Dear Barbie,

I find that you've done the best job on reporting and offering insights.

Yet, there are ways I can offer constructive criticism.

Again, you enter a line that is very unclear.

If you thought it was worth mentioning, then surely you ought too to provide back-up, a foundation, but you have not, it then comes across as a piece of mystery.

1/ You do know that before reforms and changes to law in Italy, the system was one that did see the state, the judges, and the prosecutors having almighty powers?

2/ The changes brought an end to that and this is why, precisely, the attempts by the defense counsels of Knox and Sollecito have failed miserably, in their undermining of the case.

3/ What the defense counsels as well as Knox and Sollecito's families have been up to is something that does not mirror reality in present day Italian law and justice.

4/ Years ago, the judges and prosecutors even had an own podium that was raised above everyone else.
But Italy today is not Italy yester-day.

5/ The system now reflects the rules set in Italian constitutional cement. The rules that pertain to legislation, the rules as regards the requirements of the EU to qualify for membership thereof, and also to certain requirements agreed upon internationally by many countries that attempt to present their countries as civilized and law-loving-abiding within the global community.

6/ The prosecutor is not allowed to be someplace piling up SECRET evidence for forever and ever.

7/ There are limits to how long things are allowed to take. The prosecutor is not permitted to pile up secret evidence and take as long as he/she wishes while a person rots in jail.

Not allowed to compile evidence that any accused party is unable to defend him or herself against.
(Such a situation is not permitted, is guarded against by the Italian constitution. It is not permitted that a person is not able to mount a proper defense. For instance, through not having sufficient funds to mount a defensive stand- years ago only the rich could afford justice, but as any other developed country, today an Italian citizen is guaranteed legal support whether being a pauper or a pope).

That means, you saying:
"But in Italy, convictions are automatically appealed and those close to this case have suggested they have a good chance at winning an appeal."

What you said is something Eddas Mellas might say.
It is an exercise in hearsay.

It is as though you are acting as an old-school prosecutor, because it is pretty serious to make such a claim but fail to add any factual basis to it.
Who are these people then?

Is it Sollecito's people?
Is it Knox's people?
Are those who are close to the case, friends of yours?
Are these friends, if that is what they are, professional friends, more like colleagues, such as lawyers or court officials?

One thing is certain it is not Meredith Kercher's team that told you such things.

I think the introduction of rumor, speculation and hearsay is not constructive in such a serious matter.

The judge has been clear that the decision yesterday does not mean that the parties are immediately guilty.

What he did not explain, was that by making the decision he and the other 7 judges on the mixed and single panel are of the opinion, that they, unlike the defense teams, do find the prosecution's experts credible.

By deciding the way they did, they have now shown that they are not willing to accept the defendants' defense lines of (un) reasoning, that professionals such as 'Stefanoni' are not trustworthy or skilled.
The judges, carreer and lay persons, respect the prosecution's experts, police and all others involved iuncluding local respectable citizens homeless or not.

The defense made their entries, but besides the entries, they based most of what they did on trying to discredit other experts, other people, in fact they have been the ones who have had nothing, and so all as they have done is try to bring absolutely everyone into disrepute.

This has not been a successful endeavor for the defense teams, a strategy that is so well-worn it is by now and nowadays simply worn out. It is the usual way that lawyers work, such professional judges have seen it all the time. It is simply a 'classical tactic', the undermining of those who are bringing persons accused of crimes to court.

If it has been a success, then the Presiding judge, together with his assistant judge and the six lay-judges, would have agreed to even more experts being brought in.

Knox Evidence Will Stand Alone
by Barbie Latza Nadeau

Info RSS Barbie Latza Nadeau has reported from Italy for Newsweek Magazine since 1997. She also writes for CNN Traveller, Budget Travel Magazine and Frommer's.
X Close

Emails| printtext- Facebook | Twitter | Digg | Enter your email address:
Enter the recipients' email addresses, separated by commas:
Message:
Your email has been sent.Thanks for recommending The Daily Beast!
X Close
Stefano Medici / AP Photo Grim news today for accused murderess Amanda Knox: The Italian judge ruled that damning evidence-including a knife with her DNA on it-cannot be re-analyzed.

American university student Amanda Knox did not get the news she was hoping for today. She and her former boyfriend Rafaelle Sollecito, standing trial for the murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy, were hoping the judge would give them a sign that the prosecution's case against them was flawed. The court met today to hear various requests by the defense lawyers. The most important was a request for an independent analysis of the case's forensic elements that are particularly damning to the defendants-specifically a knife with Knox's DNA on the handle and what the prosecution believes was Kercher's on the blade, and the hook from Kercher's bloodied bra that has Sollecito's DNA on the metal clasp.

But the judge said no, the evidence will stand alone.

The denial of an independent review does not necessarily mean the judge assumes guilt. But it is a clear sign that he wants to wind this trial up as soon as possible. Rudy Guede, an Ivory Coast native who was convicted for his role in Kercher's murder, will begin his appeal on November 18. Testimony from that case has so far had no bearing on this case, even though the two cases are deeply intertwined. Defense lawyers did not show disappointment. "It is positive," said Luca Maori, attorney for Sollecito, who cried in the courtroom upon hearing the news. "It means the judge wants to wrap up this case as soon as possible. It is not necessarily bad news."

When handing down his ruling just before 9:30 p.m., the judge said that his decision was not an indicator of guilt, but that it was the application of Italian law. He said that an independent analysis would not change the facts of the evidence. But Knox's lawyer, Luciano Ghirga, disagreed. "We had made the request to clarify this evidence," he said after the hearing. "But obviously the judge can make his decision without further information."

What this means for Knox and Sollecito is anyone's guess. The two are charged with sexual assault, murder, staging a crime, and theft. Knox is charged additionally with false accusation for accusing Patrick Lumumba of Kercher's murder. They could be convicted of any or all of those crimes. They face life in prison. But in Italy, convictions are automatically appealed and those close to this case have suggested they have a good chance at winning an appeal.

Either way, this was the first real step toward the end of this epic murder mystery. The trial will resume November 20 with closing arguments. The case is expected to go to the two-judge, six-layperson jury on December 4. A verdict could come any time after that.

Barbie Latza Nadeau has reported from Italy for Newsweek since 1997. She also writes for CNN Traveller, Budget Travel, and Frommer's.

For inquiries, please contact The Daily Beast at editorial@thedailybeast.com.



Back to TopOctober 9, 2009 | 5:14pm Facebook|Twitter|Submit| |Emails|print Amanda Knox, Trial, Italy, Murder, Luciano Ghirga, Luca Maori, Rafaelle Sollecito, Rudy Guede, Barbie Latza Nadeau, Perugia
(1) Show Replies Collapse Replies
Sort UpSort Downsort by date: Dochennessy
Dear Barbie,

I find that you've done the best job on reporting and offering insights.

Yet, there are ways I can offer constructive criticism.

Again, you enter a line that is very unclear.

If you thought it was worth mentioning, then surely you ought too to provide back-up, a foundation, but you have not, it then comes across as a piece of mystery.

1/ You do know that before reforms and changes to law in Italy, the system was one that did see the state, the judges, and the prosecutors having almighty powers?

2/ The changes brought an end to that and this is why, precisely, the attempts by the defense counsels of Knox and Sollecito have failed miserably, in their undermining of the case.

3/ What the defense counsels as well as Knox and Sollecito's families have been up to is something that does not mirror reality in present day Italian law and justice.

4/ Years ago, the judges and prosecutors even had an own podium that was raised above everyone else.
But Italy today is not Italy yester-day.

5/ The system now reflects the rules set in Italian constitutional cement. The rules that pertain to legislation, the rules as regards the requirements of the EU to qualify for membership thereof, and also to certain requirements agreed upon internationally by many countries that attempt to present their countries as civilized and law-loving-abiding within the global community.

6/ The prosecutor is not allowed to be someplace piling up SECRET evidence for forever and ever.

7/ There are limits to how long things are allowed to take. The prosecutor is not permitted to pile up secret evidence and take as long as he/she wishes while a person rots in jail.

Not allowed to compile evidence that any accused party is unable to defend him or herself against.
(Such a situation is not permitted, is guarded against by the Italian constitution. It is not permitted that a person is not able to mount a proper defense. For instance, through not having sufficient funds to mount a defensive stand- years ago only the rich could afford justice, but as any other developed country, today an Italian citizen is guaranteed legal support whether being a pauper or a pope).

That means, you saying:
"But in Italy, convictions are automatically appealed and those close to this case have suggested they have a good chance at winning an appeal."

What you said is something Eddas Mellas might say.
It is an exercise in hearsay.

It is as though you are acting as an old-school prosecutor, because it is pretty serious to make such a claim but fail to add any factual basis to it.
Who are these people then?

Is it Sollecito's people?
Is it Knox's people?
Are those who are close to the case, friends of yours?
Are these friends, if that is what they are, professional friends, more like colleagues, such as lawyers or court officials?

One thing is certain it is not Meredith Kercher's team that told you such things.

I think the introduction of rumor, speculation and hearsay is not constructive in such a serious matter.

The judge has been clear that the decision yesterday does not mean that the parties are immediately guilty.

What he did not explain, was that by making the decision he and the other 7 judges on the mixed and single panel are of the opinion, that they, unlike the defense teams, do find the prosecution's experts credible.

By deciding the way they did, they have now shown that they are not willing to accept the defendants' defense lines of (un) reasoning, that professionals such as 'Stefanoni' are not trustworthy or skilled.
The judges, career and lay persons alike, respect the prosecution's experts, police, and all others involved including local, respectable citizens, homeless or not.

The defense made their entries, but besides the entries, they based most of what they did on trying to discredit other experts, other people (citizens, friends of Meredith Kercher, housemates- just absolutely everybody), in fact they have been the ones who have had nothing, and so all as they have done is try to bring absolutely everyone into disrepute.

This has not been a successful endeavor for the defense teams, a strategy that is so well-worn it is by now and nowadays simply worn out.

It is the usual way that lawyers work, such professional judges have seen it all the time. It is simply a 'classical tactic', the undermining of those who are bringing persons accused of crimes to court.

If it had been a success, then the Presiding judge, together with his assistant judge and the six lay-judges, would have agreed to even more experts being brought in.

If Amanda comes back to the states, I'll be shocked! She's guilty in both countries. But I feel sorry for her parents who've spent all their money, (all of their 401Ks) $1 million to date & they won't be able to get that back. If she comes back, there will *always* be a cloud over her.

Amanda let the real *Amanda* out when she thought no one was looking & got caught.

The question is, if found guilty, how long is the sentence? Life? A few years? If it is a few years, how will she come back to the states then???

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.blogspot.com/


Here's a new blog with some photos of what was Sollecito's house, which is just a one minute walk away (or a 15 second run) from where Rudi Guede lived.

Sollecito's house to the murder scene, is by Google Maps calculated as a 6 minute walk, a 3 minute run.

A black male is seen leaving Via Benedetta which is the street opposite the one Guede lived in, on Via Canerino.

The date the male is seen leaving is when the Sollecito apartment had already been put up for sale, because photos showing the apartment was up for sale on the day the Google Earth images were made, is clearly visible, so, if it is Guede in that photo, then he did not leave Perugia immediately after the murder.

He may have left only when he either became scared he would be framed for the lot or that Sollecito and Knox scared him into leaving.

They probably wanted him out of the way, if he was involved with them, then no way did they want him to be caught. They wanted tracks found of a burglar but a burglar that the police could not find. It would never have served their purpose to have Guede caught, he might tell the truth and then they would also be in trouble. They imagined I think that nobody would even suspect them of any foul play, but they had not planned on being caught there at the murder scene alone.

That's why they called Filomena up.

Their bad luck was that the telephones were found and the police arrived before anyone had called them.