Continuation - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[katy_did]

Well, I can see this delayed commenting system's going to take some getting used to!

I think the slander charges against Amanda (and any like them) are something everyone should be concerned about, regardless of their belief in her innocence/guilt. What protection does anyone have against police abuse if all it takes to determine whether it happened is for the police to deny it - and if you can then be charged with an offence possibly resulting in six years jail simply for making the allegation in the first place? In a situation like that, how could police abuse of power ever come to light?

I'm a little amazed (though not really) that anyone can be defending this. It goes way, way beyond this particular case. Anyone supporting these charges against Knox is supporting a situation in which the word of the police is always believed over that of a suspect, and in which the only way physical (or any other) abuse of a suspect by the police is acknowledged to have happened is if the police openly admit it.

Like I said, I'm almost amazed anyone is trying to defend this.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Oh and, talking of crooked judges who abuse their offices, which seems to be a popular theme here on this thread: King County judge accused of violating judicial code in support of Amanda Knox

 

[LondonJohn]

Regarding Bongiorno's 'illness', Jools on PMF has this to say in regard to LondonJohn's claims:




http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=47298#p47298


I and I will just add to this, as a note of interest, that the doctors note was supplied by one of the coroner defence experts on Raffaele's defence team (who no, wasn't Bongiorno's doctor and hadn't seen her on the days she was supposedly sick).

Oh dear oh dear. Arguing by proxy again? Why can't "Jools" register on here and argue directly with me if he wants to - instead of reading my argument on JREF, then issuing "counter-arguments" and insults from afar? Is that really too much to ask?

My suggestion that Bongiorno was admitted to hospital either late on the 20th or some time on the 21st was not inane. The newspaper report which I linked to was published on the 22nd November, and it clearly stated that Bongiorno had been admitted to hospital. Since it's established that she spoke at the San Marino Conference on the 20th (not the 20th and 21st, incidentally), then by definition she must have been admitted to hospital either late on the 20th or some time on the 21st. Unless the newspaper report made up the stuff about her being admitted to hospital, that is.

And finally, I think "Jools" might be a teeny bit mixed up on the court timings. Final summations for Sollecito were due to start not on Saturday 21st November, but instead on Saturday 28th November*. So his implication that Bongiorno couldn't conduct her client's final summation through illness, but that on the same day (or the day before) she could miraculously find the energy to attend a conference, is completely false and defamatory to her. "Jools" might want to double check that, then issue a correction and an apology when he discovers his mistake. And perhaps he'd like to come and do that in this thread, rather than on a completely different forum.

I wonder why there's such a seemingly-concerted attempt to attack my arguments? I'm more than happy to be argued against - but not by proxy via another board, and not when these so-called arguments are so easy to dismantle and expose for what they really are...

* And, in fact, Bongiorno herself was not due to speak until Monday 30th November.

 

[bucketoftea]

BobtheDonkey,

I have a hard time talking to people that actually think it is okay for Amanda's parents to be facing charges for simply repeating their daughter's court testimony.

You all know it's completely ridiculous but none of you will admit it because you feel that you must win all battles. Never give in when it's something against Amanda's family. That's your motto. I'm sorry, I cannot respect that position.

A large part of the problem with Mellox repeating Amanda's claim is that, for a start, they didn't merely repeat. The couple of light slaps as described by AK turned into "beatings" and "torture" and "physical and mental abuse" and repeated ad nauseum at every opportunity.

That is obviously not "merely repeating". It's egregious exaggeration. Similar to "no evidence" and "she never even met Rudy".

 

[katy_did]

Since we're talking about the slander charges (albeit in weirdly disconnected posts!), I thought this bit of Massei's report in which he talks about the accusation against Patrick was interesting. It seems to state fairly explicitly that Amanda's guilt in the slander ('calumny') charge is dependent on her guilt in the main trial. In other words, if she were to be acquitted of the murder charge, she would inevitably have to be acquitted of slander, because her guilt with respect to the latter is dependent on her knowledge that the accusation was false - something she could not have been aware of if she wasn't guilty of the first charge. That's my interpretation of the following anyway, though maybe someone can correct me if I've misinterpreted it:

Amanda Knox va anche dichiarata colpevole del delitto di calunnia alla stessa attribuito.

L'accusa rivolta a Patrick Lumumba di aver commesso l'omicidio e la violenza in danno di Meredith è pacificamente emersa come effettuata da Amanda Knox tra il 5 ed il 6 novembre 2007. A tale accusa Amanda è tornata nei primi colloqui con la madre e, il rammarico al riguardo manifestato (cfr. intercettazione ambientale del 10 novembre) costituisce conferma dell'accusa e della consapevolezza della sua ingiustizia. Consapevolezza che, peraltro, deriva da quanto si è esposto circa la responsabilità di Amanda nel delitto di omicidio e di violenza in danno di Meredith.

And the rough translation:

Amanda Knox is also found guilty of the crime of libel towards the same [Patrick Lumumba].

The accusation of Patrick Lumumba of having committed murder and violence to the detriment of Meredith was peacefully [voluntarily?] made by Amanda Knox between 5 and 6 November 2007. With regard to this accusation, Amanda's early conversations with her mother and the regret expressed (see intercepted conversation of 10 November) constitutes confirmation of the accusation and the knowledge of its injustice. Knowledge that, however, derives from what has already been stated about Amanda's responsibility for the crime of murder and violence to the detriment of Meredith.

I suppose it's just common sense that this would be the case, but it still seems interesting that Massei appears to be deliberately linking one charge to the other here.

 

[LondonJohn]

I've just re-read "Jools'" "argument" again* (it's harder to refer to nested quotes, especially when the "edit" facility is no longer operable). EDIT(!): I mean that editing isn't possible while the post is in moderation limbo.

Anyhow, "Jools" seems also to be arguing that Bongiorno's faked illness was invented (or at least greatly over-exaggerated) in order to give her an excuse for not attending the Perugia court on Friday 20th and Saturday 21st November - the days of the prosecution's summations, and days when the defence were not going to make arguments or even (most likely) speak at all.

He then goes on to claim that Bongiorno was in fact at a conference in San Marino on both of those days. Ergo: how could she claim she was too sick to attend court on both these days, when she was seen at the conference on both days?

Well, firstly, where is this idea that she was at the San Marino conference on both of the days in question? The Conference in fact took place solely on Friday November 20th. I am guessing (but a reasoned guess is all it is) that Bongiorno had always planned to attend the San Marino conference on Friday 20th (and had informed the court and her client of that), but that she had then planned to travel to Perugia to be in court on Saturday 21st. I am then supposing that she developed abdominal pain either during the evening of Friday 20th, or by the time she woke up on Saturday 21st. I am then suggesting that she was admitted to hospital with this pain (probably at some time on the 21st), and diagnosed with appendicitis.

Whether I'm 100% accurate or not, what I've written is entirely possible (and, I'd argue, probable). This would have resulted in Bongiorno having had to truthfully excuse herself from court on Saturday 21st owing to illness. My guess is that everyone in the court knew that she was never due to be there on Friday 20th, owing to her conference commitment (that's what you get when you hire someone with another full-time job to represent you, and it's why I personally think Sollecito made a mistake hiring her).

I'd repeat once again that it seems to me to be particularly unpleasant to accuse a respected criminal lawyer of faking an illness simply to provide an excuse for not being in court. I'm instead supposing that Bongiorno acted entirely honourably (even if not in her client's very best interests) in excusing herself for the first day (Friday 20th November) due to prior conference commitments. I'm then suggesting that she acted entirely honourably (and unavoidably) in excusing herself for the second day (Saturday 21st November) due to the onset of illness. No form of "invention" is either necessary or warranted.

*It's worth pointing out again that this is an argument which was: a) made on another forum; but b) made in direct response to an argument of mine on this forum; then c) relay-posted by another person onto this forum. Wheels within wheels....................................

 

[Fulcanelli]

Well, I can see this delayed commenting system's going to take some getting used to!

I think the slander charges against Amanda (and any like them) are something everyone should be concerned about, regardless of their belief in her innocence/guilt. What protection does anyone have against police abuse if all it takes to determine whether it happened is for the police to deny it - and if you can then be charged with an offence possibly resulting in six years jail simply for making the allegation in the first place? In a situation like that, how could police abuse of power ever come to light?

I'm a little amazed (though not really) that anyone can be defending this. It goes way, way beyond this particular case. Anyone supporting these charges against Knox is supporting a situation in which the word of the police is always believed over that of a suspect, and in which the only way physical (or any other) abuse of a suspect by the police is acknowledged to have happened is if the police openly admit it.

Like I said, I'm almost amazed anyone is trying to defend this.

1) She's not facing charges for slander


2) Are you really suggesting that 'abuses of power by the police' would come to light on the basis of accusations by lone individuals with neither proof or a single shred of evidence? Are you arguing that on that basis police officers should be tried and convicted? That seems to be what you're trying to suggest.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Oh dear oh dear. Arguing by proxy again? Why can't "Jools" register on here and argue directly with me if he wants to - instead of reading my argument on JREF, then issuing "counter-arguments" and insults from afar? Is that really too much to ask?

My suggestion that Bongiorno was admitted to hospital either late on the 20th or some time on the 21st was not inane. The newspaper report which I linked to was published on the 22nd November, and it clearly stated that Bongiorno had been admitted to hospital. Since it's established that she spoke at the San Marino Conference on the 20th (not the 20th and 21st, incidentally), then by definition she must have been admitted to hospital either late on the 20th or some time on the 21st. Unless the newspaper report made up the stuff about her being admitted to hospital, that is.

And finally, I think "Jools" might be a teeny bit mixed up on the court timings. Final summations for Sollecito were due to start not on Saturday 21st November, but instead on Saturday 28th November*. So his implication that Bongiorno couldn't conduct her client's final summation through illness, but that on the same day (or the day before) she could miraculously find the energy to attend a conference, is completely false and defamatory to her. "Jools" might want to double check that, then issue a correction and an apology when he discovers his mistake. And perhaps he'd like to come and do that in this thread, rather than on a completely different forum.

I wonder why there's such a seemingly-concerted attempt to attack my arguments? I'm more than happy to be argued against - but not by proxy via another board, and not when these so-called arguments are so easy to dismantle and expose for what they really are...

* And, in fact, Bongiorno herself was not due to speak until Monday 30th November.

It doesn't matter in regard to the timings Bongiorno was due to give her summing up for the defence. What matters is when this supposed bout of appendicitis occurred she wasn't ill at all but attending a conference. The judge refused to delay her summing up. So then guess what? Bongiorno made a miraculous recovery and was there to give her summing up at the proper allotted time.

 

[Fulcanelli]

Since we're talking about the slander charges (albeit in weirdly disconnected posts!), I thought this bit of Massei's report in which he talks about the accusation against Patrick was interesting. It seems to state fairly explicitly that Amanda's guilt in the slander ('calumny') charge is dependent on her guilt in the main trial. In other words, if she were to be acquitted of the murder charge, she would inevitably have to be acquitted of slander, because her guilt with respect to the latter is dependent on her knowledge that the accusation was false - something she could not have been aware of if she wasn't guilty of the first charge. That's my interpretation of the following anyway, though maybe someone can correct me if I've misinterpreted it:



And the rough translation:



I suppose it's just common sense that this would be the case, but it still seems interesting that Massei appears to be deliberately linking one charge to the other here.

Even if she's innocent of the murder, I fail to see how the charge of Calunnia no longer applies. She accused Patrick of being at the cottage murdering and raping Meredith, without knowing it to be true and therefore legally by default, knowing it not to be true.

 

[LondonJohn]

It doesn't matter in regard to the timings Bongiorno was due to give her summing up for the defence. What matters is when this supposed bout of appendicitis occurred she wasn't ill at all but attending a conference. The judge refused to delay her summing up. So then guess what? Bongiorno made a miraculous recovery and was there to give her summing up at the proper allotted time.

Only, yet again this is not true.

Firstly........... She was attending a conference only on one day: Friday 20th November 2007. There was no conference on Saturday 21st November 2007. It was only a one-day conference. That one day was Friday 20th November 2007. She was not attending a conference on Saturday 21st November 2007. Does this make any sense?

Second........... Her summing up wasn't due to take place until Saturday 28th November 2007. That's eight days after she attended the San Marino conference. She herself was not due to speak in the final summation until Monday 30th November 2007. That's ten days after she attended the San Marino conference.

Third.......... I believe that she contracted appendicitis either late on the evening of Friday 20th November 2007 (i.e. after the one-day San Marino conference had finished) or through the night of Friday 20th/Saturday 21st. Then I believe that she was admitted to hospital either some time during that night or some time on Saturday 21st. And I believe that this is why she was unable to appear in court on Saturday 21st November 2007.

Fourth......... There certainly appear to have been discussions over a possible delay in the defence summations, had Bongiorno been too ill to present in court. But it appears that Bongiorno recovered sufficiently to appear and speak as planned. However, since the defence summations only started on Friday 27th November 2007 - some six days after I believe it's likely that Bongiorno contracted appendicitis - this doesn't qualify as any kind of "miracle recovery".

Neither Fulcanelli nor anyone else can show any evidence whatsoever to support the rather unpleasant (not to mention defamatory) claim that Sollecito's lead attorney faked illness to try to "buy time" and delay the trial. In contrast, what I've said is perfectly logical, and indeed I believe it's by far the most likely interpretation of the facts in this instance. It's a small point, to be sure (although I'm guessing that Bongiorno might read the allegations against her with.....interest). But it's a shame that this one rather minor incident serves to illustrate much of what's wrong (and unfair) with certain arguing positions in this case.

 

[katy_did]

Even if she's innocent of the murder, I fail to see how the charge of Calunnia no longer applies. She accused Patrick of being at the cottage murdering and raping Meredith, without knowing it to be true and therefore legally by default, knowing it not to be true.

Which is why it seems quite important that Massei appears to have tied Amanda's guilt in relation to the charge for accusing Patrick to her guilt in the main murder charge, don't you think? I can't think of another way of interpreting his statement that her guilt is dependent both on the accusation itself and her knowledge that it was false, knowledge which (Massei says explicitly) comes from her involvement in the murder, outlined in the rest of the report. Take the latter away, and her knowledge that the accusation was false is gone too.

I read Massei's statement as indicating that, had the jury cleared Amanda of murder, they would also have cleared her of the charge of falsely accusing Patrick (and by implication, that any court which subsequently overturns the main charge is likely also to overturn this one). Do you have another way of interpreting it?

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, I think that there's an odd and unnecessary war of correction going on at the moment over the use of the words "slander", "criminal slander", "calumny" and even "calunnia". Ever since some people had it explained to them what Knox was charged with by Lumumba and by the police (and that explanation took place very recently....), the constant rush to correction seems to have been used to demonstrate some form of higher knowledge.

I might be wrong, but I think that everyone who posts on here with any regularity realises the difference between a) falsely accusing someone of cheating on his wife and b) falsely accusing someone of a serious criminal offence. The fact is however, they are both slander (or libel, if written). But one of them has potential criminal consequences and the other does not (unless we're talking about Sharia law.....).

If everyone who writes "slander" in relation to either the AK/Lumumba case or the AK/police case is going to get corrected each and every time, then it's going to raise pettiness to new levels. After all, we can all write "jury" as shorthand for "judicial panel consisting of two judges and six temporary lay judges who are selected from members of the public". And so, we can all also write "slander" or "criminal slander" as shorthand for "calunnia", provided we know the level of slander involved, and the potential consequences of that slander to the plaintiff(s).

 

[katy_did]

1) She's not facing charges for slander

Can I refer you to LondonJohn's excellent post above?

2) Are you really suggesting that 'abuses of power by the police' would come to light on the basis of accusations by lone individuals with neither proof or a single shred of evidence? Are you arguing that on that basis police officers should be tried and convicted? That seems to be what you're trying to suggest.

Wow, it's like straw man city! This is what I said:

I think the slander charges against Amanda (and any like them) are something everyone should be concerned about, regardless of their belief in her innocence/guilt. What protection does anyone have against police abuse if all it takes to determine whether it happened is for the police to deny it - and if you can then be charged with an offence possibly resulting in six years jail simply for making the allegation in the first place? In a situation like that, how could police abuse of power ever come to light?

I'm a little amazed (though not really) that anyone can be defending this. It goes way, way beyond this particular case. Anyone supporting these charges against Knox is supporting a situation in which the word of the police is always believed over that of a suspect, and in which the only way physical (or any other) abuse of a suspect by the police is acknowledged to have happened is if the police openly admit it.

Maybe you could highlight the bit where I suggest that police officers should be tried and convicted on the basis of accusations by individuals for which there exists not a shred of evidence?

 

[Bruce Fischer]

By the way, I think that there's an odd and unnecessary war of correction going on at the moment over the use of the words "slander", "criminal slander", "calumny" and even "calunnia". Ever since some people had it explained to them what Knox was charged with by Lumumba and by the police (and that explanation took place very recently....), the constant rush to correction seems to have been used to demonstrate some form of higher knowledge.

I might be wrong, but I think that everyone who posts on here with any regularity realises the difference between a) falsely accusing someone of cheating on his wife and b) falsely accusing someone of a serious criminal offence. The fact is however, they are both slander (or libel, if written). But one of them has potential criminal consequences and the other does not (unless we're talking about Sharia law.....).

If everyone who writes "slander" in relation to either the AK/Lumumba case or the AK/police case is going to get corrected each and every time, then it's going to raise pettiness to new levels. After all, we can all write "jury" as shorthand for "judicial panel consisting of two judges and six temporary lay judges who are selected from members of the public". And so, we can all also write "slander" or "criminal slander" as shorthand for "calunnia", provided we know the level of slander involved, and the potential consequences of that slander to the plaintiff(s).

I agree with you completely. I think this pettiness also distracts us from the truth in this matter. If you call it slander, it sound like they are abusing their power. It sounds ludicrous to charge someone for slander for defending themselves in court. Simply claiming your innocence would be slander by these guidelines. The conviction is your punishment.

So they call it by a name some people aren't familiar with. It sounds more awful. Amanda must be evil. They are charging her with calumny!

And for the record, I don't care what Amanda's parents said to the press, it's absolutely ridiculous that they are facing charges. Their daughter was interrogated without an attorney and it wasn't recorded. If it was, the recordings have been mysteriously lost. Amanda says she was hit on the head. They have no reason not to believe their daughter. Repeating her testimony or describing how they feel the interrogation was carried out is not a sufficient reason to face charges.

 

[HumanityBlues]

Ahhh, so the United States and United Kingdom are third world are they? The last time I checked, perjury was a criminal offence, one for which you go to jail for, in both of those countries.


Let's get it understood what she's facing, here's calunnia as defined by Yummi on PMF:



Clander on PMF adds to it by saying:




And as further refinement from Clander:





Further from Yummi:




And finally from Yummi:




It is a complex crime. It can be seen as: Making false accusations of others of a crime, perjury, contempt, subverting a criminal investigation, wasting police/legal systems time and defamation all rolled into one.


And I see nothing 'third world' about it. Neither do I understand the whinging. Regarding her accusations against the police officers, she hasn't even been charged with Calunnia, let alone convicted of it.


And I might also add, 'IF' it were ever to happen that Amanda had her verdict overturned and she was found innocent, she could conceivably have Rudy charged with calunnia for accusing her of being at the cottage on the night of the murder and involved in the crime.

Yet here she is facing 5-6 more years for saying the police hit her, even after she's already been convicted of murder=third worldly.

I have plenty of information on Italian defamation laws.

The Italian Criminal Code contains four offenses dealing with defamation:
. Calumny (falsely accusing another person of committing a crime)
. Libel (making a statement that damages someone else's reputation; the crime of libel attaches only if the victim is absent when the statement is made)
. Injurious affront or assault (impugning someone's honor or dignity in his or her presence)
. Discredit of public institutions (defaming the Italian Republic, Parliament, the Government, or the Constitutional Court)

The perjury/defamation distinction that people are making is quite desperate as they are two completely different crimes. If you have a problem with criminalizing perjury, by all means argue that position. It doesn't make Italy's criminal defamation laws any less archaic. And let's look how ridiculously its applied in this case as well. Even many of Knox's most fanatical detractors are going to see these criminal defamation charges as quite ridiculous with respect to her testimony about her police. More so for her parents being charged, which is even more ludicrous and beyond the pale. That is just plain and petty harrassment.

To LondonJohn: Italy does not have the same distinctions between written and oral defamation that other common law countries do.

 

[stilicho]

Yet here she is facing 5-6 more years for saying the police hit her, even after she's already been convicted of murder=third worldly

...

Even many of Knox's most fanatical detractors are going to see these criminal defamation charges as quite ridiculous with respect to her testimony about her police. More so for her parents being charged, which is even more ludicrous and beyond the pale. That is just plain and petty harrassment.

It looks like it's a cudgel used to properly punish those who got off lightly during sentencing. As for "archaic", one could argue that laws and constitutional rights are "archaic" by definition since they are normally amended or clarified through precedence. Maybe the Knox case will be that precedent. Who knows?

I think that, if the verdict is guilty and an extra six years are tacked on to her jail time, there will be enormous relief in Italy that they have that kind of law to help protect the public. On the flip side, working through political channels, urging reform of such "archaic" laws might give the FOA something constructive to do for the next decade or so while they await Knox' release from jail.

@Bruce Fisher: Amanda says she was hit on the head.

Amanda said a lot of things unsupported by the evidence. She would be more credible if she remembered important details about the night of the crime and the following morning.

 

[katy_did]

A little off the topic at hand, but there was an interesting article posted by 'Michael' over at PMF recently, about Luciano Aviello's claims his brother killed Meredith. I'm less interested in that since it sounds like a load of garbage, though I've posted the whole thing here anyway. But there was a detail in the article that confirms something that's been discussed before on the thread: the cottage front door needed to be locked and unlocked with a key, even from inside. Therefore if Rudy acted alone, or with anyone other than a resident, he would have needed to take Meredith's keys in order to unlock the front door and get out of the house. I would argue this in itself makes his motive for taking Meredith's keys far stronger than any motive Knox and Sollecito may have had. Taking Meredith's keys wouldn't just have been a random choice for him; it would have been absolutely necessary. The Italian article:

"Knox, Sollecito e Guede innocenti. Lui aveva chiavi e coltello"

Roma, 8 giu. (Apcom) - In un interrogatorio videoregistrato il 31 marzo scorso, Luciano Aviello, 41 anni, collaboratore di giustizia, ha raccontato agli avvocati di Amanda Knox la sua verità sull'omicidio di Meredith Kercher. Scagionando Rudy Guede (condannato a 16 anni), Raffaele Sollecito (condannato a 25) e Amanda Knox (a 26) e puntando il dito contro suo fratello Antonio Aviello. Sarebbe stato Antonio ad uccidere Mez in via Della Pergola la sera del 1° novembre 2007. Lo rivela il settimanale Oggi, in edicola da domani. "A uccidere Meredith la sera dell'1 novembre 2007 è stato mio fratello. Amanda, Raffaele e Guede sono innocenti. Lo so perché è stato mio fratello a confessarmi l'omicidio e a consegnarmi il coltello ancora sporco di sangue e un mazzo di chiavi. Li ho nascosti sotto un muretto, dietro casa mia, coprendoli con terra, gesso e calce. Se il Tribunale di Perugia si deciderà ad ascoltarmi, sono in grado di far ritrovare l'arma del delitto e quelle chiavi". Aviello, 41 anni, collaboratore di giustizia con un passato tumultuoso (17 anni di carcere alle spalle per reati di camorra, e altri ancora da scontare), ha scritto tre volte al presidente della Corte d'Assise di Perugia che non ha però mai accettato la sua testimonianza. I difensori di Amanda hanno quindi chiesto che Aviello venga ascoltato nel processo di secondo grado. Anche perché dalle sue rivelazioni, spiega Oggi, emerge un particolare inedito e di grande importanza: un mazzo di chiavi. Nessuno ne aveva mai parlato. Ma le chiavi di casa in uso a Meredith non sono mai state ritrovate. Per entrare e uscire dalla casa, le chiavi erano necessarie: la serratura a scatto era difettosa, per aprire o chiudere era sempre necessario un giro di chiavi. Se gli assassini non fossero Amanda e Raffaele, come sostiene Aviello, chi penetrò nella casa di via della Pergola quella sera fu costretto a impossessarsi delle chiavi della vittima per scappare. Altrimenti sarebbe rimasto chiuso dentro. È il mazzo di Meredith quello che Aviello dice di aver nascosto sotto un muretto? Lo accerteranno forse i giudici, in autunno, nel processo d'Appello.

And a rough translation of the above. Not sure what an 'associate justice' is, unless it's politically correct speak for 'jail bird'.

"Knox, Sollecito and Guede are innocent. He had the keys and the knife"

Rome, June 8 (AP) - In a videotaped interview on March 31 this year, Luciano Aviello, 41, associate justice, told lawyers for Amanda Knox the truth about the murder of Meredith Kercher. He exonerates Rudy Guede (sentenced to 16 years), Raffaele Sollecito (condemned to 25) and Amanda Knox (26) and points the finger at his brother Antonio Aviello. He stated that Antonio killed Mez in Via della Pergola on the night of 1 November 2007. This was revealed by the weekly magazine Oggi, on newsstands tomorrow. "My brother killed Meredith on the evening of 1 November 2007. Amanda, Guede and Raffaele are innocent. I know because my brother confessed the murder to me and brought the knife still covered with blood and a bunch of keys. I've hidden them under a wall behind my house, covering them with earth and lime plaster. If the court in Perugia will decide to listen, they will be able to find the murder weapon and those keys. Aviello, 41, associate justice with a tumultuous past (17 years in prison for Mafia crimes, and others still to be served), wrote three times to the President of the Court of Assizes of Perugia which has never accepted his testimony. Amanda's defence then asked that Aviello is heard in the appeals process. Also because from his revelations, explained Oggi, emerged an unpublished particular of great importance: a bunch of keys. No one has ever spoken of these. But the house keys in use by Meredith have never been found. To enter and exit the house, the keys were necessary: as the latch lock was faulty, to open or close the door it was necessary to turn the key. If the murderers were not Amanda and Raffaele, as Aviello claimed, whoever entered the house on Via della Pergola that evening would have been forced to take the victim's keys in order to escape. Otherwise he would have remained locked inside. Is it Meredith's bunch of keys that Aviello says are hidden under a wall? Perhaps this will be verified by the judges, in the autumn, during the appeals process.

 

[Bob001]

Oh and, talking of crooked judges who abuse their offices, which seems to be a popular theme here on this thread: King County judge accused of violating judicial code in support of Amanda Knox

I think most reasonable people would agree that this judge was way out of line, especially since he was apparently writing letters on his official stationary. And I doubt that Italian judges would have looked kindly on such letters, any more than an American judge would want to hear from judges in Italy. He deserves to be sanctioned.

But the story does raise an interesting question. Apparently the judge urged a change of venue for the Knox trial. That seems like something that should have been considered, and is fairly routine for controversial trials in the U.S. If the Knox trial had been held in another city, with judges and jurors who had no connection to the Perugia prosecutor and who hadn't been horrified by a terrible crime in their own town, some of us who think Knox was railroaded might have more confidence in the validity of a guilty verdict. How hard is it to get a change of venue in Italian courts?

 

[christianahannah]

I think Chris Mellas said the policewoman who hit Amanda was the one on the right in this picture. Wouldn't have thought there were too many women meeting the description Amanda gave who were there that night!

I'm guessing Amanda's reluctance to name her was either that, well, she didn't know her name, or that she was reluctant to make the allegation more specific, given the risk of more slander charges.

Amanda will have to not be reluctant to name (or identify her by sight) the woman who hit her. If what Amanda says is true her defense attorneys have evidence in which to help her, starting with Amanda's November 6 memorandum where she first states she was hit. Amanda writing early of the hit lends some credence that it might be true.

 

[Bob001]

"Knox, Sollecito and Guede are innocent. He had the keys and the knife"

Rome, June 8 (AP) - In a videotaped interview on March 31 this year, Luciano Aviello, 41, associate justice, told lawyers for Amanda Knox the truth about the murder of Meredith Kercher. He exonerates Rudy Guede (sentenced to 16 years), Raffaele Sollecito (condemned to 25) and Amanda Knox (26) and points the finger at his brother Antonio Aviello. He stated that Antonio killed Mez in Via della Pergola on the night of 1 November 2007. This was revealed by the weekly magazine Oggi, on newsstands tomorrow. "My brother killed Meredith on the evening of 1 November 2007. Amanda, Guede and Raffaele are innocent. I know because my brother confessed the murder to me and brought the knife still covered with blood and a bunch of keys. I've hidden them under a wall behind my house, covering them with earth and lime plaster. If the court in Perugia will decide to listen, they will be able to find the murder weapon and those keys. Aviello, 41, associate justice with a tumultuous past (17 years in prison for Mafia crimes, and others still to be served), wrote three times to the President of the Court of Assizes of Perugia which has never accepted his testimony. . .

Holy crap, the knife and keys are either under the wall or they're not. Why wouldn't the cops go look?