Amanda Knox & Raffaele Sollecito
Amanda Knox & Raffaele Sollecito

Amanda’s Defense To Take the Stand Tomorrow in Florence

Florence, December 16, 2013

Damn it, it looks like quite an investment, the one made by the Kercher family. They have a third seasoned attorney now, who today baldly exulted at the perfection of Knox and Sollecito’s previous convictions, and urged the jury to ice the cake by allowing a one more.

Then it was time for the young Serena Perna still very affectioned to the notorious “43 wounds” (counting all minimum scratches, even some pre-existing bruises), who has in her mind a crystal clear image of what happened and is utterly certain that all those wounds couldn’t be made by one man alone, since “Rudy too has only two hands”.  Maybe all those wounds were made during the long ordeal therefore is very possible they were made by one person? No, the attack was very short (of course, otherwise the theory doesn’t stand).

After the warm up band, the Band Master Bater Maresca spent several hours blowing  his own trumpet in his closing arguments, “for the seventh time” he explained.

Let’s see just what’s new since we have indeed heard him six times previously, and we know by heart how he heartily believes in such damning evidence like the desired “mixed blood” on the tap (in truth mixed DNA, of course to be found in the common bathroom), or the revealing luminol-revealed stains (systematically avoiding to mention they were found one and a half months after the closing of the scientific operations with legions of cops having stepped in the house with no scientific precautions anymore).

This time he used the earlier public prosecution “argument of the previous conviction” (so, not really new, he owes the copyright to The Prosecutor) which sounds more or less like this : “You have to convict them because they have always been convicted before, and the only acquittal was overturned”. About 40 judges, Maresca estimates, have ruled about them and only those of the appeal were in their favor; therefore for force of numbers and numerical logic, those of the appeal were wrong. Interesting method of deduction, every appellate judge could adopt it, it would make his life simpler (and his trial useless).

Let’s see now the really new arguments. Oh these Americans, who have dared to criticize our judicial system, ignoring that Italy is the cradle of the law and this is not a bis in idem (double jeopardy), but an appeal (well, almost new).

And those Italians, like the independent experts Conti and Vecchiotti, who created problems in all trials they were engaged (???) and criticized a biologist like Stefanoni who was also independent being not consultant for the prosecution (true, indeed her chief Renato Biondo was….). Plus they doubted the profiles and at the same time they suggested a contamination, and you can’t do that.

Or like the Oggi journalist, who is maybe paid by the Knox family.

Really new, instead, and poignant: Amanda signed a rich contract (not thanks to a long conviction?) and now she even dares to collect money on her website for Meredith’s family (is she?).

While he’s undergoing such a trial Raffaele stays in vacation on a tropical island (therefore he’s guilty?).

And then the prescription from the Supreme Court, that have to be followed. The Cassation said, for instance, that the robbery was simulated, therefore you have to stand to that prescription. Even Filomena Romanelli said it was a fake.

And here we essentially come back to the “argument of the previous conviction”. The Cassation said you have to say that the robbery is a simulation, that the two independent experts are two incapable ones, that the contamination has to be proven by the defense, that the calumny is real because she didn’t retract it, and so on copying. Therefore you just have to paste those ideas and convict.

Really easy the deliberation like this. So, Amanda and Raffaele have to be convicted because he’s on a beach, she signed a contract, the Americans are arrogant, the Cassation understands DNA better than two scientists, and the whole evidence is validated by the previous judges and by Filomena Romanelli. Fine, but while convicting them they will have to say why they killed Meredith. Nothing easier for the private prosecution: because they were there, and they were excited. So the judges at least have a choice between a turd and “the excited presence”. Perfect, but let’s not get excited tonight or it will be a massacre.

Tomorrow the music changes, with Amanda’s lawyers.

Frank Sfarzo