HELLMANN AND ZANETTI’S STAR SHINES

Silence, please

Now Helmann and Zanetti speak

IN THEIR OWN WORDS (MORE OR LESS)

The Motivation Document Step by Step

Rudi Guede’s final sentence, which had established that Rudi did the crime in concurrence with other people, doesn’t affect the state of the trial about Knox and Sollecito. Guede was indeed judged in a short track trial which missed large ammounts of information which emerged  afterwards, during the full Knox/Sollecito trial.

The re-examination of the data of the first trial and the new information acquired, don’t confirm  the involvement of other people as necessary. In the first trial the Court simply accepted the whole interpretation of data made by the prosecution, and that affirmed the idea of a collective crime.

But the analysis of the single elements which had created that judgement, brings us to at least doubt the collective scenario. And anyway, even if there was concurrence, Guede’s sentence can’t affirm anything about the responsibility of Knox and Sollecito.

THE MASTERPIECE OF NOVEMBER 6 ACCORDING TO HELLMANN AND ZANETTI

THAT “OBSESSIVE INTERROGATION” CONDUCTED “DAY AND NIGHT” BY “MULTIPLE PEOPLE”

This Court confirms that the “spontaneous” statements [quotation marks are theirs] made by Amanda Knox on the night of November 6 can only be used for the calumny against Lumumba but –having been released in absence of legal defense by a person who was already officially investigated– not for any of the other crimes. By hypothesis only the subsequent memoriale could be used towards the homicide and sexual violence.

The obsessive length of the interrogations –conducted over day and night, by multiple people on a young girl, even foreign, who didn’t speak Italian well, who was deprived of legal assistance, and who was assisted by an interpreter who, instead  that only translating, was leading Knox to remember– makes fully comprehensible that she was under extreme psychological pressure.

Defining that situation stressful appears reductive and makes us doubt that the statements were really spontaneous. To prove that Amanda wasn’t stressed, officers testified that she had been displaying affection with Raffaele and that she has been even performing gymnastics.

 NOT “SPONTANEOUS” AT ALL

In the Hands of the Pack

Such relaxed behavior has not got a particular meaning, but it anyway occurred at the beginning of her staying at the police station, certainly not at the time of the so called “spontaneous” declarations, a spontaneity strangely arrived at 1:45 am and at 5:45 am, in the heart of the night, after hours of interrogation and after some officers convinced her that Raffaele had abandoned her to her own fate, declaring that she might have gone out to commit the crime.

Such behavior only proves that Amanda didn’t have any reason, at the beginning, to be frightened. She entered into a state of oppression and stress only because of how the interrogation was conducted.

 “OPPRESSION”. “STRESS”. “SHOCK”. “FATIGUE”. “TORMENT”. “UNBEARABLE EMOTIVE TENSION”. “CEDED TO THE PRESSURE”

Damn, what was that? A Police Station or a Torture Room?

The statements were made in a situation which for Amanda had become really unbearable. The translator Donnino refers to an emotive shock Amanda suffered when the message to Lumumba was found. Since the latter was not involved in the crime the shock can only come for having at that point reached the peak of the emotive tension. In such context it’s comprehensible that Knox ceded to the pressure and to the fatigue and, in the hope to put an end to that situation, after many hours of what had became a real torment, told the cops what they wanted to hear.

 SHE COULDN’T KNOW HE DIDN’T HAVE AN ALIBI

No Logical Sense in Escaping by Naming Lumumba

Had she really been in the house during the crime she could have admitted it, since it was her house and her presence there was natural. And she would have been more credible in naming the real author of the crime.

But blaming a person completely out of the facts like Lumumba doesn’t make any logical sense since he could have an alibi and she could have been immediately proved wrong. Therefore, Amanda named Lumumba only because in that moment -being those who were interrogating her insisting with that text message– that was the only way to escape the situation in which she was. Therefore, it’s not only, in the homicide, that the “spontaneous” statements can’t be used, but even the subsequent memoriale is deprived of any importance, being the facts there described did not occur. It’s a very confused statement, in which she explains that she is not to be able to remember what they want her to remember. And the only certain affirmation is that she and Raffaele are alien to the crime.

SHE SURVIVED, SO, YES, SHE WAS CONSCIOUS

Thus She Has to Respond of Calumny

But, according to this Court, there aren’t, objectively, relevant elements to maintain that she was in a condition of not understanding and will, therefore, having accused a person she knew to be innocent, of such a grave crime, she must anyway respond of calumny.

The calumny against Lumumba doesn’t prove that she is involved in the murder, as the prosecution maintains. But the fact that she is not involved in the murder and the fact that she knew there weren’t links between Lumumba and Meredith, was making her conscious that she was accusing an innocent, along with the calumny she was committing.

There’s no contradiction, therefore, in her being guilt for calumny but without the aggravating circumstance of having committed it for hiding another crime (art 61 C.P, 2). Due the extenuating circumstances (no record, young age, engagement in school life, etc.) the penalty is reduced to 3 years [the minimum, for calumny versus homicide is 4 years].

IF HE SAYS THAT…

Statements by Rudi Guede

The testimony Rudi Guede released in this trial can’t be considered as an element against the defendants since Guede didn’t say anything concrete in regards to their presumed role in the crime.

While confirming he had written a letter in which he had indicated them as authors of the crime, he repeatedly stressed that it was only his own thought and that it wasn’t his task to say who killed Meredith.

On the contrary, the Skype conversation with his friend Giacomo Benedetti, is undoubtedly an element in favor of the defendants. In that conversation Guede doesn’t indicate at all Knox and Sollecito as authors of the crime, and the circumstance is particularly relevant. He, indeed, is certainly author of that crime (alone or together with others, doesn’t matter) and in that moment was safe, faraway and convinced to be speaking only with his friend.

Therefore, if Knox and Sollecito were involved in the crime, there was not reason for him to say the opposite. Besides that, Guede in that call says he was in the cottage between 9 pm and 9:30 pm, and at that time Knox and Sollecito were for sure in the house of the latter. And Guede didn’t have any reason to move the time of the murder backwards while talking to his friend. Therefore, despite his tendency to lie, there’s no reason why he should have lied in that occasion.

The statements he released during this trial, instead, come from defensive strategies and are also motivated by means of social revenge, therefore are much less credible and, as said above, not usable against the defendants.

THE JAIL CONNECTION

 Alessi, Aviello, Castelluccio, De Cesare, Trincan

They are all not reliable. Aviello because he never provided an objective confirmation, the others because it’s not certain that any of them was close friends of Guede in jail, not at the point of receiving confidences from him about the facts of Via della Pergola. Their testimonies don’t come out as in favor of the defendants. On the other hand, it can’t be assumed, as argued by the prosecution, that they constitute an element against the defendants. It doesn’t matter if they spontaneously proposed themselves to exonerate the defendants or if others have convinced them to do so. What is certain is that the defendants –being in jail– couldn’t have organized such a plot, therefore the unreliability of those witnesses can’t be used as a clue towards the falsity of the alibi the defendants provided.

CURATOLO, THE JESUS OF HEROIN

The presence of Knox and Sollecito in Piazza Grimana between 9:30 and 11:30 of November 1st, affirmed by Curatolo, can’t be used as detector of the fact they provided a false alibi, and from that argue towards their guilt. One can provide a false alibi even if he’s innocent, but fears to be not believed. To condemn someone you need proof along with indications of guilt, as a false alibi could be. But the sole indications of guilt are not sufficient to reach a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt. The presence of Knox and Sollecito in piazza Grimana from 9:30 to 11:30 relies solely on the testimony of Curatolo.

But Curatolo is not reliable at all. First of all because he showed in this court a decay in his cognitive faculties. He didn’t even know for what reason he was in jail, or if his conviction was definitive or not, and, while he tries to cover himself with the image of a Jesus, he admitted to be user and dealer of heroin.

He always linked the presence of the defendants in the square to the buses that were bringing the students to the discotheques. But it has been ascertained that no discotheque buses were running that night. If small discotheques within the historical center were open, as testified by the cop Napoleoni, that has no importance, since those discotheques, being in town, don’t use buses.

Besides that, he remembers the presence of a crowd of young people, many of them wearing masks. We have to conclude that his testimony should be referred to the night of the 31st and not to the one of November 1st.

The fact that Curatolo thinks next day there were the police at the cottage, can’t be taken as a confirmation of his testimony. As even the prosecutor Mignini noted, the perception of the  time, for this witness, is very relative. But, above all, the mental faculties of this witness are not as reliable to make us certain he saw two youth on the night before the crime and that those two youths were Knox and Sollecito.

QUINTAVALLE, THE GENIUS OF MEMORY

The fact that Knox may have gone to purchase something into Quintavalle’s store the morning after the crime, wouldn’t prove her involvement in it. In truth the witness is poorly reliable, especially about the identification of the person as Knox.

This witness, indeed, didn’t refer anything to the police when they went to question him, and at that time the crime was already widely present on the media. He went to the police only after continuous solicitations from an apprentice journalist of Giornale dell’Umbria, declaring to have become convinced, after one year, that the girl who entered that morning was Amanda Knox. But the police went to him right after the arrests [yes, right after the arrests, not right after the crime...].

They showed him the pictures of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito and asked him if they entered the store after the crime and purchased cleaning products [lovely... were they suggesting to people what to remember?]. Besides that, his employees don’t remember anything about that morning. And when, in next days, he started telling them that a girl had come in after the crime he expressed doubts that the girl could be Amanda Knox.

Not only that, he himself states to have looked at the girl not directly and that the girl didn’t buy anything, therefore what happened to the alleged urge to purchase stuff for cleaning the crime scene, so strong that it made her wait for the opening of the store? In conclusion, the deposition of Quintavalle doesn’t appear reliable.

 “OOPS, WE NEED IT AT 11:30 NOW”

The Time of Death

By post mortem data the time of death has a wide range, from 9 pm to the first hours of November 2.

But the Court of first degree established that the death occurred at 11:30 because the witnesses Capezzali and Monacchia heard a scream at that time. In truth Capezzali wasn’t able to give a precise time. This court has no reason to doubt her words but her testimony remains very vague and not decisive.

The deposition of Monacchia, in truth, doesn’t offer any element to indicate that the scream occurred at 11:30, at 11, or even before. There’s no reason to doubt the reliability of this witness, especially because she admitted with full sincerity to have gone to the prosecutor after one year because of being repeatedly pushed to do so by an apprentice journalist (the usual Giornale dell’Umbria apprentice journalist), She just remembers to have been gone to sleep at about 10 and having then being wakened  by a man and a woman discussing in Italian, with no particular accent. In her first deposition she refers to have then heard a scream “…at about 11”. Her deposition, in truth, rather than confirming the one of Capezzali, increases its vagueness.

Same for the witness Dramis, who says to have gone to sleep at 11/11:30 and to have been woken up by someone running in Via del Melo (were Capezzali also lives). She explained that that situation was occurring often, so, it’s not particularly significant. She also admitted to have gone to testify after one year because of being pushed to do so by an apprentice journalist [here we are again with the same local newspaper. Actually Hellmann and Zanetti forgot: Curatolo, too, was provided by Giornale dell’Umbria...].

Other elements appear to be more decisive in order to allow this Court to move back the time of death of more than one hour.

-Rudy told Benedetti that the crime happened between 9 and 9:30.

-The attempted calls from Meredith’s cellphone:

8:56, Meredith calls home and has no answer.

9:58, the number 901 (answering machine) is dialed, but the call is closed before having access to the answering machine.

10:00, call to the first number in the phone book, Abbey Bank. The call, dialed without country code, doesn’t work.

10:13, connection GPRS of 9 seconds (likely the reception of an MMS).

Only the first attempted call appears to have been made by Meredith. As Avvocato Bongiorno pointed out, Meredith didn’t manage to call home because something happened in that moment, and that can only be the aggression. The subsequent activity appears to be performed by someone who didn’t know the phone, because it wasn’t his.

The Court of first degree, to explain the phone activity, only used conjectures which didn’t find any confirmation, they were not even able to explain why Meredith didn’t call home back in the subsequent 2 hours (!), after having received “no answer”.

They even said that she went to bed early. At the same time they said that the murderer undressed her and cut her bra off. But, is it logic to go to sleep still dressed?

Such elements appear more effective than the scream, which was heard, according to the attribution made by the prosecution, at 11:30!

If then, by hypothesis, we should consider Curatolo’s testimony reliable, that would totally exonerate Knox and Sollecito, being then, at time of death indicated by the prosecution, not in Via della Pergola but in the square…

“IT COSTS 6 EUROS FOR CHRIST SAKE, LET’S PUT IT BACK IN THE DRAWER”

 The “Murder Weapon”

A knife with a blade of 17.5 centimeters doesn’t appear to be reasonably compatible with a wound of 8 centimeter deep, even if technically it is. The explanation, provided by the previous court, of why the murder weapon was in Sollecito’s house appears to be unlikely and doesn’t meet any confirmation. Once any form of premeditation, or even just pre-organization, is excluded (by everybody, even by the prosecution) the presence of that knife in the cottage was explained by the need of self-protection. But this hypothesis is not confirmed by any factual data and it appears fully strange that a girl used to travelling and going out at night, even alone, suddenly feels like she needs to carry in her purse a knife of such dimensions.

It’s totally unlikely that two normal and skilled youths, after having taken part in such a crime would go and put the murder weapon back in the drawer, along with the other cutlery! With which stomach could they have kept using that cutlery, even that knife itself, to prepare their meals?

The missing of a knife from the house inventory, then, would have been a risk much inferior than the seizure of the murder weapon, and another knife could have been bought for a few euros. The only reason that could link that knife to the crime was the result of the DNA test.

FOOLED BY DNA

The Genetic Study on Knife and Bra Clasp

The result of a test according to which on the blade of the knife there was the victim’s DNA and on the handle the one of Knox gave the conviction that that knife was used for the crime by Knox.

The result of a test according to which on the piece of bra there was the DNA of Sollecito gave the conviction that he took part in the crime and ripped the bra off  Meredith.

Already in first degree, the experts of the defense had censured the methods carried out by the scientific police and asked for an independent review. In vain. Unlike the previous Court, this Court considered the arguments brought by the defense experts valuable, and felt that only a review made by a Commission of independent scientist, of the highest level in Italy, could help in forming a conviction on such complicated matter. And appointed the professors Stefano Conti and Carla Vechiotti.

“CAN YOU PASS ME THE KNIFE?”

“THE ONE WITH WHICH WE KILLED MEREDITH? SURE!”

The experts denied any reliability to the test that resulted the DNA of Meredith Kercher on the blade of the knife. Besides that, the only substance found on the blade was starch, therefore the knife was not even washed with bleach, as assumed by the prosecution. And thinking that the knife can have been used even after the murder to slice bread, is really too much.

The spot on the handle where Knox’s DNA was found, then, is not at all incompatible with a culinary use of the tool. As we have seen above only the genetic results were keeping the murder weapon hypothesis possible for the knife.

Therefore, if the genetic results are doubtful, that hypothesis can’t be maintained.

THE CONTAMINATION OCCURRED BEFORE!

Seeing it Right about the Bra Clasp

As for the bra clasp, the experts couldn’t extract any DNA from it since the filaments were rusted. And proceeded with the evaluation of the test as performed by the scientific police.

The reliability of the result is undermined by the method of collection performed by the scientific police. The piece of bra, indeed, was found under the body of the victim already on November 2. And it was even photographed. But, as doctor Stefanoni told the judge in the pre-trial, it was forgotten, or considered not important, since they already had all the rest of the bra (!), and was left there.

The piece was taken and analyzed only 1 and a half months later, on December 18, when it was found on another area of the room. The collection was done without the necessary cautions and even by operators who were wearing dirty gloves. In such a context it’s possible that the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito was transferred on the item in any possible way.

Not only the reading of the charts raises issues, but this Court considers the contamination possibility as very probable. It’s indeed not possible that Sollecito, along with Knox, took part in such a violent crime  without leaving any other trace, when Guede, who according to the prosecution reconstruction was as active as the others, left plenty of traces of any kind.

It’s as well impossible that the two were able to perform a clean up removing only their own traces but leaving the ones of their accomplice. We should also notice that just because the bra was cut through the back band and the straps (probably by Guede, who indeed left his DNA even on the fabric of the bra) there was no reason to pull the clasp from that already cut bra.

The contamination, in the opinion of this Court, didn’t occur in the lab or during the collection by the scientific police, but before.

In matter of burden of the proof about the origin of the contamination, maintained by the defendant, we should recall that it doesn’t pertain to the defendant. On the contrary, he who accuses has to demonstrate that all the proceedings occurred correctly so to exclude any contamination. And this, as we have repeatedly pointed out, didn’t happen.

In conclusion there’s no possibility to use the DNA of Raffaele Sollecito on the bra clasp as a certain element.

“THE SCIENTIST? NO THANKS, LET’S LISTEN TO THE COP”

 The Foot-Print ont the Carpet

The cops Rinaldi and Boemia [because yes, the prosecution’s “scientists” of footprints were two cops!] got to a judgement of probable compatibility with the foot of Raffaele Sollecito, even if the measurments were different, even if the second toe was printed (as we know Raffaele’s foot doesn’t print the second toe). And Massei followed them, without any reason, and by simply ignoring all the valuable arguments brought by Sollecito’s expert Francesco Vinci [a real scientist, and a world authority about footprints and stains].

The Court considers this element of no value against Sollecito. But whose can the footprint be, then? [Did you guess already?...]

A shoe wet with Meredith’s blood left prints in the corridor, prints that were degrading with the distance from the room. That was recognized as Rudi’s left shoe, while the footprint on the bathmat is compatible with his right foot. It can’t be excluded, then, that he had lost his right shoe in the struggle and that he stepped  with his right foot in the blood. Then he went to the toilet and washed it. But the blood was already dried when he walked through the corridor [as you know I gave a different explanation of this, indeed I don’t think this one works].

SUSPECTS DNA MAGICALLY APPEARING AFTER 46 DAYS OF COPS ENTERING THE HOUSE!

THEY FOOLED EVERYONE, NOT HELLMAN AND ZANETTI

Luminol Footprints with DNA

Prints of naked foot revealed by luminol in Romanelli’s room (176, 177), in Knox’s room (178, 179, 180), in the corridor (184, then 183), Blood diagnosis: negative.

DNA test: 176: MK.

177: MK, AK (mix).

178, 179, 180: AK.

184/183: MK, AK.

The only certain datum is that the substance is not blood, given that the thetrametilbenzidine test, which is very sensible (it’s positive even with just 4 red blood cells), was negative.

The DNA was always a LCN and sometimes mixed, the tests were never repeated, therefore they were not reliable. And it may anyway have easily been left during any activity in the house, like for instance cleaning. And the bleach remaining from a cleaning activity may be the substance detected by the luminol. As the footrpints are not blood and they are also no consecutive, they can’t have been left after the crime.

And the Massei explanation (Amanda went to the toilet to wash her feet but some blood remained on them…) is not maintainable. Along with his explanation of the missing steps in between the walk (he argued that they cleaned).

Why didn’t they clean everything? Why did they leave Rudi’s shoe-print? Knowing that if he was caught he might confess and implicate them? [Here I have to remember that the luminol doesn’t show “weak” traces, as Massei, or even Hellmann seem to think. It shows exactly traces that have been cleaned. So, if there are missing steps and the luminol didn’t detect them, it can’t be said that they cleaned them! Therefore the luminol-revealed traces can’t be crime-related].

If the explanation provided by Massei was true all the traces should be mixed MK/AK (or, anyway only MK). Here, instead, only the 177 and the 184/183 are, which is impossible.

 “A BIT OF COMMON SENSE”. FINALLY!

With a bit of common sense we can recognize that those traces can have been left by the girls during the activities of everyday life, into some substance like bleach or even some other, like fruit juice. Stefanoni herself, indeed, explained that the traces can’t be dated.

Not to mention that the luminol was performed on December 18, when the cops had been walking in the house for 6 weeks, spreading DNA around.

In conclusion, the prints in question don’t have any value against Amanda Knox.

Luminol Foot-Prints with no DNA

1, 2, 7 were prints enhanced by luminol in Knox’s room and in the corridor. And no DNA was found on them. The tetrametilbenzidine test was also negative.

The 1 (corridor going out), was a right foot judged “compatible with AK”.

The 2 (corridor going out) was a right foot “compatible with RS”.

The 7 (corridor, front MK room, going in) was “compatible with AK”.

Massei simply ignores the fact that one footprint enters the room instead of exiting it, and doesn’t provide any explanation for it. These footprints can be explained with the same reasons that worked for the prints with DNA.

Even Raffaele may have on one occasion, when he had been sleeping there, stepped on some detergent or some juice. But anyway, their attribution is far from being certain.

Not to mention the metrical analysis, which suffers from grave prejudices, since the photographs weren’t taken correctly and they needed to be adjusted with a computer program.

The measurement made by prof. Vinci of the footprint 2, indeed, results in a shape considerably smaller (not surprisingly…). All considerations simply ignored by Massei.

Same fate for the reliefs brought by prof Torre, with which this Court fully agrees, about the footprint 1, which seems, in truth, considerably different from AK’s foot.

THE MIXING POLICE

Blood Traces in the Bathroom

The blood was picked up in the wrong way not by a biologist, not by Stefanoni, but by the cop Gioia Brocci, who was rubbing through all the surfaces mixing the DNA of MK with the one of AK, which could have been there since she was regularly using that bathroom. On the cotton-bud box the amount of alleles reveals the presence of the DNA of a third woman. Someone who had grabbed it who knows when. That shows how traces can remain in the time.

It’s not acceptable, then, Massei’s assumption that AK and RS had gone to the toilet to wash themselves. If there was some very old DNA (the one on the cotton-buds) it follows there must have been one of RS if he went to wash himself after the crime.

NOT THAT SIMULATED

The “Simulation of Theft”

Even Rudi could have had interest in simulating a theft, if for example Amanda had let him in the door and someone could have seen him. Or he could have staged an obvious simulation, so to turn away the suspicion from him, since he was a real thief. The truth is that these are only conjectures and the break-in seems to be real.

What may seem over-laboured to some (climbing for opening the shutters, then going to throw the rock, then climbing again for entering) may come naturally to others.

What may seem impossible to some (climbing a 3 meters wall without bending the nail, etc,) may be extremely easy for a young subject used to such activities.

The glass may have naturally fallen on the sill but not beyond it since it was projected towards the interior of the room.

Witnesses say they’ve seen some glass on the objects but some glass may have fallen on some objects due the fact that it was coming from a height. Let’s remember that a piece of glass left a print below a shoe in Meredith’s room, which suggests that the window was broken before the crime and Rudi stepped on it.

Not to mention that climbing windows for going to steal was Guede’s usual activity. And if nothing was stolen that’s because of the turnaround of events [but something was stolen].. Etc.

In sum, there aren’t elements to establish it was a simulation rather than a real breaking and entering.

PART 2 FOLLOWS