Wahnsinn, jetzt setz ich mich doch wieder hin und schreib einen längeren Post. Irgendwie scheine ich meine Internetsucht (3te Erscheinungsform, vgl.
Wikipedia: Internetabhängigkeit ) einfach nicht 100% in den Griff zu kriegen
:), aber egal.
Scheinbar ist dieses Forum mehr mit sich selber beschäftigt, als mit den Vorgängen in Florenz. Sorry, aber Augen zu und weiter so gilt jetzt nicht mehr. Joseph, quiron, die Verteidiger brauchen dringend Eure Hilfe. Das was AK Verteidigung heute abgeliefert hat, war aus meiner Sicht ein Schuldeingeständnis auf ganzer Linie.
Ich habe sehr viel mehr Gegenwehr seitens der Verteidigung erwartet (
http://perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=149969#p149969 ). Wahrscheinlich war ich von den Posts hier etwas zu sehr beeindruckt, aber letztlich bin ich dann wohl zu selbstkritisch.
Trotzdem einen taktischen Schachzug scheinen die Verteidiger gemacht zu haben. Nach meiner Erinnerung war für heute eigentlich die Verteidigung von RS dran. Das sie getauscht haben, kann ich nachvollziehen. Wenn einer die Situation jetzt noch retten kann, dann RS. Die Jury ist außer Nencini rein weiblich. Wir haben sowohl auf PMF, als auch auf TJMK diskutiert, ob das für RS ein Vorteil ist - ich sag „ja“.
Dazu muss er allerdings aus der Karibik zurückkommen und alles auf eine Karte setzen. Flehen und betteln, dass sie ihn erneut frei sprechen. Die Chancen sind nicht hoch. Trotzdem, am Ende besteht die Jury auch nur aus Menschen und sie werden ihre Entscheidung, in „gewissen Grenzen“, aufgrund ihrer Emotionen treffen. Alle Menschen entscheiden emotional, wir begründen unsere Entscheidungen nur rational.
Wie heißt es so schön: „Vor Gericht und auf hoher See sind wir in Gottes Hand.“
Aber die Chancen für einen Freispruch sind minimal. Bei den Plädoyers haben mich Crini und die Zivilkläger überrascht. Alles was ich bislang „mir selbst“ aus Massei, Kassationsgerichtsurteil und diversen Posts auf PMF und TJMK erarbeitet habe wurde bestätigt.
AK Verteidigung hat aus meiner Sicht kein konkretes Argument dagegen vorgebracht. Hier muss ich leider das Stichwort „Primärquellen“ bringen. Hut ab, was in diesem Forum alles für Unschuldsargumente vorgebracht werden. Aber scheinbar sind das alles „IIP-gefakte“ Scheinfakten von Scheinexperten. Entweder die Verteidiger von AK wissen das nicht (dann solltet Ihr Ihnen sehr schnell helfen) oder sie kennen halt die „Primärquellen“ und die sind erdrückend klar.
Gerne könnte ihr Euch selber einen Eindruck verschaffen und Ihr könnt mir glauben. Ich habe sehr viele verschiedene Quellen auf Twitter und in den Medien verfolgt. Zu Crinis Plädoyer ist TJMK am besten, die Argumente der Zivilkläger fast Andrea Vogt am besten zusammen. Die Argumente der AK Verteidigung habe ich auf Twitter verfolgt, auch da hat TJMK 1zu1 die Tweets von „la natione“ durchgereicht.
Crini (ich formatier das jetzt ned um, ihr müsst von unten nach oben lesen):114. This means a total request of 30 years for Knox and 26 years for Sollecito
113. [Propose] 26 years for both for the murder
112. The murder is contextual, their was no premeditation, and no futile motive
111. Because of their staging and denials, they should not be given generic mitigation for murder.
110. Requests to increase the penalty for [Knox] calunnia to 4 years
109. But experience tells statements of unreliable perps do contain revelations about the truth. The ‘argument’ between girls, why such context?
108. Rudy Guede has no credibility, even if the Supreme Court is right that this cannot depend on his refusal to answer.
107. Crini cites Laura Mezzetti about the ‘annoyance’ caused by Knox on house cleaning issues.
106. Meredith was the one triggering an argument because of the ‘impolite’ invasion and behavior. She accused Knox .
105. Rudy was not sober, quite high, a bit annoying, and was acting the same disgusting way he behaved downstairs days before.
104. Meredith Kercher was sober, fully awake. The others were at least ‘smoked’, a bit high, Rudy was there in the house.
103. The motive is not futile, the motive is terror, it is the consequence of the prior aggressive action in which they were involved.
102. Nothing points to an agreed plan among the three that run out of control; the first cause was an aggression, a clash, impetus of rage
101. Crini: there is a prosecution duty to conjecture a motive.
100. The blood drop on the tap: a point is Knox does not explain, guesses, while she must be aware that she bled in the bathroom.
99. Crini believes the shoe prints on the pillowcase are from a female’s shoe as suggested by police
98. Knox’s DNA between the blade and the handle (36-i)is very significant. It’s not from sweat or contact.
97. The print on the bed sheet is compatible with the kitchen knife.
96. Crini: we don’t need to figure a reason for a kitchen knife to be carried from one apartment to the other..
95. The bra straps are cut in multiple points, not with a kitchen knife.
94. Sollecito cut her bra with a knife in multiple parts. hold bra to cut it - no Guede’s DNA in that point - used a small very sharp-edge knife
93. Rudy did not stab her, because he wad used both his hands, which were unarmed
92. Wounds indicate she was immobilized by multiple people, they killed her because failing to do so completely, were terrified by her scream.
91. Criticizes Torre’s theory that the large wound could be caused by a small knife: improbable, the wound has clear margins.
90. There were two knifes, one was small, not much fit to kill.
89. Ridiculous to think that Rudy Guede - which she knew - could intimidate Meredith totally to that point. She would react.
88. Specific indicator: no defence wounds; means bruises are not from fight but restraint.
87. Description of bruises and lesions around her mouth, indicates extreme force to prevent from screaming. Rest of body was also immobilized.
86. She was still wearing a blue sweater which was removed subsequently.
85. Analysis of blood drop pattern and position of victim when stabbed; body moved in a different position.
84. Location of crime - space between the bed and the wardrobe - is peculiar, analysed by UACV
83. Crini says will sketch a dynamic of events of the crime.
82. Crini says - implying Vecchiotti, Pascali - some experts should be “hold where they belong”
81. Crini recall Pascali working on the Olgiata and the Claps case (2008, 2010);
80. There is no instance of transfer of Sollecito’s DNA anywhere on the scene
79. Crini cites the Olgiata case.
78. Contamination must be deduced from context of finding and collection. You must think a practical way for Sollecito’s DNA to be transferred
77. Tagliabracci defends Vecchiotti saying the RIS statistical techniques were not used at the time; Crini cites Gill and Balding
76. Guede’s Y haplotype in victim’s vagina alone was used to identify him.
75. Sollecito’s DNA is certainly on the clasp for the police; Vecchiotti doubts but considers X separately from Y haplotype
74. The bra clasp: the first objection was the interpretation of the mixed/complex trace
73. Crini says he learned a bit of genetics working on cold cases
72. Vecchiotti and Tagliabracci have a reliability problem in relation to the case, for different reasons
71. Vecchiotti said she obtained all cooperation she required. Raw data could be accessed by accessing the machine itself as Stefanoni offered.
70. Crini says he found out the negative controls were deposited, the court will find the document of deposit etc.
69. Vecchiotti omitted to note the censures/observations written by the other consultants, this procedure is incorrect
68. Vecchiotti’s approach to the I-trace (refusal to test it ) was ‘ideological’, ‘weak’, ‘insufficient’
67. Interpretation of profile is for complex result. For non-complex profiles there is actually no ‘interpretation’.
66. Crini recalls answers by the RIS, defence tried to elicit approval of CV, but RIS said multiple test only if possible, compromise for result
65. Novelli cited saying the profile of Meredith is certain.
64. Meredith’s profile came out clean on a single amplification, means the trace is clear.
63. The meaning of test repetition is its necessity when you have a ‘dirty’, uncertain sequence like Knox’s profile on the knife
62. Novelli knows very well about double and triple amplification protocols, and Stefanoni knows well too
61. Guidelines are an indication that guide your driver, but then you have to drive
60. Someone who keeps a refrigerator like the one Vecchiotti has, should be less critical about laboratory practice
59. Crini: should we toss any result in the garbage, no matter how important and clear, whenever the test is not repeated?
58. Speaks about the single amplification by Stefanoni versus guidelines.
57. The presence of human DNA in a scratch on the blade of a knife itself is not usual
56. Crini: another introduction specific on DNA; notes btw that the new RIS finding is ‘important’ because adds information
55. Crini makes an introduction about circumstantial evidence
54. Discussion on DNA and remaining evidence will start in 1h.
53. Francesco Sollecito [in interview] was shocked, said he never expected so aggressive arguments from PG [the Tuscany Prosecutor General]
52. Yesterday, Crini spent the first hour to argue about logical ‘method’: how assess evidence altogether, examples, quotes of SC sentences
51. [Judge] Nencini suggests to interrupt and go on tomorrow with following prosecution’s points. New schedule.
50. Chapter 11. is DNA. Crini says we may have evidence enough by now anyway
49. Crini censures Hellmann-Zanetti’s reasoning about calunnia (why not indicate the real culprit?). Says H-Z committed ‘physical violence’ on trial file
48. Knox’s calunnia is a strategy protracted over time says Crini
47. Dreamlike component in Knox’s statement, fish blood, are devices needed to surround a calunnia strategy
46. Knox needed to put some additional content into the ‘calunnia’, says Crini, or wouldn’t be believed, so she puts in pieces of truth
45. Knox spoke about a scream an a sexual violence before anyone knew. Sollecito said nothing was stolen before they knew.
44. Points out Sollecito says Romanelli’s door was wide open; Knox doesn’t notice theft. Crini highlights the ‘combination’ of inconsistencies
43. Knox thinks locked door is normal; does not flush toilet when finds feces; does not notice blood before having a shower; thinks blood is ok
42. Notes Knox’s statements are inconsistent and ommisive before her interrogation.
41. Crini speaks about Knox’s declarations. Interested in the timings. Says too much was repeated to be coerced.
40. Crini speaks about chapter 9, the statements of Sollecito. His call to her sister. His alert was late but even so preceded the postals arrive
39. Bathmat print and luminol prints were chapter 7. of Crini’s argument; 8. is the staging of theft.
38. The most significant stain may be the one in Romanelli’s room, says Crini.
37. Speaking of a female’s print left in luminol, Crini sounds outraged, saying other substances is vague unsubstantiated conjecture [eg it was blood not bleach]
36. Guede’s sentencing was not well calibrated says Crini. But a Guede alone scenario is not tenable
35. Does it make sense for Guede to leave there the evidence of (putative) theft, and clean footprints?
34. The unitary sense made by elements like the bloody print, is a cleanup. Considers the lone-perp scenario: inconsistent
33. Crini: starts talking about the isolated bloody print; calls it a ‘talking element’. Why is that print alone?
32. Suspects are only ones with a ‘logistic’ capability and an interest to ‘clean’ the murder scene. They aimed at ‘diminishing’ the evidence mass
31. Knox’s lamp was the only light in her room.
30. Crini: the perp(s) organized a rather complex plan to clean up and ‘sidetrack’ at the murder scene.
29. Still to be determined if calunnia was “occasional” due to pressure, or “aggravated” [sidetracking]; Crini saya a ‘depistaggio reale’ (sidetracking) occurred
28. Crini: suspects’ statements are extremely interesting: RS’s statements; AK’s e-mail, internet statements, [Knox’s] memoriale
27. Crini: a most fertile chapter of analysis is the ‘post-factum’ actions and behaviors of defendants
26. Crini has unfolded five chapters. Says he has a total of sixteen
25. Quintavalle, details of his testimony and woman’s description are exceptional indicators of accuracy.
34. Crini: it is unlikely that Quintavalle got it wrong. Because of contextual elements.
23. It is incorrect to dismiss a witness a priori because late. But for reasons totally different. Sometimes late is symptom of reliability.
22. Wants to deal with the issue of the fact that he came forward late, urged by an acquaintance
21. Crini: fifth argument is Quintavalle. He says he is sure about his testimony. Is a different kind of witness
20. Crini accepts both alternatives on time of death, after 23.15 or before 22.30 (but seems to prefer the earlier one)
19. Crini: Do not overestimate importance of timings that are not anchored accurately or cannot be proven
18. Crini: timeline is marginal to the case. All unproven timings to be taken cautiously.
17. Crini starts fourth theme: timings. Says they are very vague, except the tow truck
16. Crini: Curatolo is no ‘super-witness’, but can contribute to helping the court to draw their scenario
15. Curatolo saw a couple discussing and this memory is very specific, peculiar
14. Curatolo did not confuse night with Halloween, because it was big party in piazza the previous night, and because it did not rain
13. Crini: the court saw Aviello, shows what top [level] of unreliability is; the SC suspected so unreliable that calunnia elements had to be assessed
12. Crini: many trials could not exist if drug addicted testimonies were dismissed
11. Crini: the H-Z court assessed Curatolo a priori based on him as a person, stemming from questions of the court itself
10. Crini about Curatolo, describes Piazza Grimana; he was an habitual presence of the piazza, proven reliable in other cases
9. Crini: computer records and alibi point to Sollecito being not at home but on murder scene
8. Crini cites the log files of Fastweb: no internet activity, only automatic connections.
7. Crini: failure of computer alibi is evidence against, not just lack of confirmation.
6. Nencini notes prosecution did not ask to interrogate Sollecito. Crini cites D’Ambrosio’s computer expert report. No interaction before 5am
5. Sollecito gave computer alibi days later, and words his statement in the singular form.
4. Crini: first theme he deals with is presence of crime scene; alibi, if it’s false it is evidence no matter why false (cite from Guede trial)
3. Crini attacks the method of logic reasoning of annulled appeal: parceling out evidence, parrots aspects of civil procedure
2. Crini: Supreme Court censure was against the foundations of appeal , all parts not just some errors; appeal was ‘razed to ground’.
1. Crini: this appeal is unusual, not because of the case but for the course followed. Usually appeals are narrow, this SC annulment is not.
Andrea Vogt:VIERI FABIANI for the Kercher family:
• You should take into consideration the judgments and sentences of Rudy Guede, who was convicted of killing Meredith along with others, others who have been identified as Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. This is a fundamental point. And remember Amanda Knox was convicted of slandering Patrick Lumumba in first instance as well as appeal, but as the Supreme Court pointed out, the appeals court failed to make the very important link between the slander and the homicide.
• The death of Meredith Kercher brings up a series of emotions, sensations, it is something that has attracted international attention. Jury . . . are you going to judge with your hearts? You must distance yourself from your sentiments. Do not judge with your heart, but rather judge with your head, and with logic.
• The contamination is nonexistent. It is not proven, nor in the case files. And regarding the DNA on the blade, there is the possibility of 1 in 1 billion and 300 million that it does not belong to Meredith.
• Knox knows that the violence was done by someone of color, that’s why she blamed someone of color. She knows the victim screamed. She knows she was killed having her throat slit. The DNA and scientific evidence remains, but it becomes just an additional element.
• When we speak of a crime – we often say we need a motive. But whoever opened the door to Rudy Guede, what does it change? There were a series of contrasts between Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox. The motive, or the lack thereof, is absolutely irrelevant. Because the voluntary homicide is proven. There was a progression of violence. Alcohol. Drugs. Fatigue. Stress. There could be 1000 problems that evolve into a punishment of the victim, because that is what we see in the escalation of violence that killed Meredith Kercher.
SERENA PERNA for the Kercher family:
• Aside from the fatal wounds, Meredith had many minor wounds. The cut on her left cheek is believed to be the first wound that was inflicted, and was that of a threatening gesture. There are 10 other bruises and lesions to the mouth and nose, done with the bare hand, as part of the process of suffocation process. Then there were three other major stab wounds on the neck.
• Meredith had no defense wounds, just two small cuts on right hand and one on her left finger (jury taking copious notes during Perna’s description of wounds). She was held back. How could so many lesions be made in so many different areas with different means – some with bare hands and some with knives – be made by just one person? Even Rudy Guede only has two hands.
FRANCESCO MARESCA for the Kercher family.
• I am going to ask you to forget a few things and remember a few others. Forget all the polemics outside the courtroom, forget the controversy stirred up by the Americans, and the media, the enormous criticism of the police and scientific police and of the prosecutors of Perugia. . . . . I invited you to forget the declarations of Raffaele Sollecito, who gave those statements upon his return from a vacation in Santo Domingo –where he is once again –while we sit here to judge a trial in which he is the accused. I ask you to forget the declarations of Amanda Knox about the mechanisms and failures of the Italian justice system, who thanks to this mechanism became famous and got a multi-million dollar contract for a book. She has public relations person. She has a website, something insupportable for the family Kercher, which takes donations for the victim. She . . . who is a suspect in the murder!
• Basta discussion of the contamination. The Supreme Court shut the door on this argument. Contamination must be identified. Yet it continues to be the leit motif of this trial.
• Basta this representation of a girl thrown into a situation bigger than her. Why was Amanda the only one stressed out by the behavior of the police? All the British girls were also questioned at length by police. And regarding her imagination, the defense’s own consultant, Prof. Caltagirone, testified that false memories were possible, even though Knox had no cognitive problems. Yet the famous statement she wrote on November 6 came at a time she had slept and was not under duress.
• Review the Knox’s Nov. 6, 2007 statement. The email to 25 persons she wrote Nov. 4. The times she asks “Why did Raffaele lie?” The intercepted prison conversations of Nov. 17 when Knox says “I was there.” Review Knox’s own testimony June 16, when she said there was no blood in the bathroom when she left the day before.
• Why was Amanda’s black lamp found near the bed of the scene of the crime? Why did she call her mother in the middle of the night in Seattle before the body had been discovered?
• The two pillars of this trial are the slander of Patrick Lumumba and the staging of the break in to simulate a rape and burglary. The window of Filomena’s room would have been a suicidal choice for a thief, as it was most exposed. Glass was on top of clothes. How did Sollecito know nothing had been stolen, as he told dispatcher? Also rock wasn’t in line with trajectory of broken window. Would Meredith have waited in her room for her aggressor had she heard a window break? Window was broken after she was already dead.
• In the bathroom where Rudy’s feces were found, there was no blood, footprints or other forensic traces found. If Rudy had simulated the theft, wouldn’t he have flushed away his “signature.”? Somebody else cleaned, but left his prints and evidence that pointed to him. Rudy, by the way, was acquitted of theft in his trials.
• For the whole night, the two suspects don’t have an alibi.
• Witnesses are reliable, but only is of relative interest.
• What is the motive that Meredith’s two telephones are stolen? If they were robbed, why wouldn’t the thief take computer, jewels and other items from Romanelli’s room? The phones were taken to delay the discovery of the body, to try to eliminate the immediate possibility that someone could hear the telephone ringing in Meredith’s room, without Meredith’s response.
• We have said many times that DNA doesn’t fly. But Sollecito does not fly either. The material left by Sollecito’s foot is abundant, otherwise it would not have been stamped so clearly. On this point the cassation sentence is crystal clear. There was a cleanup.
• 9 May 2009, when we talk of a metric and morphological match of Sollecito’s foot to the print on the bathmat. We know the Robbin’s grid is used to align the footprint. But defense consultant Vinci (he is a bit of a “tutto fare”) chooses a different point of departure for the measurement. Then he uses a program called “blended stretch.” The name says it all. Prof. Vinci in that way showed images purporting to show a compatibility with Guede’s foot. But there is no question that the footprint is compatible with Sollecito. The
stamp” of the foot in Meredith’s blood (not ink) on the bathmat is Sollecito’s and it nails him to the scene of the crime.
• Look at these traces: 23 (light switch) 24(sink) 76(bidet) 126(cotton swab box) 127 (sink). These traces include those where mixed DNA of Meredith and Knox were found. These traces extend the scene of the crime from the bedroom into the bathroom. Knox says when she left Via della Pergola 1 November it was clean. But the trace on the light switch is just blood of Meredith. It is only when the person rubs their hands in the sink that her DNA is shed and shows up along with the blood of Meredith. Knox washes her hands in the sink and then uses the bidet to wash her feet.
• Look at the traces in Romanelli’s room, 176 has just the profile of the victim and 177 which has profile of both Knox and Kercher, plus 178, 179, 180 with just profile of Knox and 184, in the corridor, latent prints which also had a mixed profile of Kercher and Knox. What I am telling you is that the crime scene is extended. The staging of the theft happened after the murder. That’s why we find Meredith’s blood there.
• If this had ever been the work of a single assassin, why would he have tracked blood back into the room of the break in? Rudy’s tracks are clear. They go from the body to the door. The other tracks lead to and from the staging of the break in.
• In what of the seven days prior that Sollecito and Knox knew each other, that Sollecito might have been over to the house three or four times, did Sollecito leave his footprint in blood on the bathmat?
• The independent experts Vecchiotti and Conti were incomplete and incompetent. They have had problems in other Italian trials, including Via Poma and the Consenza court (a judge rejected Vecchiotti’s expert opinion, which was challenged by others who found DNA evidence she had overlooked, changing outcome of the case). Their work was “fatiscente.”
Ok, bis hier war das für mich nur insofern eine Überraschung, als dass viele Argumente wirklich gekommen sind und daher auch durch die „Internetwolke“ noch Bestand haben.
Natürlich war ich dann sehr gespannt, was von der Vereidigung kommt. Ich überlasse ich es jetzt Euch die Argumente der Verteidigung noch etwas „aufzublasen“. Dafür bin wahrscheinlich nicht der richtige. Ich habe den ganzen Tag nach dem „Knaller“ gesucht, gewartet, dass ein echtes Argument kommt. Eines, das auch nur halbwegs signifikant über Null kommt - Ich habe keines gefunden.
AK Verteidigung (wieder von unten nach oben lesen):66. Meredith process , the hearing ends. The next hearing will be on January 9 [Sollecito team]
65. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : ” Amanda Knox is shown to have worshipped [Meredith]”
64. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “There is a shortage of proof”
63. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “There is no evidence, with doubts you have to acquit Amanda Knox”
62. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “On the motive the prosecutor did the same as the Costa Concordia at Giglio”
61. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “Room too small for the participation of more people in the crime”
60. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “The victim was attacked from the front, not from behind”
59. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “For Amanda and Raffaele, Rudy Guede was a stranger”
58. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “The bra clasp of Meredith is not a genuine artifact“
57. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “The bra clasp November 2nd was white, but 40 days after gray“
56. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “Amanda knew the cut was throat because she was told by a policeman “
55. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “Absurd that there are missing only traces of Amanda and Raffaele “
54.Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “The alleged footprint of female shoe on the pillow: pillowcase was folded over.”
53. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “The broken glass from the window shows the easiest way to enter the house “
52. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “War between consultants is like “The War of the Roses” where everyone will hate “
51. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “Unable for Amanda and Raffaele to commit the crime in 50 minutes “
50. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “The mother of Meredith says she and Amanda were friends “
49. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “Guede never says that Amanda was in the house, even outside the interrogations“
48. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “Guede never talks about Amanda “
47.Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : ” Guede in his chats after the murder told a friend that Amanda had nothing to do with it”
46. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “There are traces only of Rudy Guede at the crime scene “
45. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “The witness Curatolo either is unreliable or is our alibi. Decide for yourself “
44. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox) : “Do not trust the testimony of the witness Quintavalle “
43. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “Amanda did not call into question Lumumba to sidetrack the investigation “
42. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “The alibi of Amanda is of the same type as her roommates ”
41. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “The alibi of Amanda is accurate and unchanged in her deposition ”
40. Meredith appeal: the argument of Carlo Dalla Vedova, defender of Amanda Knox, resumes.
39. Meredith appeal: Judge orders one-hour lunch break
38. President Nencini asks if there are certificates for the AIDS tests done on Amanda, but there are none
37. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “It was said of Amanda in prison that she had AIDS, but it turned out an error ”
36. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “From the conversations in prison Amanda does not show anything, the sum of zeros ”
35. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “In 30 hours of interviews with parents in prison Amanda never was heard [incriminating herself]”
34. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “It was immediately admited, the mistake by the investigators”
33. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “The footprint of Guede on the pillow right now is the signature of the crime”
32. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “Lumumba was not to be charged, he confirmed his alibi”.
31. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “There has been judicial harassment against [my client]”
30. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “Prosecution and plaintiff leverage statements of Amanda unusable ”
29. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “The declarations of Amanda between 5 and 6 November are unusable ”
28. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “Absurd that Amanda is joining the attack on a friend ”
27. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “Changing motive is constantly an element of weakness of the prosecution ”
26. Lawyer Dalla Vedova: “Add up all the clues , the sum of zero is always zero ”
25. Lawyer Dalla Vedova: “Without connections between clues and evidences the value is zero ”
24. Lawyer Dalla Vedova: “In this process there is no evidence ”
23. Lawyer Dalla Vedova: “A murder without a motive is fallacious ”
22. Lawyer Dalla Vedova: “Absurd that the knife used for the murder was brought home ”
21. Lawyer Dalla Vedova: “Imaginative reconstruction of the prosecution ”
20. Lawyer Dalla Vedova: “This story has been in the headlines for months ”
19. Lawyer Dalla Vedova (Knox): “Meredith killed in this manner is a defeat for all ”
18. The closing argument of Lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova begins (Knox defense).
17. Meredith appeal: the closing argument of the Lawyer Ghirga (Knox ) ends.
16. Lawyer Ghirga (Knox ) : “Amanda Knox was not present at the crime scene ”
15. Lawyer Ghirga (Knox ): “The judgment of Justice is the acquittal of Amanda
14. Lawyer Ghirga (Knox ): “The witness Curatolo is unreliable ”
13. Lawyer Ghirga (Knox ): “We challenged from the outset the murder weapon ”
12. Lawyer Ghirga (Knox ): “On the blade of the knife there is no blood and no trace of Meredith.”
11. Lawyer Ghirga (Knox ): “The expertise that revealed traces of Meredith on the knife is not trusted “
10. Lawyer Ghirga (Knox ): “The knife found at Sollecito’s house is not the murder weapon “
9. The closing argument of Luciano Ghirga defender Amanda Knox begins.
8. Amanda to the court: ” I am innocent , put an end to this enormous injustice ”
7. Amanda : “I’m not the monster he has been portrayed in recent years ”
6. Amanda: ” I did not know Rudy Guede ”
5. Amanda: “I’m not a killer , the prosecution and the civil parties are wrong , they want a conviction without proof ”
4. Amanda: ” Meredith and I have always been friends , we never quarreled ”
3. Amanda: “I have been subjected to illegal interrogation , I made a false confession extorted”
2. Amanda: “I have not killed , raped , robbed , I was not at the scene of the crime”
1. The email of Amanda : “I’m innocent , but I am not in court because I’m afraid”
Nencini hat gesagt (so ungefähr): wenn AK was zu sagen hat, sollte sie das im Gerichtssaal machen und keine eMails schreiben.
… und ups: das AIDS-Argument war wohl auch ein Eigentor!
Auch wenn ich die Argumente der Verteidigung von AK noch so „aggressiv“ auslege. Sorry, jetzt kenn ich denn Fall leider schon sehr gut. Am Ende steht überall die Entscheidung des Kassationsgerichts dagegen oder es ist einfach ein plattes Argument für die PR.
Ohne die erdrückende Menge an Punkte zu schmälern, möchte ich abschließend zwei aufgreifen:
• Die Verteidigung ging gar nicht auf den (seitens Crini) „wichtigsten“ forensischen Beweis ein - die gemischte DNA in Filomenas Zimmer. Damit gibt sie m.E. zu AK war am Tatort.
• Des Weiteren verlangt das Kassationsgericht, dass „alle Beweise in sich schlüssig“ betrachtet werden müssen. AK Verteidigung kritisiert mit den „alten“ unkonkreten Argumenten nur das Messer, den BH Verschluss und zwei Zeugen. Das ist leider viel zu wenig, aus meiner Sicht ein Nullargument und nur für die Presse.
Die herrschende Meinung auf PMF und TJMK ist, dass sich die Verteidigung von AK bereits aufgegeben hat – ich denke das stimmt.
Jetzt hängt alles an Bongiorno und RS, good Luck! Aber falls die Argumente oder schlicht die Tagesform nicht reichen: …
MÖRDER gehören ins Gefängnis!
Jusitce Will Be Done!
RIP Meredith!
