, since the presence of Ms. Knox inside the house is sure, it is hardly credible that he was not with her.

And even following one of the versions released by the woman, that is the one in accord to which, returning home in the morning of November 2. after a night spent at her boyfriend’s place, she reports of having immediately noticed that something strange had happened (open door, blood traces everywhere); or even the other one, that she reports in her memorial, in accord to which she was present in the house at the time of the murder, but in a different room, not the one in which the violent aggression on Ms. Kercher was being committed, it is very strange that she did not call her boyfriend, since there is no record about a phone call from her, based on the phone records within the file.

Even more if we consider that having being in Italy for a short time, she would be presumably uninformed about what to do in such emergency cases, therefore the first and maybe only person whom she could ask for help would have been her boyfriend himself, who lived only a few hundred meters away from her house.

Not doing this signifies Sollecito was with her, unaffected, obviously, the procedural relevance of his mere presence in that house, in the absence of certain proof of his causal contribution to the murderous action.

The defensive argument extending the computer interaction up to the visualization of a cartoon, downloaded from the internet, in a time that they claim compatible with the time of death of Ms. Kercher, is certainly not sufficient to dispel such strong suspicions. In fact, even following the reconstruction claimed by the defence and even if we assume as certain that the interaction was by Mr. Sollecito himself and that he watched the whole clip, still the time of ending of his computer activity wouldn’t be incompatible with his subsequent presence in Ms. Kercher’s house, given the short distance between the two houses, walkable in about ten [sic] minutes.

An element of strong suspicion, also, derives from his confirmation, during spontaneous declarations, the alibi presented by Ms. Knox about the presence of both inside the house of the current appellant the night of the murder, a theory that is denied by the statements of Curatolo, who declared of having witnessed the two together from 21:30 until 24:00 in piazza Grimana; and by Quintavalle on the presence of a young woman, later identified as Ms. Knox, when he opened his store in the morning of November 2.

An umpteenth element of suspicion is the basic failure of the alibi linked to other, claimed human interactions in the computer of his belongings, albeit if we can’t talk about false alibi, since it’s more appropriate to speak about unsuccessful alibi.

Sollecito in his police interview of the 5 Nov 2007, shortly after which he was arrested, withdrew his alibi from Amanda Knox. During the Nencini appeal phase, he and his advocate, Bongiorno, called a press conference to underline that Sollecito ‘could not vouch for Knox’ whereabouts between 8:45 pm and 1:00 am on the night of the murder. Sollecito has never once retracted this withdrawal of an alibi for Amanda.

Further, Marasca states:

The defensive argument extending the computer interaction up to the visualization of a cartoon, downloaded from the internet, in a time that they claim compatible with the time of death of Ms. Kercher, is certainly not sufficient to dispel such strong suspicions.

In fact, even following the reconstruction claimed by the defence and even if we assume as certain that the interaction was by Mr. Sollecito himself and that he watched the whole clip, still the time of ending of his computer activity wouldn’t be incompatible with his subsequent presence in Ms. Kercher’s house, given the short distance between the two houses, walkable in about ten [sic] minutes.

Sollecito had claimed he was surfing the internet until 3:00 am in one statement and claimed to have watched Naruto cartoon until 9:45 pm on the murder night. It winds up:

The technical tests requested by the defence cannot grant any contribution of clarity, not only because a long time has passed, but also because they regard aspects of problematic examination (such as the possibility of selective cleaning) or of manifest irrelevance (technical analysis on Sollecito’s computer) given that is was possible, as said, for him to go to Kercher’s house whatever the length of his interaction with the computer (even if one concedes that such interaction exists), or they are manifestly unnecessary, given that some unexceptionable technical analysis carried out are exhaustive (such are for example the cadaver inspection and the following medico-legal examinations).

Leading to the verdict:

Following the considerations above, it is obvious that a remand [rinvio] would be useless, hence the declaration of annulment without remand, based on art. 620 L) of the procedure code, thus we apply an acquittal [proscioglimento *] formula [see note just below] which a further judge on remand would be anyway compelled to apply, to abide to the principles of law established in this current sentence.

*[Translator’s note: The Italian word for “acquittal” is actually “assoluzione”; while the term “proscioglimento” instead, in the Italian Procedure Code, actually refers only to non-definitive preliminary judgments during investigation phase, and it could be translated as “dropping of charges”. Note: as for investigation phase “proscioglimento” is normally meant as a non-binding decision, not subjected to double jeopardy, since it is not considered a judgment nor a court’s decision.] http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Marasca-Bruno_Report_(English)

The Issues Facing the Florence Appeal Court

Sollecito has clearly passed the first hurdle of being eligible to have a hearing for compensation. His legal team have asked for the maximum €516,000. A claimant who can successfully plead ‘wrongful imprisonment’ can claim €500, per diem imprisonment, up to a cap of €516,000.

Sollecito’s legal team have referred to Marasca’s criticism of the investigation as grounds for the full compensation, claiming Sollecito’s “innocence and loss of youthful endeavours” because of the ‘flaws’. Problem is, the issue of investigative flaws was never pleaded at trial, or at least, not upheld, by either the trial or appeal court judge. Marasca never really explains in which way this was a proven fact.

The Prosecutor’s Office based at Florence is opposing the application. I would expect they will be relying on Matteini’s remand hearing and Gemmelli’s written reasons rejecting Sollecito’s appeal against being kept in custody until the hearing.

The three judges who on 27 January 2017 in a hearing listed for five days announced they would issue their verdict ‘within five days’, as of 7 Feb 2017, some seven working days later, have yet to make a decision. Alternatively, the decision has been made, but the public and press have not yet accessed it. It could be Sollecito’s legal team have yet to call a press conference, whilst they study the findings.

The panel will decide:

is Sollecito entitled to compensation?
if so, how much?
did he lie to police or mislead them?
if so, to what extent was he contributory to his being remanded?
to what extent the ‘flawed investigation’ a factor in his ‘wrongful imprisonment’?
should Sollecito receive compensation for the one year remand in custody leading up to the trial?
should he be compensated for the three further years of a sentence served as a convicted prisoner, six months of it in solitary confinement?
should this be for both of the above, either of the above, or neither of them?

Watch this space!

bongiorno-maori

Sollecito has made noises that he plans further legal action against the prosecutor, based on Marasca’s criticisms in its Motivational Report.

Sources: The Murder of Meredith Kercher com True Justice for Meredith Kercher

Tags:amanda knox, compensation, firenze, florence appeal court, gemmeli, giulia bongiorno, italy, marasca, marasca-bruno, matteini, meredith kercher, nencini, news, perugia, raffaele sollecito
Posted in Justice for Meredith Kercher | 3 Comments »

TEN FACTS the makers of the Netflix film ‘AMANDA KNOX’ don’t want you to know!

January 1, 2017

Rod Blackhurst and Brian McGinn, Directors of ‘Amanda Knox’ netflix film

What they do not tell you in the ‘documentary’ film

Ten damning facts, which give an insight into why Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were originally properly convicted. They were then acquitted because of ‘other’ extraneous factors. The fact that the filmakers, Rod Blackhurst and Brian McGinn, conceal the facts found at trial, indicates an elaborate attempt to fool the viewing public.

The pair had ample opportunity to research the original court documents – of which the key ones are translated – so one can surmise the aim was not objectivity. However, they fail to declare their vested interest, as long-time avid pro-Knox/Sollecito supporters.

For those without access to youtube flashplayer, here’s a plain version:

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Content by KrissyG1

Credits:

http://www.themurderofmeredithkercher.com

http://truejustice.org

Basic ’10 facts’ template design: Countess Castiglione @parislover

Music:

Danse Macabre by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Source: http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-free/index.html?collection=005

Artist: http://incompetech.com/

Tags:#tiff2016, amanda knox, brian mcginn, Conti, krissyg1, nencini, netflix, raffaele sollecito, rod blackhurst, rudy guede, Vecchiotti
Posted in Justice for Meredith Kercher, Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Meredith Kercher

December 28, 2016

RIP You’ll Never Walk Alone

A touching poem from her sister, Stephanie reminds us of how precious she was and how she touches us still.

This video was uploaded by me last year, after a disappointing year for justice, with the alleged perpetrators of her untimely death being controversially acquitted in March 2015, by the Italian Supreme Court in the Fifth Chambers.

28 Dec 1985 – 1 Nov 2007

Today, on what would have been her 31st birthday, we still keep hope in our hearts for justice.

Walk on, with hope in your heart, and you’ll never walk alone.

Tags:28 Dec 1985, amanda knox, fifth chambers, Italian Supreme Court, italy, john kercher, meredith kercher, poem, poetry, raffaele sollecito, rudy guede, Stephanie Kercher, supreme court, You'll Never Walk Alone
Posted in Justice for Meredith Kercher, Uncategorized | Leave a Comment »

RUDY GUEDE : FACTS AND FICTION

December 19, 2016

THE REAL LEGAL POSITION

What is the legal situation of Rudy Guede, as set out by the courts?

rg-rai

Rudy Guede appearing on RAI3 Italian tv January 2016 with Franca Leosini

Rudy Guede’s appeal against his conviction continues

UPDATE: 19 Feb 2017 Rudy Guede’s legal team has now lodged an appeal with the Italian Supreme Court, in Rome, against the decision of the Florence Appeal Court to reject his application for a review of his conviction. In the original appeal, ‘contradictions between verdicts’ was cited, referring to the Marasca-Bruno Supreme Court acquitting Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, but yet stating there were ‘multiple attackers’ at the murder scene.

It could even be that because of the written reasons by Florence in rejecting Raffaele Sollecito’s compensation claim, there are further legal grounds for a review. The Sollecito Florence Appeal seems to challenge Sollecito being acquitted, as it lists at least five misdemeanours which are the grounds of refusing compensation under Art 314, which allows prisoners wrongly held in custody to apply for an award, but bars those deemed to have contributed to their incarceration.

Rudy Guede is also due out on leave again, this time in Perugia, it is reported.

Rudy Hermann Guede is back in Perugia. It ‘happened last December when, taking advantage of one of the special permits of which have benefited in recent months, was a guest of his elementary school teacher who has never ceased to take care of him. In addition, according to the findings, the boy, the only definitively convicted for the murder of British student Meredith Kercher, will return for another term in Perugia shortly.

The appeal to the Supreme Court Meanwhile, his lawyers Thomas Pietrocarlo and Monica Grossi, after the Court of Appeal of Florence had branded as inadmissible their request filed for a new trial, filed a petition in the Supreme Court. The Supreme court judges may then cancel with the order issued from Florence, or confirm it, putting an end for ever in the judicial history of Rudy Guede who has always said he is innocent.

http://tuttoggi.info/rudy-permesso-premio-perugia-gli-avvocati-vanno-cassazione-la-revisione/381739/

Rudy Guede at the time of his arrest

I plan to sort out the facts from the fiction and to provide a definitive review of what the legal facts concerning Guede are, as rubber-stamped by the Supreme Court in Guede’s case, and how the Supreme Court verdict in the Knox / Sollecito case impacts on it. Guede has brought an application for a review of his case, listed 20 Dec 2016, citing ‘internal inconsistencies’ within the Marasca-Bruno reasoning in respect of Knox and Sollecito.

A good starting point might be the recent crimepod broadcast by ex-FBI agent and ex- District Attorney & prosecutor, Jim Clemente, in tandem with Laura Richards, wherein they carry out a ‘behavioural analysis’ of the Guede interview on RAI3an Italiana TV channel earlier this year with interviewer Franca Leosini. My analysis of their analysis will highlight some of the misconceptions by Clemente and Richards in this broadcast, which can be accessed here:

https://art19.com/shows/real-crime-profile/episodes/b1351cff-2e9f-4fc0-8128-b17cba402e38

laura-richards-and-jim-clemente

Laura Richards and Jim Clemente – True Crime tv Broadcasters

Separating the facts from the spin

There are many theories about Guede’s role in the Kercher murder case with many assertions becoming common currency, as interested parties, such as Knox and Sollecito compete for the hegemony. I have referred to original source material to get to the actual facts of the matter. These consist of Guede’s Prison Diary whilst under extradition proceedings in Koblenz, between 21 Nov 2007 and late November 2007, his Skype conversation 19 Nov 2007 with best friend Giacomo Benedetti, whilst on the run from the police and the detailed Micheli report, Perugia, 28 Oct 2008,the finalised legal findings of fact, and as approved by the Cassazione Supreme Court. Thus, whether one agrees or disagrees with the court findings or of Guede’s exact role in the crime, these remain the legal position today, and these are the grounds on which Guede is bringing his application for a review to the Florence Appeal Court.

To summarise, the main findings of Micheli are :

Guede definitively did not wield the murder knife.
He had no meaningful prior contact with Meredith.
Therefore he was not invited to the cottage or let in by Meredith, nor had any consensual contact.
The burglary and rape mise en scene was a second stage of the crime after the murder.
It thus follows that Knox let Guede into the murder cottage.
The crime was sexually motivated, and not one motivated by theft.
There were multiple assailants – as per DNA and luminol testing and the fact of a return to the scene to rearrange it.
Guede did not steal the rent money or the phones.
He was guilty of aggravated murder because of his complicity in the attack and failure to stop it as soon as knives were produced.
Complicity: “Above all if the certain facts include the consequent outline of that supposed ‘unknown’ (the presence of the three at the scene of the crime) they are abundant, and all abundantly proven”. – Micheli

The spotlight is on the following issues:

Is Clemente’s and Richards’ claim – one of Guede being the ‘lone killer’ grounded in any substance?
The timeline of the events from Guede’s point of view.
Could Guede have been the sole killer?
How do Knox and Sollecito fit in with Guede?
The actual legal position with Guede, as laid down at Guede’s trial.
How this differs from the Fifth Chambers (Knox & Sollecito) Supreme Court’s controversial ruling in March 2015, acquitting the pair on the grounds of Article 530 Para II, ‘Not guilty: due to insufficient evidence’.

The claims of Clemente and Richards

These reflect the views of pro-innocence campaigners of Knox & Sollecito, critiquing Franca Leosini’s tv interview.

During the broadcast several ‘behavioral’ observations are made:

‘The foundation as to why he is in her room and cottage, DNA inside as well as outside – he is finding a plausible excuse for being there.’

My comment: Guede did not claim to have made sexual advances in Meredith’s room.

‘Meredith had locked door from the inside – helped self to drink – Meredith went to bedroom – claimed she was mad at Knox for stealing money and being dirty.’
‘He said he ‘wouldn’t go with her unless she had a condom. Not appropriate time to get going so got dressed. As if.! Leosini cracks, ‘You missed the best part of the evening – ‘No Sex Please We’re British’ – inappropriate – she is flirting with him (Leosini). She purports to get tough with him, but he dances around the question.’
‘Got dressed, had bad stomach, had to go to bathroom, kernel of truth – poop in toilet. Before Meredith came in. Trapped in there – he if flushed the toilet, she’d know he was there. She tells him to use that bathroom, in kitchen, then went to bedroom.

My comment: Guede used the large bathroom which was by the front door. If He was in there when Meredith unexpectedly returned, it was easy to run out of there.

flatplan

Heard doorbell ring, Meredith opens door, engages in conversation – 101% it is Amanda. Fallacy – Amanda lives there, why would she ring doorbell? ‘Meredith had locked inside door.’ There is no reason for Amanda to ring doorbell.

My comment: the courts agree. The courts uphold that it was Knox who let Guede in.

Becomes very detailed and specific. He saying look, I’m very clean. Poor boy ‘found myself in Germany’. 101% – extending.
Why would Amanda ring, Rudy’s explanation. Identifies someone by voice – despite listening to very loud music. Hears girls arguing, puts on ear phones to block out- 2.5 songs – 10 minutes. It’s a lie. The attack on MK took about 10”. Kernel of truth in the lie.

My comment: Guede says he put on headphones after hearing initial greetings. However, Micheli agrees that how come Guede only hear the last scream, form 4-5 metres away, when a nearby resident, witness Mrs Capezelli, heard a series from 70 metres away.

It was Meredith coming home, not Amanda, we ‘know as a fact’ it didn’t happen. His sleeve had the victim’s DNA. He carried a knife consistent with bloody impression on bed.

My comment: There is no evidence Guede carried a knife. At the Milan nursery trespass 27 Oct 2007, Guede was found with a knife which belonged to the nursery so had not carried it with him.

Scream louder than his music, runs to Meredith’s room, lights off. So concerned about his image in terms of cleanliness. He leaves a dying girl alone. ‘Lights were suddenly not on’ coming out of the bathroom into the hall, but were on in her room.
Can only describe the jacket – guy facing Meredith. Guy turns starts flashing with his scalpel. Happened so fast, did didn’t know what was in his hand. He says, ‘I said’, not what happened. Recount what happened, not ‘when I testified I said this’ – leakage – skips ahead. ‘This is the story I am sticking to’. It shows he is trying to keep to the story he testified.
“He turned around and came to me I didn’t see his face”. Quotes self. Not in the moment any more. Wildly gesticulating hands – struggling for words. Cognitive load, wants to get it right. Story trying to remember. How do you remember insignia but not face? (The brand logo on the man’s jacket.)

My comment: The light was described as an abat-jour. This is Italian for ‘bedside lamp’, and probably refers to the one in the sitting/kitchen area, which leads to Meredith’s and Amanda’s bedrooms and small bathroom.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

‘The hallway is actually a sitting room area, together with the kitchen. The door at the far end leads to the bedrooms of Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox and to the small bathroom.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Guede explains he was busy concentrating on the blade in the man’s hand. The man’s face would have been back lit. Good point about Guede reverting back to testimony.

German police found he had a cut on his hand.- ‘you were focused on his hand’ – ‘I said I thought it was a scalpel. It could have been a knife 12” long 7” blade. So he says, ‘I thought’ but didn’t know. Mignini argued, ‘There are two knives’. Rudy and Mignini are ‘perverted accomplished liars’ (Clemente’s view). ‘Pissed off with Mignini for perverting justice. Collusion’. Man fleeing. RG backed out of way.

My comment: the fact of at least two knives was decided by the courts after expert witness testimony and not up to the prosecutor.

Says he saw Amanda walking away outside. Statement made to Mignini – You must have seen her, you must have seen her! – I saw her silhouette a long way into the night. – Voice over music in earphone from bathroom. Mignini pushing his agenda to ID Amanda. ‘Man is like – had beret with red band, jacket’ ; called out to other person, let’s run before they catch us; black man found’ odd thing to say . ‘Great! We just killed Kercher, we’ve got a black man here we can blame!’

My comment: the courts agree this is Guede being self-serving. The fact he doesn’t mention the silhouette until later, could be preclusion from reading the press.

Hero, he finds Meredith bleeding – runs out of bedroom to grab towel x 2. Grabs third towel, that didn’t work, so left. Said she was alive. Was able to run into Romanelli’s room – sees Amanda run away with this young man. Made silhouette ID in time period there is a dying woman on the floor. More important than helping Meredith is to go to Filomena’s room to ID these people.

My comment: No DNA on towels due to environmental degradation, but someone did apply them.

Why, If he is already 101% certain it was Amanda? No reason except to please the prosecutor. All of a sudden, people saw the three together. Pressuring others. Mignini ends up giving Rudy a fast track trial. – he wouldn’t have to testify on any subsequent trial. Takes first amendment against self-incrimination, should have to testify in Amanda and Raffaele’s case – he was not used.

My comment: Mignini as a prosecutor (district attorney) has no authority to provide legal advice. Guede would have been advised by his counsel to take the fast track as it offers the incentive of a third off discount from the sentence. He pleaded, ‘Not Guilty’ therefore, he had the right to decline giving any further self-incriminating testimony, as exercised by Sollecito himself in his trial. There are mechanisms. A party can appeal for other documents or transcripts in evidence instead (as Mignini did at one stage) and it is up to the presiding judge whether to accept the application or dismiss it. It is the Judge’s or the defendant’s decision, not the prosecutor’s.

Why does he want the fast track? – wait. He has to say he stayed in bathroom for that long. This other person did it, when he left, Rudy was trying to stop the bleeding. Meredith was saying af – writing on the wall ‘in her blood’ – there’s a desk right there. Why didn’t he alert for help? Has to construct a narrative to make sense. How does this person get in when door was locked? What we hear in his narrative is how he is overwhelmed. He is the victim, everyone feels sympathy for him.

My comment: In his original claims he says he was in the bathroom between six and ten minutes. Later Guede changes this to ‘lightning fast’, although he may have meant the supposed fight between him and the mystery man.

He hears scream. The broadcast host, Laura Richards, says she once saw someone run into a room and stab someone. Stabbing had very little blood. Saw stab put pressure on it. Quick in and out – what prisoners do. Will never forget the guy’s face. Guy turned ran out, Guede could not remember the guy’s face. Would he forget? In the only lit room. Light is on this guy, why can’t he ID his face? – clearly lying. Afraid he’d be blamed. What does he do, he goes out drinking with his friends – he is establishing an alibi. He ran out of country ‘because he was afraid’ – alibiing himself.

My comment The issue of the blood spurt is an important one, which I shall deal with further on.

Clever narrative because of kernel of truth. Always wants to be seen as victim. ‘Why didn’t you call for help?’ a six-year old would ask – he starts to talk over her – the real him. ‘The investigators didn’t believe your point’. Sad fact is, that black people do get blamed for crime – he is lumping himself in with them. OJ? Exactly same situation – charismatic, wants people to think he’s a victim. How he left Meredith. Details of crime scene.
When he left Meredith she was fully dressed. In his story, Amanda had argument with Meredith killed her, then ran away everything was in order except one drawer pulled out. Filomena’s room undisturbed.
If he saw her, she must have seen him. Raffaele must have told Amanda man there. Why would Amanda then come back? Feel bad for anyone who believes this crap. ‘Judge didn’t believe your version of events’. Why did someone come back and alter the crime scene?’ He left Meredith fully clothed, with full details of clothes she was wearing but can’t remember the guy’s face.

My comment: Guede describes Meredith as wearing a white top. Robyn Butterworth (friend) testified Meredith was wearing a sky-blue zip up top with sporty arm stripes, with a beige top underneath, and perhaps a second, patterned one.

Franca Leosini says left foot and face showing. Crime scene staged , as a legal fact. Glass and rock on top of clothes, rock thrown from inside. Glass and rock on top. Rudy gets specific about Knox and Sollecito; not in dispute they were there. Judge said Rudy wasn’t the one who had the knife and dealt the blow, not in dispute. It is now in dispute, they were declared ‘innocent of the crime’.

My comment: False: there is zero mention Knox and Sollecito were ‘declared innocent’.

Rudy did it in concert with two people – it is a legal point of law and cannot be appealed – certified fact. Once evaluated it was 100% fraudulent, not a mistake. People would be fired if they did not say what Mignini wanted them to say. If they disagreed, they weren’t called to testify. (Clemente’s views.)

My comments: Mignini and later Comodi only get to choose the prosecution witnesses, the defence get to call whomsoever they wish.

Leosini: You fled to Germany. Guede: I had no idea how I got there, it could have been Russia. Conversely, they (Knox/Sollecito) did not run. Rudy trusts the system. Skyped with his friend Giacomo for four hours. Threw away clothing. Choosing not to give an account.
Specifically says, ‘Amanda was not there’. Why bring it up at this point? Friend says Amanda was arrested. Friend brought her up. Police direct the conversation. Says clearly, ‘She was not there’. Rudy gets it from Mignini. Mignini gets Rudy to ID Knox – silhouette, knife. Patrick Lumumba has a proven alibi, so they needed another black man there, which is why Amanda volunteered his name.

My comment: Knox was not arrested ‘for no reason’.

Accomplished liar. Part 9, Leosini talks through the forensics consensual foreplay. Palm print, DNA on toilet paper . Interesting leakage about Patrick being there – he gets vociferous there, true self. Why fast track trial? He says because of his ‘non-involvement’. More than one person. Sentence reduced from 30 to 16 on assumption he did not hold the knife. ‘He went along with others’; someone else’s initiative.
Jan 2016. People are still sticking to their beliefs Sollecito and Knox are still guilty. Reformed character, artsy, intellectual. Served sentence because, “I didn’t call for help”. Lawyers have been very strategic – stylised interview – deliberate choice. FB and twitter set up.
All evidence points to him being only killer and guilty of murder and sexual assault. He’s charismatic, intelligent, detail-oriented no sign of remorse. Psychopath; gifted at selling himself. Takes a trained eye to see the holes in his story. Let Meredith die; fled country only after he went drinking with his friends. Foster father says he is ‘an accomplished liar’. Multiple perpetrators.
Retrial 20 Dec will be interesting. Already eligible for parole. 2018 By the time the motivation comes out. Opens everything up for Kercher family. This interview may have been the grounds on which the appeal for a review is granted. Engaging charismatic young man – interview is a strategy to get him out. “Amanda got away with murder.” It was because of Mignini. He used Rudy to get Amanda. Should be prosecuted. Recommendation: Amanda wrongfully convicted and then exonerated. JC and LR.

My coment: Mignini was nothing to do with ultimate conviction. That was solely for the courts to decide.

Timeline of events from Guede’s Perspective

Early life

Born in the Ivory Coast 26 Dec 1987 six months older than Knox and three years younger than Sollecito. Came to Italy with his father Roger, aged five, rejected by his mother. Lived with a series of foster families, including a wealthy local family, whom he left as soon as he reached age of majority. Stayed with an aunt in Lecca. Took up various short-term jobs, had periods of unemployment, tended to ‘disappear’. His childhood friend Mancini, the son of Guede’s teacher, Mrs Tiberi tried to keep tabs on him. His last job he was fired from for sickness without a note, took up bedsit in Perugia in early September 2007 nearby Sollecito and the cottage. Socialised with the Spanish contingent in his house. Mrs Tiberi described Guede as always polite and well-behaved. His childhood friends, Mancini and Benedetti, say they never saw him take drugs or get drunk, although latterly they had not seen him much. His more short-term acquaintances mentioned witnessing him drunk at various times.

Guede gets into trouble

A witness claimed he had said he wanted to go to Milan for a few days ‘to dance’. In Milan 27 Oct 2007, just a few days before the murder, he was caught trespassing at a nursery, but was not charged at the time. He was found in possession of a stolen laptop, a knife found at the nursery, a ladies watch and a small glass-breaking hammer. His mobile phone was confiscated, thus claimed to have no phone as of the time of the murder. He was charged post-murder conviction for the laptop possession.

When Rudy met Amanda

Around the time of a friend’s birthday (Owen), ‘12^th or 14^th October 2007’ he’d been out celebrating with friends, met up with some basketball playing pals outside, which included the boys in the downstairs apartment of the cottage, Knox approached, whom he had seen before at Patrick’s bar, Le Chic, to say ‘Hi, I’m Amanda from Seattle’, the boys made off towards home, together with Guede. Knox went into her apartment on the upper level whilst the boys went downstairs and lit up a joint. Knox came down to join them, and then Meredith later. This was the first time she met Guede. Guede relates Meredith had just one toke on the joint and then said she was off to bed, Knox followed shortly after.

Rudy and Meredith

The next time Guede saw Meredith was at a pub called ‘The Shamrock’ where the World Cup Rugby Final between England and South Africa was being played. This took place 20 Oct 2007. Witnesses confirm that both Meredith and Guede were present, within groups of friends. Guede claims to have struck up a banter with Meredith, but there are no witnesses to this and Meredith never mentioned it to her friends if it happened. On Sunday, Guede went by the cottage to watch the Formula One final after seventeen events. This took place 21 Oct 2007. If Guede had struck up a friendship with Meredith, he made no attempt to pop his head around the door to say hello. Laura Mezzetti, one of the roommates upstairs did witness Guede there, when she came down to ‘buy a smoke for €5’.

Guede then claims to have asked Meredith for a date on the night of Halloween on 31 October 2007 at the Domus nightclub, again there were no witnesses to this and Meredith never mentioned it to anyone. Both were at the packed night spot. He gives this as the reason he approached the cottage the next evening, 1^st Nov 2007, claiming Meredith let him in. He had a drink from the fridge whilst Meredith went to her room. He claims he heard her cursing Amanda, as her money was missing; she showed him her drawer where she had kept it; he calmed her down; they searched the cottage together and, after chatting about their families; they began canoodling. They had no condoms so it went no further.

Guede’s version of the murder

As Meredith had not been home when he first arrived circa 20:20 pm, he had gone to see his friend Alex and then went to buy a kebab whilst he waited. Because of the effects of the kebab, Guede claimed that whilst at the cottage, he had to rush to the bathroom and whilst there, the doorbell rang, Meredith who had been on her way to her room, answered the door and Guede heard Amanda’s voice with Meredith saying, ‘We need to talk’ and Amanda reply, ‘What’s happened? What is the problem?’

Guede put on his earphones to listen to loud music for ten minutes when he heard a loud scream, ran out, the light was now off, ‘to my astonishment’, saw the figure of a man standing on the threshold of Meredith’s room, who suddenly turned with a knife in his hand. Guede backed off and grabbed a chair in self-defence, the man said, ‘Black man found, black man guilty’ and then ‘Let’s go!’ and ran off. Guede administerd three towels to the dying girl before himself running off, because he heard a noise from downstairs that frightened him, he claimed.

He ran home via Plaza Grimana direction, changed and washed his jogging pants, then went out nightclubbing. Rudy in his formal interview said he left the cottage about 22:30. He has thus been at the scene for about one and a half hours.

Guede flees

3 Nov 2007 he went to Milan via Modena and Bologna and after midnight he jumped on a random train, to avoid police seen at the station, an ended up in Duesseldorf in Germany. Between then and 19^th he stayed in barges and places along the Rhine. Sixteen days. Mancini his childhood friend had contacted him 12/13^th November via the internet, unaware he was wanted, accusing him of ‘always running away’ and Guede replied, ‘You know why’, without elaborating. His other old friend, Benedetti helping police, set up a Skype conversation with Guede, 19 Nov 2007,and persuaded him to return. In the meantime German police caught him on a train without a ticket and on an Interpol warrant, held him in custody in Koblenz until 1 December 2007, whilst processing an extradition order.

Guede was brought back to Italy and subsequently interviewed by prosecutor Mignini 26 March 2008 and charged with the murder, in complicity with Knox and Sollecito. Guede opted for a separate, ‘fast-track’ trial, which was closed, although we can discern what took place from the presiding Judge’s reasoning (Micheli) for the ‘guilty of aggravated murder’ verdict and the dismissal of the theft charge of the phones and credit cards.

Could Guede have been the Sole Killer?

The Missing Money: Who first mentioned it?

It was Guede, and he brags about this fact of being first in his Prison Diary written in Koblenz up to 19 Nov 2007.

Who First Mentioned Knox and Sollecito at the scene?

Whilst Guede does refer to a mystery man holding a knife in the doorway of Meredith’s room in his presence, he does not actually name either Knox or Sollecito until his recorded interview with Mignini, March 2008. We know he read the papers whilst on the run for he mentions to Benedetti in the Skype conversation he saw that Knox is accused of using the washing machine to clean Meredith’s clothes.

An alternate explanation is that he was applying ‘Prisoners Dilemma’, a situation when there are several perpetrators and each is dependent on the other/s to not ‘grass’ them up. Therefore, it is theorised, the best strategy is to say nothing. Knox did not name him, he did not name Knox. Guede himself confirms he did not know Sollecito at all to name him.

Who First Mentioned Sollecito and Knox together at the scene with Guede, and when?

A witness, Kokomani did come forward to say he had seen the three together outside the cottage prior to the murder, and police have corroborated he was in the region because of pings from his phone and his account of seeing a dark car, also seen by a separate car mechanic witness. However, his testimony was dismissed by Micheli as ‘ravings’. It appears that what holds the three together is circumstantial evidence as constructed by the forensic police (DNA, luminol, bathmat footprint), the inactivity of Knox & Sollecito’s phones in advance of the crime and for the rest of the night, their false alibis and inability to ‘remember’ what they did that evening, together with the apparent staged scene of the burglary, clean up and repositioned body.

The case against Guede

When comparing Guede’s original account with his later recorded interview, it is safe to note that much of what he says is:

To try to establish justification for being at the cottage at all. To do this, he claims to have made a date with Meredith the night before. However, when he made a date with a Latvian girl in a similar circumstance, they wanted to swap telephone numbers, with Guede having to memorise hers as he did not have a phone at the time. He does not say this for Meredith.
To try to justify his DNA being on Meredith’s body, he precludes this by claiming the contact was consensual. In his conversation with Benedetti he expresses he knows none of his sperm will be found. In his Prison Diary he makes no mention at all of Meredith talking about her mother being ill. Micheli points out that his later claim that Meredith spoke about her mother’s specific condition was already widely reported in the papers since 4 November 2007, by Meredith’s aunt.

Formula 1 and World Cup Rugby

He claims in his testimony the Formula 1 final race (21 Oct 2007) was BEFORE the Rugby World Cup (20 Oct 2007) – and Micheli does not pick up on this – to evade the fact he didn’t say hello to Meredith when he visited the cottage to watch the F1 race downstairs. In his Prison Diary he claims Meredith told him she had ‘someone special’ back home, implying she was free in Italy. However, we know Meredith was in an exciting new relationship with Silenzi, from downstairs, so would not have made herself easily available. None of the British girls corroborated Guede’s claim to have made friends with Meredith.

Guede in both his original Prison Diary account and in the Leosini tv interview in Jan 2016, expresses disapproval of Meredith cursing out Knox over the missing rent money. In the interview he becomes quite agitated. Thus, Guede takes Knox’ side in this dispute and is not a friend of Meredith’s.

To try to justify running away without calling for help for Meredith, despite his claim it was ‘another man’ who did the killing, Guede says he was worried he would be blamed because he was Black and because the man said so, before running off. He claims he was frightened off by ‘a noise downstairs’.

Most incriminating of all is the description of the blood. Micheli found as a fact that Meredith was stabbed in the neck and then immediately fell backwards into a supine position because (a) of a bruise on the back of her neck indicating a violent jolt, (b) because there is no spray of blood on the desk where one would expect it to be and (c) it was a logical position by which to carry out the sexual assault by Guede. Her left hand was restrained. Dr Arpile an expert witness said this was a characteristic of a sexual attack.

In his Prison Diary in Koblenz he recalls the stabbing of Meredith was being like the time he was whacked over the head with a stick by his father and blood spurted out of his head ‘like a fountain’. This suggests he may have witnessed the ‘fountain of blood’ spurting from Meredith?

In his Prison Diary Guede makes much of the sheer volume of blood. He sees blood everywhere, and sees nothing but ‘red’ when he closes his eyes to sleep. Massei in the later trial of Knox and Sollecito, does not agree with Micheli that she was stabbed whilst standing and then falling onto her back, and rules that Meredith was killed whilst forced into a kneeling position. Where then, did the spray of blood go, when the knife was pulled out, if there is none to be seen on the furnishings and upholstery? Garofano in Darkness Descending offers his expert forensic opinion that the blood surge would have gone all over the person who withdrew the knife.

Guede by his own account relates that his pants were ‘soaking wet’ and he’d had to cover them up with his sweatshirt as he ran home fleeing the scene.

Guede states that on his way out, none of the windows were broken and Meredith was full dressed. The broken window and condition of the body were all widely reported so it could be argued that Guede states everything was intact when he left as a self-serving narrative to preclude himself as the culprit.

Micheli’s Fact Finding

Micheli ruled that Guede’s claim to have struck up a first date with Meredith was proven false and therefore it was not Meredith who let him into the cottage. As Meredith was in a new relationship and no-one could corroborate any date with Guede, she did not consent to any sexual activity with him. In addition, Knox would not need to ring the doorbell as she had a key and in any case, had Meredith locked the door from the inside, she would have in effect locked Guede in for the night, not to mention locking out Knox. Therefore, as the burglary was staged – clothes rummaged first and then window broken, bits of paper from the burglary on top of the duvet on top of the body – then it must have been Knox who let him in.

Micheli directs that it is a legal fact that Guede did not wield the knife based on submissions by the prosecutor and that the crime was in complicity with the others. This was due to the fact that even if Guede only intended a sexual assault, he became culpable of murder ‘as soon as the knives were produced’.

Micheli legally acquitted Guede of the theft of the phones as he ruled that they were taken ‘to cause their sudden removal’ and not for lucrative gain. He ruled that the autocall to Meredith’s bank Abbey National logged at circa 22:11 was due to the phone falling from her person to the floor due to her wanting urgent contact with her sick mother, and indeed, there does appear to be an outline in blood in the shape of a phone.

Micheli ruled that Guede did not go through Meredith’s bag as his DNA (which was scant at the scene) was midway on the clasp at the top of the bag, indicating Guede had gripped it to lift and move it, as there is no DNA or blood stains inside it. In addition, there were multiple differing footprints of sundry persons at the murder scene, as highlighted by luminol, a forensic instrument to make visible invisible blood which had been cleaned up.

Complicity: “Above all if the certain facts include the consequent outline of that supposed ‘unknown’ (the presence of the three at the scene of the crime) they are abundant, and all abundantly proven”. – Micheli

The March 2015 Fifth Chambers Ruling acquitting Knox and Sollecito

This merely stated that the pair were acquitted because of ‘insufficient evidence’, not because they were ‘innocent’.

It confirmed that Knox,certainly, and Sollecito, ‘almost certainly’, were present at the murder scene, Knox did wash off the victim’s blood from her hands and did cover up for Guede. It stated that the pair told ‘umpteen lies’ and that their behaviour remains ‘highly suspicious’.

So does Guede have a case, based on the final definitive facts, as set out, above?

We shall see.

Sources:

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Primary_Sources

Tags:amanda knox, fifth chambers, florence supreme court, franca leosini, guede review hearing, jim clemente, krissyg1, laura richards, marasca-bruno, massei, meredith kercher, micheli, news, raffaele sollecito, rudy guede
Posted in Justice for Meredith Kercher, Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

Posts Tagged ‘amanda knox’

Share this:

Like this:

Knox claimed at her trial she suffered from false memory

AMANDA KNOX – DOES SHE SUFFER FROM FALSE MEMORY SYNDROME?

Knox’ signed statement

Prosecutor G Mignini cross-examining Knox on her claim she had a false memory

Saul Kassin

At the time of his interview Laughman was not told that all the police had at the time was a whorl fingerprint and was led to believe they had his prints. 35% of the population has whorl prints.

Newspaper report of the day

Barry Laughman’s case, whom Burleigh cites as an example of false memory

Barry Laughman

Marty Tankleff

Exonerated or Vacated?

Is Evidence Insufficient without DNA Proof?

Ten Million Dollar Settlement

The Advance of DNA Testing in Criminal Trials

Does a lack of DNA evidence prove a person is innocent?

Should a confession count for nothing in a court of law?

If an error is made in forensic testing does that void a trial?

Is there any genuine evidence for Saul Kassin’s false memory syndrome?

Share this:

Like this:

AVIELLO: THE TRUTH.

How Aviello was bribed to bend the trial of Amanda Knox & Raffaele Sollecito

Lucia (formerly Luciano) Aviello

Attorneys Guilia Bongiorno and Luca Maori acting for Raffaele Sollecito

Raffaele Sollecito: Then and Now

How Hellmann gagged Aviello’s claims of bribery by the defence

Aviello gets a second chance at Nencini’s court

Aviello’s three versions

Dr. Alessandro Nencini

Confused? You won’t be

Why Aviello was put forward

Aviello – who is he?

Aviello sent five letters to the court

Blood-stained clothing

Multiple assailants or ‘Lone Wolf’?

Francesco Sollecito, father of Raffaele: ‘My son has never seen a dead body, never mind killed anyone.’

The Naples Camorra

Who are the Mariano family of Secondigliano in Naples?

‘Harrowing scream’

Where is the missing key to Meredith’s room?

Mafia

‘Just a ploy’

The court accepted his story as to why he lied.

‘Even the losers get lucky sometimes’.

Share this:

Like this:

Share this:

Like this:

Italy’s defence against ECHR and why it was rejected

Knox barrister Carlo Dalla Vedova and Amanda Knox

ADMISSIBILITY

Was the ECHR application premature?

Why does the ECHR rely heavily on Hellmann and Boninsegna and not the superior Supreme and final court of Chieffi?

How Material is Knox’ Claim of being denied Legal Assistance?

CONCLUSION

Share this:

Like this:

Amanda Knox after the dramatic annulment in 2015

Row over Knox charging to speak to students

Kercher Attorney slams the enterprise as ‘inappropriate’

‘Demonized’

Misogyny

Convicted, then unexpectedly freed

‘The burglary scene was staged”, the courts ruled

Raffaele Sollecito bid for compensation rejected

‘I was wrongfully imprisoned for four years’ Knox tells audiences

Share this:

Like this:

Bongiorno, Sollecito, Maori legal team

Compensation claim by Raffaele Sollecito

The compensation claim

The issues with the Marasca ruling

Sollecito’s challenges

How Marasca cuts Sollecito little slack

The Issues Facing the Florence Appeal Court

Watch this space!

Share this: