Sorry, this entry is only available in Italiano.
I will try to explain better my system (the italian juridical system in few words) … If you don’t understand, please ask me any question.
During the second site inspection, the police has brought out with Luminol some barefoot prints only in the hallway between Meredith’s and Amanda’s rooms and in Amanda’s room.
All these prints have been tested by the local C.S.I. team to verify if these prints had been left after stepping over the victim’s blood. The tetramethylbenzidine tests effected in the laboratories of the C.S.I. Rome, gave a negative result, as also testified by WPF (work in progress files), normally filed in Court. The First Grade Court did not sentence anything different than this.
The Second Grade Court adfirms that these footprints were not left with the blood and stating also that the tetramethylbenzidine test is so sensible that a minimal qualtity of blood – like 5 red blood cells – is sufficient to get a positive result.
Nothing different from the First Grade verdict is reported in the appeal by the Attorney General where also no mention is made of any footprints left with the victim’s blood.
The Supreme Court instead, goes way beyond the First Grade verdict and the appeal from the Attorney General of Perugia and against the verdict of the judges of the Second Grade Court of Perugia stating clearly that the footprints are blood prints and that the blood of these prints was Meredith’s blood.
Therefore, the Supreme Cout goes deep into the case on the evidence (which they cannot because not entitled by the law), steps over the evaluations made and decisions taken by the only judges that were entitled by law to evaluate the case; all this without reading any files or paperwork related to the case inviting the Appeal Cort of Firenze to convict Amanda.
These are the horrible and obsene consequencies when a high and irrevocable Supreme Court does not stick with the only duty required by law to express only a verdict of Legitimacy.
“When I use a word,’ Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, ‘it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.” – Lewis Carroll
Stefanoni: Here are the DNA results. I believe that they show that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade of the knife that was taken from Raffaele’s apartment and Amanda’s DNA was on the handle. The bra-clasp that was recovered from the floor of Meredith’s room 46 days after the murder, which had been kicked around, picked up, passed around, replaced on the floor and picked up again, contained a partial DNA profile that we believe might be consistent with Raffaele (and also possibly with millions of other people). There is also evidence of DNA profiles of other unidentified males. We used ‘low copy number’ technology to obtain these results (although our lab is not accredited with having the correct procedures and equipment for this type of work) and we used all the samples up so there is no control and we will never be able to repeat these tests. This does not matter because we are experts.
Defence counsel: Please may we see the computer records and reports of your procedures?
Stefanoni: There is no need for me to give you any more information. I am an expert so you should trust my results.
Three years later
Defence counsel: Please may we see the computer records and reports of your procedures?
Stefanoni: No – you do not need any more information. I am an expert. You should accept my results.
New Scientist: International DNA experts state that the DNA samples that Stefanoni claims are proof of Knox and Sollecito’s involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher are too low to prove anything and that she was not working in a lab that is capable of providing the low level detail that she has claimed.
Judge Hellmann: Please let the defence lawyers and the independent DNA experts that I have appointed see your workings.
Stefanoni: No – they do not need any more information. I am an expert. You should accept my results.
Two months later
Judge Hellmann: Please let the defence lawyers and the independent experts see your workings.
Stefanoni: Oh, all right then. You can have some of the information, but not all of it.
Independent DNA Experts: These results are an unreliable heap of doo doo and there is no way we can replicate any of the tests because you used up all the samples the first time round. The bra clasp was not kept properly and is now rusty. It was kicked around the floor for 46 days and the crime scene was not properly secured so we have no idea how many people visited, who they were, or what else they did. We have all seen video evidence that the clip was picked up by people with dirty gloves, passed from one person to another and then dropped on the floor and picked up again. In these circumstances it is impossible to exclude contamination especially when attempting to use low copy number technology. In any case the profile that was claimed to match Raffaele would also match about half of the men in Italy including his honour Judge Hellmann and nobody from the prosecution has been able to explain how Sollecito’s DNA is supposed to have got on the clasp but none of his DNA was found anywhere else on the bra. This item of evidence should be dismissed because of contamination.
The knife was never collected and stored properly. The lab is not equipped for low copy number DNA work and the staff are not qualified to attempt this kind of work anyway. If you think ignoring machine controls and carrying on when you see the message ‘too low’ is groundbreaking science you are very much mistaken. The only thing we can say is that the substance found on the knife is consistent with bread starch (it was a bread knife, no?), the knife was never cleaned with bleach and there was never any blood on it. Will that do? Can we go home now?
Judge Hellmann: Not guilty.
Eighteen months later
Italian Supreme Court: Knox and Sollecito must be declared guilty in another trial. The prosecution does not have to prove anything. What do you think this is, a criminal trial with a requirement for proof beyond reasonable doubt? Hogwash!! This is Italy. We are not restricted by legal niceties here. We know what we want and we want Knox and Sollecito back in jail. It is that simple. If we say there was no contamination, then there was no contamination. Is that clear? The defence must prove that contamination has occurred otherwise the results stand and they cannot do this. We have already decided. We will not allow anyone to infer that Stefanoni is anything other than a world class scientist who should be awarded the Nobel Prize for services to Criminology. We have a record to defend. Italy is not the most ruled against country by the European Court of Human Rights in all of Western Europe for nothing. Read out the motivation!
The reasoning of the judgment, settled on the evaluations of experts, would be this: even if one wants to share the findings of the forensic attribution of DNA extracted from the two objects (knife and hook), it cannot be excluded that the DNA was placed not by contact, but by contamination, arising in any of the stages in the examination by the reporting laboratory.
The non-exclusion of certain events is not the same as their successful verification, and here we see the nth logical flaw, where the Court although they cannot actually affirm the contamination occurred, assumes such a contamination invalidates results of genetic testing carried out in the course of the investigation, adding that the onus of proof falls on the prosecutor, who has to provide the impossible positive proof of its non-occurrence.
Whereas Prof. Novelli warned that it is not enough to say that the result arises from contamination, but its origin must be shown. The error of reasoning should be clear where the burden of proof is upon he who alleges it, not on the one who denies it: if the refutation of scientific proof concerns a factual situation such as contamination of a specimen, that fact must be specifically proven. Nothing was said in the judgment about how the DNA found on the knife blade and the DNA of Sollecito on the bra hook worn by Meredith could have resulted from contamination, considering the interval between which the two tests were made in the laboratory. Not only that, but it was said that there were no negative controls of contamination run by the forensic biologist and geneticist, while in contrast it turned out they had been carried out by the experts, nor were the experts able to indicate any specific source of contamination, confining themselves to saying that anything could happen. Moreover the same experts have instead shared the findings that led to identify the trace of Knox on the same knife that bore the traces of the victim, provided that if the error is suitable to invalidate the results of the analysis, everything is swept away regardless.
The Daily Fail: Foxy Knoxy in retrial shock. She did it all right. We always said she did. We published the verdict Judge Hellmann did not dare deliver. We even use a journalist called Nick Pisa and they don’t come any more Italian than that.
According to Nina Burliegh, author of A Fatal Gift of Beauty: The Trials of Amanda Knox, Rudy Hermann Guede was born on Christmas Eve, 1985 in Agou, a town on the Ivory Coast of Africa near the city of Abidjan. His father, Roger Guede, was from the Bete clan, a Christian tribe on the Ivory Coast where the culture is strongly divided between Christian and Muslim. Although a Cristian, Roger Guede was a practicing polygamist and Rudy has a half brother remaining in Agou, born within weeks of Rudy’s own birth.
Rudy’s mother seems not to have been maternal. Rudy was sent as an infant to live with his father’s sister, Georgette, who was his only real parent. Rudy’s mother never had any other children and makes her living today as a novelty merchant in an Abidjan bizarre.
The Ivory Coast is a French speaking area of Africa, so Rudy was raised until he was 5, speaking French and patois.
Roger Guede’s father was a ranking officer in the Ivory Coast military. Roger had a talent for numbers and was training in a college for mathematics when his father died suddenly. After his father’s death, there were not sufficient funds for Roger to continue his education. He was bitterly disappointed and came to believe if he could immigrate to Russia he would be able to complete his degree with government assistance from that country. He was not, however, able to secure a Russian visa.
Someone advised him that a Russian visa might be easier to obtain if he fist immigrated to Italy. Roger arrived in Italy in November of 1987, but quickly realized that he would not be allowed to go to Russia. Roger enrolled in a school for masonry, became a stone mason and brick layer and has made a good living at these trades for 20 years. He owns several houses and real estate on the Ivory Coast paid for with the money he earns at his trade in Italy.
Roger brought Rudy to live in Perugia in 1990, when Rudy was 5. He apparently had little interest in the child. Rudy’s teacher, Ivana Tiberi, noticed that the little boy came to school in winter dressed in only a tee shirt and shorts. Mrs. Tiberi, on meeting Roger Guede, decided that he was too immature to take care of a child and organized teachers and parents to take turns caring for Rudy after school until his father finished work. They also purchased clothes for the boy, especially his all-important suit for First Communion. Mrs. Tiberi’s son, Gabriel, ten years older than Rudy, was like a brother to him and apparently cared deeply about him. He says of Rudy today, that he had many friends and many people loved him. He sites that Rudy was polite, never expressed anger, was melancholic and non-violent.
These people who loved him, however, apparently did not include his father. Roger punished Rudy by locking him out of the house. The child could frequently be seen wandering the streets of Perugia late at night. Rudy has also accused his father of physical abuse, beating him with a stick for example. At the time of Rudy’s arrest for the Kercher murder, his jailers were instructed to deny his father any access to him.
Rudy found substitute father figures in the priest who officiated at his First Communion, and several basketball coaches who recognized innate talent for that sport in the child.
In 1997, at age 12, Rudy returned to Abidjan to vacation with his mother. Whatever occurred during that trip, Rudy afterwards refused to ever go back.
In 2004, Roger returned to the Ivory Coast for a brief vacation, and lost his passport. He became entangled in a Muslim uprising against Christians, narrowly avoided execution, and was unable to return to Italy for 7 months.
During this time, Rudy was supposed to be living in Italy with Roger’s common-law wife but the two did not like each other. The wife had several small children of her own and had little time for an uncooperative teenager. Rudy was enrolled in a vocational high school for the hotel industry. He stopped coming home at night and he stopped going to school.
There’s no suggestion what Rudy was doing at this time or who he was with when he left home. Once again Ivana Tiberi stepped in to help him. She introduced Rudy to Paolo Barbini, coach of Perugia’s semipro basketball team. Rudy became a valuable asset to the team. From his jail cell he wrote this letter to Barbini which Ms. Burleigh uses as a chapter introduction:
“What can I say of the games we won and lost together? It was great when we went to the away games in the Mitico minibus. There was laughter on board with Segoloni, who called me “Little Chocolate.” God. What beautiful moments… I remember also from that time that I knew that little all-black dog that you found abandoned and took to your house and that often I took him for a walk… What can I say, Paolo? It would be a lot to remember, but these pages wouldn’t be enough… I thank you, Paolo, your Wife and Son… Your Son Francesco (THE BROTHER I WOULD HAVE WANTED TO HAVE). And that little black dog.”
Through his work on the basketball team Rudy became friends with the son of wealthy entrepreneur, Paolo Caporali, owner of the Liomatic Vending Company, a company that made and maintained vending machines primarily for coffee. Caporali was the wealthiest person in Perugia and Liomatic owned the basketball team, and the gym in which they played and practiced. Rudy became friends with the children, who, after becoming familiar with Rudy’s circumstances, petitioned their father to adopt Rudy until he turned 18. Rudy was 16 at this time.
Iliana Caporali was Rudy Guede’s adopted sister for 3 years. She remembers him as a sweet, shy boy who was afraid of the dark. She says he was affectionate, loved dogs, and tended to be absent minded.
Paolo Caporali apparently treated Rudy just like a member of the family. He learned to live in the best society and became used to comfortable and beautiful things. He was sent by chauffeur driven car to a school for mathematics, but when he didn’t do well, he lied about it. Caporali hired a tutor to help him get through, but the tutor called to inform Caporali that Rudy was not coming to their meetings.
As academics was apparently not Rudy’s forte, Caporali got the boy, nearly 18 now, a job as a gardener, but Rudy wouldn’t go to work either. He always arrived late and lied about what he’d been doing. Iliana Caporali observed that he appeared not to know right from wrong.
When Rudy was 18, Caporali dismissed him from the home and refused to allow him back.
Rudy moved to Milan where his aunt, Georgette, had immigrated. She was married to a man named Vincent who apparently liked Rudy and developed a good relationship with him throughout the winter and spring of 2007. Rudy took a job in a café and was very proud of his uniform. He started dating an Italian girl. One night at a night club, he had his photograph taken with Giorgio Armani, the men’s clothing designer. He was very proud of this photo, too, and was seen to use it as the desktop photo on his computer.
In the spring of 2007, however, he lost his café job and drifted back to Perugia.
With the help of Mrs. Caporali, who still held affection for him, he managed to rent a student apartment on via Canarino off Corso Garibaldi. There is no indication of what he did for a living at this time. He started to inject himself into the student life of the town and he sometimes passed himself off to European students who did not speak English well, as an American, Kevin Wade.
Rudy played basketball at the Piazza Grimana basketball court right across the street from 7 via Della Pergola, where he was known to all of the other basketball players, but none knew his real name. Some called him, Body Roga, after the Serbian basketball star, Deja Bodiroga, but most called him The Baron, because they found it difficult to say the name Byron. Guede styled himself after NBA star, Byron Scott.
He developed a relationship with an American student, Victor Oleinikov, who happened to be from Seattle. Many Seattle students come to Perugia to complete their language requirements, because Seattle is said to be Perugia’s “sister city.” Although Oleinikov found Rudy to be eccentric and weird, the two formed a strong friendship and spent many evenings together in Perugia’s bars and clubs. Rudy told Oleinikov that his father was a computer programmer in Florence who gave him a weekly allowance. Oleinikov, himself, was living on money from his parents in Seattle. He says that Rudy never once asked him for any money.
Oleinikov remarked that Rudy was a particularly fine dancer and had no difficulty finding girls who wanted to dance with him. Oleinikov says that news reports stating that Rudy was creepy are completely inaccurate. One night when they went to the club Domus, however, the bouncer inexplicably refused to allow Rudy entrance. Rudy accused the management of racism, but as it turns out, there were many things about his new friend Victor Oleinikov did not learn at that time.
Rudy never wanted to go home and was always happy to sleep on the floor of the apartment Victor shared with roommates. This only became a problem when Rudy started displaying very strange sleeping disorders. His eyes were normally droopy and during these attacks one couldn’t tell if he was awake or asleep. Rudy would rise in the middle of the night and, using a dresser as a black board, teach a lesson as though he was a professor, moving seamlessly between Italian and English. The students found this particularly unsettling. When he awoke in the morning he had no memory of the event. He told his friends that at home he had to hide his keys from himself because he tended to get up in this state and wander the streets, only to awaken miles from his home.
He also had periods of crawling on the floor and barking like a dog.
After his arrest, these behaviors were classified as psychogenic dissociative state or Fugue State, often associated with multiple personality disorder and nearly always the result of childhood sexual and physical abuse.
Oleinikov also says that Rudy was a light weight drug user, becoming incapacitated on even small amounts of hash. He observed Rudy on many occasions falling asleep while sitting on the toilet listening to his iPod. He said Rudy expressed a deathly fear of drug dealers who transacted business on the church steps. He often cited fear of drug dealers as a reason to stay at the students’ apartment rather than walk home to his own. Eventually the sleep walking episodes became too frequent and intrusive and the students ejected him. Oleinikov returned to Seattle shortly after this event.
Although Rudy never asked Oleinikov to borrow money, he did try to borrow ten euro from another student, two days before Meredith Kercher’s murder.
Rudy also developed a friendship with the Italian men who lived downstairs from Amanda Knox and Meredith Kercher. None of them seem to have known his real name and after the murder they all tried to distance themselves from introducing him to the house. Rudy, himself, spoke about meeting Amanda Knox for the first time and fantasizing about her with the other men who lived in the house. On meeting Meredith Kercher, which he did at a small gathering in the downstairs apartment, he was equally attracted to her.
Throughout the fall of 2007, a number of events figure into stress factors for Rudy Guede.
On September 27, bartender, Christian Tremontano, was awakened in the middle of the night by sounds of someone in his apartment. On coming downstairs, Tremontano discovered a young black man whom he later learned was Rudy Guede, going through his possessions. Being confronted, Rudy first grabbed a chair to fend Tremontano off, as a lion tamer might, then pulled a pocket knife on the man and managed to get out the door. Tremontano reported the break in to police officer, Monica Napoleoni who asked him to come in to file an official complaint. When Tremontano arrived at the police station, the line was too long and he gave up the idea. He had not been injured and nothing was stolen.
One night Tremontano recognized Rudy at the Domus Disco and had him removed by the bouncers. He also kicked him out of the bar, Merlin, where Tremontano, himself, worked.
Around this same time up in Milan, a nursery school owner named Maria Del Prato came into her school on a Monday morning to allow plumbers to complete some work. She found the kitchen to be a total mess. Someone had prepared a vast quantity of food, pasta and frozen spinach, and left the debris all over the room, in the sink, all over the tables. Also the pallets where the children take their naps were disarrayed and obviously had been slept on. She was also missing 2000 euro, the tuition she’d accepted from parents the previous Friday.
On October 13, the law offices of Paolo Brocchi on via Del Roscetti in Perugia, was broken into from the back yard. The alarm had been disabled and then a window broken with a rock to allow thieves entry. The perpetrator turned up the heat so that the office was stifling. They removed the shards of broken glass from the window, carried them into another room, and arranged them neatly on a desk. They drank a Fanta soft drink from the refrigerator, 3 coats were strewn on the floor. Stolen from the office were a laptop computer, cell phones, USB sticks, and a printer.
On October 23, Maria Mandu Diaz, who lived next door to Rudy, was attending Vendemmia, the grape harvest festival, when police arrived to inform her that her home in Perugia had been badly damaged by fire and her cat had been killed in the blaze. Thieves entered the home through window and started the fire on the 3rd floor by throwing a scarf over a lamp. They cooked a meal and tossed food all around the kitchen. They left the stove on and the refrigerator open. A fireman commented to her: “Loro hanno gozzovigliato,” they feasted here.
The cat had died as a result of the thieves leaving the pantry door open and closing off his retreat.
Ms. Mandu-Diaz also had her jewel box looted. She was most distressed by the loss of her mother’s gold watch which was irreplaceable.
Ms. Mandu-Diaz knew Rudy casually because when walking her dog, Rudy was often outside his apartment, trying to get a cell signal. She noted he was friendly and petted her dog.
Back in Milan on October 27, Maria Del Prato walked into her office in her nursery school to find a young black man unhooking the cable to her computer in order to plug it into his laptop. This was Rudy Guede and Ms. Del Prato said he was very relaxed. He advised her not to worry. He hadn’t taken anything.
Ms. Del Prato immediately called the police to whom Rudy gave a story about being told he could purchase lodging there for fifty euro. The police went through his back pack and found, along with a large kitchen knife he’d taken from the nursery school kitchen, a laptop and cell phone and a woman’s gold watch. The laptop was identified as belonging to the law firm of Paolo Brocchi that was recently burglarized. Rudy told police he’d bought the laptop from a man at the Milan train station.
The Milan police wanted to hold Rudy but the prosecutor said he had more important cases and that Rudy was Perugia’s problem. They sent him back to Perugia.
On Monday morning, Rudy presented himself at the law offices of Paolo Brocchi to apologize for having their laptop. Once again he told the story about the man at the Milan train station.
On October 31st, Rudy dressed as a vampire and went dancing with the young women who lived downstairs from him. If anyone saw him with Meredith Kercher that night, as he maintains, they have yet to come forward. In 24 hours Meredith Kercher would be dead, Rudy’s DNA in her body and his bloody handprint on her pillow.
Supreme Court Report – Considerations
The judgment of the Supreme Court is final. If the judges of the Supreme Court want to be fair, they must issue judgments that are intelligent and detailed.
In our case, what the judges have written contains numerous errors — or what might be referred to more precisely as numerous “horrors.”
The judges’ report seems to suggest that in a criminal trial in Italy the role of the defense is, at best, marginal. In fact, throughout the Supreme Court Report, nothing is said concerning the contributions of the defense in search of the truth in this case. The contributions of the defense consultants have been completely ignored, as if they never existed.
The most obvious “horrors” are:
It is not true, in the case of the bra-clasp DNA, that the designated expert ever claimed that DNA from the crime scene showed a mixed DNA profile specifically of Raffaele Sollecito. The expert said that because it was a mixed sample and not identical with different alleles for each of the 17 profile loci, a DNA profile of anyone could be found in the sample, even that of the President of the Court, if it were available for comparison.
It is not true that in the sample there was a Y chromosome that corresponded only to Raffaele Sollecito. At least two other Y chromosomes were found, but it was not possible to identify them because there were no available profiles for comparison. Neither of the two corresponded to those of the convicted murderer, Rudy Guede. Hence, the other 2 contributors are still unknown.
It is not true, in the case of the knife DNA, that the trace of DNA isolated by the Office of Experts was located close to the point where the biologists of the Scientific Police had found small traces of DNA, which they then attributed to the victim, Meredith Kercher. This sample was in fact in the graft of the blade into the handle, the area where organic and inorganic materials are most likely to be found, and from which the Scientific Police inexplicably had not done any sampling. This is the reason the Office of Inspectors asked to disassemble the knife, a request that was denied by the Court of Appeals, possibly because of the firm and seemingly unreasonable opposition by the General Prosecutor of Perugia and the Civil Parts.
It is not true that designated expert Professor Carla Vecchiotti decided alone and as an individual not to comply with the instructions of the Court of Appeal by not proceeding with the analysis of this trace of possible DNA. Dr. Vecchiotti, in a meeting with all of the official consultants of all parties, including Professor Giuseppe Novelli and Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, clearly expressed her intention not to proceed with the analysis. Vecchiotti’s reasons included the inability to carry out a second amplification of the sample based on its extremely small size and limited quantity. On the occasion of the meeting, all parties agreed with the Appeal Court’s Expert, and put their signatures on the analysis document with no further objections.
It is not true that the house where the crime was committed remained protected by police seals between the first visit and the visit when the bra clasp was allegedly acquired. On the contrary, in the 46 days following the discovery of the crime, at least three different searches were conducted, one of which was not even documented by police. Hence, no one can know who or how many people may have entered the house over the course of the 46-day interval. During this time, the contents of the house were moved and removed to the extent that the bra clasp eventually was found in a location entirely different from where it had been photographed immediately after the crime. As the bra clasp allegedly was found the second time in a floor mat that was balled up under the murder victim’s desk, it is reasonable to conclude that during the 46 days, it had been moved around the house many times, perhaps even under the feet of the people who participated in the searches.
It is not true, in the case of the broken window, that the fragments of glass in Filomena Romanelli’s room were on top the clothing that lay on the floor. Rather, all fragments of glass were on the floor, on a mat next to the bed and next to the clothing, as evidenced by the numerous photos and videos made by the Scientific Police in Rome during the first day of the first inspection, before there was any alteration of the crime scene.
It is not true that convicted killer Rudy Guede had no wounds on his right hand. Photographs taken by German police shortly after Guede’s arrest in Germany a week after the crime show superficial wounds in the process of healing, on the palmar surface of Guede’s fingers.
It is not true that on the morning of November 2nd Amanda made a single call to only one of the two cell phones in use by Meredith (as stated by the Court of 1st degree), allegedly in order to make sure that no one had yet found the phone. As shown instead in Amanda’s phone records, Amanda made an initial call to Meredith’s Italian SIM (registered to Filomena Romanelli) at exactly 12:11:02. Amanda then made a second call to Meredith’s English SIM, the phone Meredith used to call her parents, whose number was saved with the label HOME. The second call was made at exactly 12:11:54, showing that Amanda called Meredith on both of her mobile phones in the hope of contacting her.
It is not true, as stated on page 70 of the judgment of the Supreme Court, that the prints of bare feet enhanced with luminol in the corridor and in Amanda’s room were made with the victim’s blood. Luminol enhances traces of many substances in addition to blood. All of the tests done to highlight blood in those tracks were negative. The footprints were left with other substances, such as cleaning fluids or as bubble bath, leaving evidence that is harmless and irrelevant in assigning responsibility for the murder to Amanda. Amanda told the Court of First Instance the same thing during her hearing: that the morning of November 2nd she went to her home, took a shower, and that immediately after the shower, she went barefoot into her room, drawing with her the bathmat, which was on the floor outside the shower.
It is not true that the mixture drawn into the bidet in the bathroom of Meredith is taken from the blood, says the Supreme Court ruling, but the report describes the scientific “hypothesis of a mixture of biological substances, containing human blood belonging to Amanda to a lesser extent and Meredith and to a greater extent.” So you cannot say that there is the blood of Amanda.
It is not true that there is “a given assumed real point that only after midnight the phones of the victim were not clinging anymore to the antenna in via della Pergola, but clung to Via Sperandio, where they were eventually found, which meant that from the house of Via della Pergola unknown hands had tossed the phones just after midnight,” as it is written in the first-instance judgment (Massei Report), and subsequently endorsed by the Supreme Court in its judgment, on page 71. In the trial of first instance, Sollecito’s defense carried out an analysis that evaluated both of the two phones in use by Meredith and their phone records, which contain evidence that is objective and irrefutable. The analysis shows that the last action of the two phones, one with an English SIM card and the other with an Italian SIM card, was at 22:13 on November 1st and consisted of an incoming MMS on the English SIM card. Following this contact, which connected with the antenna in Via Sperandio, are two more calls, both made on November 2nd: the first was an incoming call to the Italian SIM card at 12:11:02, and in the direct succession a second call to the English SIM card at 12:11:54. Both of these incoming calls are exactly the two calls that Amanda made on the morning of November 2nd, in the hope of hearing Meredith.
From all what has been expressed here is one question:
HOW WOULD YOU DEFEND AN ITALIAN CITIZEN an accusation in a criminal trial, WRITE OR TELL IF A SERIOUS INACCURACIES THAT HAVE THE DIRECT CONSEQUENCE OF RUIN THE EXISTENCE OF PEOPLE AND THEIR LOVED ONES, ARE NOT OF HABITUAL CRIMINALS THAT AT A CERTAIN POINT ADDRESS THE LEGAL CAPACITY OF EMPLOYEES OF JUSTICE, REGRETTING SINCE, AS HAPPENED IN TORTORA CASE. BUT IS THE SUPREME COURT WHICH JUDGEMENT IS UNAPPEALABLE?