Interesting NYT article on today's events:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/30/world/europe/30knox.html?_r=1
Of perhaps most interest is the last two paragraphs of the article, where an unnamed prosecutor gets to have his/her say:
Let's examine these paragraphs for a second:
"
...just one piece of evidence in the case that they built against them, based on various testimonies...". Now, I'm looking specifically at the "various testimonies" part, and supposing that this is referring chiefly to Curatolo, Quintavalle and Capezzali. So we'll see how these "various testimonies" perform in the appeal.
"
...their lack of an alibi...". This is an astonishing statement for a prosecutor to make. (S)he appears to be asserting that a lack of an alibi can count positively towards proof of guilt!
"
...and what prosecutors say is other damning physical evidence, which has not been reviewed.". This is a classic fallacy -
all the evidence will be reviewed and re-argued in the appeal trial. This phrase is clearly meant to suggest that all the
interpretation of the rest of the evidence stands as in the first trial - but of course that's total nonsense. And, in any case, Hellmann is still at liberty to request additional new evidence and/or testimony.
"
During one interrogation, too, Ms. Knox allowed that she was in the house while Ms. Kercher was murdered, an admission she later retracted.". This is almost totally irrelevant to the trial process. The Italian Supreme Court already ruled (correctly) that Knox's statements from 1.45am and 5.45am were inadmissible against her, owing to her lack of legal counsel and a failure to properly record the statements. All that can be used is the "memoriale" from the following morning, in which Knox clearly retracts any certainty attached to her earlier statements, and exhibits severe confusion.
"“The first jury decided looking at a wide range of evidence, the DNA was only part of it,” said one prosecutor, who was not authorized to speak publicly about the case. “Everything else still stands.”". Well, this one presents a right conundrum. Here's a prosecutor who's apparently not authorised to speak publicly about the case,
speaking publicly about the case! I trust that the lead prosecutor in the appeal trial (Costagliola) will be seeking to find out which of the team disregarded orders not to speak to the media - unless it was him, of course.......
.
