March 7, 2010 - New testimony has emerged in the Meredith Kercher murder case stating that two people who were convicted of killing her, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, were not at the scene of the crime and did not participate in the murder.
Meredith Kercher was murdered in what judges and a jury concluded was a sex orgy by three people that got out of control.
Rudy Guede, 23, who chose a fast-track trial, was sentenced to 30 years in prison with a reduced term on appeal to 14 years, for his role in the Perugia, Italy murder of Meredith Kercher.
Amanda Knox, 22, and Raffaele Sollecito, 25, were convicted in December of sexually assaulting Kercher, then killing her by slashing her throat. Knox was sentenced to 26 years in prison; Sollecito received 25 years.
ABC News reported that on Friday Sollecito's lawyers deposited video-taped testimony from a fellow convict of Rudy Guede, Mario Alessi, in which he says Guede confided to him in jail that Knox and Sollecito were not at the house when Kercher was killed but that another man was present.
According to Alessi, Guede told him the man, who has never been mentioned or suspected, killed Kercher when he was in the bathroom. Guede did not reveal his name.
Alessi is well known in Italy for kidnapping and murdering a 2-year old boy in 2006. That case drew as much attention as the Knox case.
He made his revelations about Knox and Sollecito in a letter he addressed to one of Sollecito's lawyers, Giulia Bongjorno, a well-known figure in Italian judicial circles.
Alessi is serving a life sentence, recently confirmed on appeal, in the same prison in Viterbo, Italy, as Guede. They are both in the special section reserved for those accused of sex crimes.
Alessi says Guede told him that another man killed Kercher when she refused to participate in a sex triangle, and that Rudy and his friend met up again later at a disco.
Sollecito's Perugia lawyer, Luca Maori, confirmed to ABC News that they had deposited a 2 ½ hour video of the interview of Alessi that they conducted two weeks ago in prison with the Perugia court. Maori did not want to comment on the matter because it is "very delicate" and the testimony is being evaluated by the court authorities.
Guede's lawyers, however, discount Alessi's testimony, saying it is just "another desperate attempt by desperate inmates" to get attention and "please the defendants," as in Knox and Sollecito.
Walter Biscotti, Guede's lawyer, told ABC News on Saturday that he had just been to see Guede in prison and that Guede said he had never spoken to Alessi about the case.
The Perugia jury released a 427-page document explaining why it convicted Knox and Sollecito.
The lawyers for both defendants are preparing their appeal of the conviction based on this latest document.
Knox's lawyer said in their appeal they will again present all of the topics that were analyzed in court, insisting on a new evaluation of the forensic evidence by an outside expert, and in particular the DNA evidence. The DNA evidence was hotly contested by the two sides in the first trial.
Knox's parents said in a statement Thursday that in their opinion "there is a lot of conjecture in these motivations, a number of discrepancies as well as a number of inconsistencies and contradictions; as well as conclusions not supported by evidence."
The lawyers have 45 days to file their appeals and the next trial, with a new set of jurors and judges, is expected to be scheduled in Perugia this fall.
Source:
ABC News
Comments
Who threw the rock that broke the window then?
The wind?
Seems the court doesn't know that Al-Fakh. I believe 2 years in jail for breaking a window is a bit stiff, as is two years for doing a cartwheel in a police station. Miginini said it all, the court upheld his lies in this case and he and Rudy Guede know this. This is a male crime of lustful anger. A women's motive would let her live with the memory. Amanda Knox, Innocent, she is not there. Rudy Guede was in the house when Meredith got home!
Forget it if the hard evidence doesn't corroborate Alessi's story.
Forget it if it doesn't make any sense.
Forget it if Rudy denies even having talked to him about the case.
And forget it if hearsay is not admissible in court.
Gotta believe him anyway! Anything to free Amanda.
Just pick and choose the parts of his version that suits that purpose, and voila', Amanda is free.
Okaaay! Whatever you say, man!
Why mention it all of a sudden? Rudy's lawyer is suspicious, and rightly so. A convicted murderer, offering a confession and getting out of his cell? Doesn't surprise me at all. And look how quickly AK fans believe the words of another convicted killer, Mario Alessi. Talk about lack of credibility. The man's a murderer as well, I wonder if John Winters will praise him for his courage!
Yes they did.
"The man's a murderer as well, I wonder if John Winters will praise him for his courage!"
He already done so on another article.
I do not have high opinion of people who do not know the difference between right and wrong.
Today I've seen the video of Alessi's deposition to the lawyers.
The deposition occurred about 2-3 weeks ago. However Giulia Bongiorno was in contact with Alessi since Dec. She was actually appointed by Alessi as her attorney to represent him in his last appeal for his child murder case before the Supreme Court. Now she has to withdraw from that assignment since it's a conflict of interest.
I wonder why, with this information in the hands of Bongiorno for weeks, if not months, she decided to release the news the day after the Motivations on the Knox/Sollecito case have been made public.
It sounds like it's a desperate attempt to bury in the media the Motivations report using this new outlandish revelation.
If it were true that a someone else had committed the crime, I can guarantee you that Rudy's lawyers would have instructed him to spill the beans on this mystery friend already.
If true, I still can't figure out who broke the window, though!
AMANDA IS INNOCENCT ...AMANDA IS INNOCENT...NOTHING ELSE TO SAY....GOD ONLY KNOWS WHY THIS IS HAPPENING TO HER...BUT SOMETHING GOTTAS GIVE...OBAMA NEEDS TO WAKE UP AND HELP HER...
Al-Flak, you can dish it out, but you can't take it.
The evidence also doesn't corroborate Mignini's story; Mignini's story also doesn't make sense: and hearsay (e.g., about sexual practices, roommate disagreements, what happened during Amanda's interrogation, etc.) is not admissible in court. Except when it is.
Bongiorno's timing on releasing Alessi's tape? How about Mignini's timing on suing a boatload of people for defamation the same week he is convicted of abuse of office?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
And what difference does it make who broke the window?
Mary H.
It is very common for Italian inmates to make outlandish revelations, in hope to gain benefits thanks to the "justice collaborators'" law provisions.
In nearly all cases, they turned out to be total lies.
Last month a group of prominent mafiosi gave lots of details about Berlusconi being associated to the mafia.
Years ago to arrested one of Italy most famous TV talk show hosts for months based on similar "confessions" by Sicilian inmates.
In both cases, the media took the bait and bought the story, only to discover, later on, that it was just a conspiracy by the inmates who wanted to gain some benefits from it.
I hope you realize that unless Rudy Guede confirms what Alessi said, or unless the police independently corroborates the existence of this mystery friend, that statement will lead to nowhere.
So...I suggest that you start praying that the story is true and Rudy cooperates and confesses.
.... The existence of the broken window, and the burglary (real or staged) is not consistent with Alessi's story at all (even your friend Frank Sfarzo recognized that in his blog).
And that is just one element that is inconsistent with the story.
Could it be a sign that Alessi's story is total bogus out of his own fantasy?
His a famous mythomaniac who was declared totally unreliable and a compulsive liar at his own trial, often by his own lawyers.
But I guess anything works for you FOAkers.
As long as it gets Amanda out, right or wrong, true or false, who cares!
I'm more willing to believe that Rudy did it all by himself, than in the possibility of a mystery friend who did it while he was in the bathroom.
If that were the case, he would have spilled the beans of this "friend" a long time ago.
For me there are only 2 possibilities:
1. The judges are more or less right, and Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the murder.
2. Rudy Guede did it all by himself.
The existence of a mystery friend is so far fetched that it can be possibly be true.
Either Mario Alessi made the entire confession story up, or Rudy made it up when he supposedly "confessed" it to Alessi.
In the latter case, then Rudy tried to blame a non existent friend to cover up for something that he probably did himself.
For anyone who is interested in the facts behind the media spin, and who cares to learn more about the victim of this terrible murder - Meredith Kercher - there is an excellent discussion board
Perugia Murder File
as well as an interesting blog
True Justice For Meredith Kercher
These online resources are not for profit. Anyone can read and/or participate and people from around the world do. They have followed this case since November 2007.
Here is what the Alessi tape can do, open another dialog with rudy. If rudy would take the statement further and admit he is the stranger and then say that Amanda and Raffaele weren't there that night, that would definitely be a break through. It's unfortunate that the statement includes the stranger because Amanda and Raffaele weren't there that night.
Quite frankly, if Alessi's story is true, then:
1) Of course Guede is going to claim he never talked to him because that would put more of the heat on him and take it off of Amanda and Raffaele.
and
2) Obviously Guede is not the most intelligent being on the planet, and I could definitely see someone panicking and deciding to haphazardly stage a break-in thinking it would throw people of his or her scent. Sure, that leaves room for the theory that Amanda and Raffaele threw the rock, too. The point is, the whole rock thing was a feeble attempt at staging a break-in. Someone wasn't thinking clearly because someone had just killed an innocent girl and was freaking out.
I don't know what to make of any of it. Obviously when there are so many people who are so divided on a topic, it's a huge indicator that the right answer isn't clear-cut. Anyone who says it is on either side isn't objectively looking at the facts.
In fact, the only people we know FOR SURE know what happened that night are Guede and Meredith. They are the only two people who were without a doubt at the scene of the crime. Amanda and Raffaele MAY know, but if any of us could say for sure, then the debate would be over.
I realize this is from Wikipedia and may not be the best source, but I'm going to investigate to see if I find this story confirmed on other news sites. At any rate, this may be the answer to the rock question:
"In the meantime, on the weekend of 13 October, there had been a break-in at a Perugia law office.[59] In that burglary, an upstairs double-pane window twelve feet above the ground had been smashed with a large rock. The Perugia police were informed that the thief stole a computer, printer and other items from the law office, and that the alarm system had been disabled. The Milan police later found the laptop computer and a mobile phone stolen from the law office in Guede's possession, but police released him after fingerprinting and booking for carrying a concealed weapon (16-inch/40-cm kitchen knife) and possession of stolen property.[59]"
Found this on truejustice.org from a news article in Italy:
The director of a nursery school in Milan surprised Rudy Guede in the school on 27 October 2007.The woman reported that she visited the classrooms in the morning, around 9.15, as she had an appointment with a blacksmith who was supposed to do some work in the garden. “When I entered I saw a guy who was later identified as Rudy Guede. He seemed quiet and relaxed. He told me he was from Perugia and he had arrived in Milan by train, and that at the train station a boy had told him he could sleep there”
"She looked in the cupboard and opened the money box, which lacked a few coins. The principal testified that she then called the police, and they opened the knapsack of Guede. “Inside was one of our kitchen knives used to cut the meat.” She said that Guede also had a computer, later claimed to have been removed from an office in Perugia on the night of 13 October."
So I guess he really did break in to that law office.
I don't care if you believe that Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the crime, or if you believe that only Rudy did it and Amanda/Raffaele are innocent.
For sure Alessi's story isn't credible.
Oh no, the latest thread from the pmf'ers has arrived. They spent several hours over there discussing and analyzing this latest interest. That pmf site floored me when I went over there at their invitation. I've never read so many grown up men discussing what a girl wears in my life. Hours and hours on how Amanda looked that day in court, what the saying on her shirt really meant if you were in the know, so to speak. On and on they'd go. Then they'd go to her smile and describe it in every detail of how horrid it was and how it made her a sociopath and blah, blah, blah. I'd tell them all, "Grow up over there", but many of them are already adults and some seem like dirty old men sitting around discussing the cute young thing who just happened to unwittingly catch their attention
Al-Flak wrote:
"2. Rudy Guede did it all by himself.
"....Rudy made it up when he supposedly "confessed" it to Alessi."
"In the latter case, then Rudy tried to blame a non existent friend to cover up for something that he probably did himself."
That is what I believe.
Unless Rudy's mystery friend is in fact Raffaele.
Then it might make more sense.
But who knows! This is the most messed up crime ever happened in Italy. I don't think Amanda and Raffaele are innocent, but at the same time I don't think the judges' version is right on the money either.
I wish they waterboarded and tortured Rudy a little bit so that we would know right away and stop wasting time on this.
Where is Dick Cheney when you need him?
Nope, I'm a young woman interested in the case because it seems so odd to me. I'll share my theory later. I don't have time to write it all out right now.
all i can say is this, that I am not honeslty sure if Amanda is innocent or not, but given the evidence I would not have convicted her, there is just too much doubt in my eyes to give an honest conviction. And if I were to convict someone because of what I saw in that court I would not be able to sleep at night.
All I can say is that if the defense team keeps ignoring a lot of evidence against Amanda Knox, then I could not imagine that the appeals court could arrive at any other conclusion than the court who determined that she is guilty.
Do people around here find it acceptable to hire a PR company in an attempt to pervert the course of justice?
After all she had a fair trial and a fair verdict.
The sad truth is that none of the three accused have a grain of veracity in any of the stories they've told.
When your story changes 100% each and every day, you have very little in the way of credibility. Innocent people can stick with the truth, and that doesn't change on a daily basis.
So now Amanda and Raffaele are innocent because a convicted murderer who shares an attorney with Raffaele says that the Rudy told him so?
C'mon.
No credibility.
No alibi.
No remorse.
No way out of jail.
These cretins are where they belong - in jail. What's there to fuss over now?
Diane, do you think it is possible for a PR company to pervert the course of justice? How would they do it?
Mary H:
No, but getting publicity helps the Knox Klan Krusade secure lucrative interviews with the likes of Oprah, Larry King and their ilk.
The money they garner is soaked in blood.
All the other blogs on Amanda's news sites have started cutting my posts in unison. It's unnerving.
Anyway, Al-Fhak said:
''.... The existence of the broken window, and the burglary (real or staged) is not consistent with Alessi's story at all (even your fin Frank Sfarzo recognized that in his blog).
And that is just one element that is inconsistent with the story.
Could it be a sign that Alessi's story is total bogus out of his own fantasy?'' Um
No. The broken window and the staged break-in is totally consistent with Alessi's version of events since it was the friend who treacherously gave the stolen money to Guede and told him to flee to Germany so that he (the friend) could then go back to the apartment and alter the scene to look like a typical Guede break-in thus loading Guede with the whole murder thing. And it worked! Til Guede let slip in Viterbo. He is now of course in denial, terrified of retribution from the friend who he has seen up-close doing something evil.
As anyone found or know of a web page covering the Alessi case?
BTW the friend can't be Raffaele because Rudy would have simply pointed to him in the first place once he (Rudy) had been arrested and charged with a murder that he had seen Raffaele, somebody Rudy held no aLlegiance to, commit using a knife he had taken back and put in his kitchen drawer!
To those who support Miss Knox
K so Alessi and his wife kidnapped the Baby because they believed the parents were wealthy. Alessi killed the Baby with 20 minutes of the kidnap by bashing his head in with a shovel then burying him because he thought the police were closing in on him. He and his wife lied on Italian TV about their involvement but Alessi subsequently confessed. Oh and Alessi had a previous conviction of sexual nature for raping a girl in front of her boy friend.
So it is the desperate hope of Mr Sollecito’s legal team that 2 judges and 6 jury members who will be involved in Miss Knox and Mr Sollecito’s appeal will find Alessi a credible witness?
Source: //pysih.com/2009/08/15/mario-alessi-salvatore-raimondi-and-antonella-conserva/
Google Search Criteria : Mario Alessi details of the case in English
Al-Fhak said:
''Amanda didn’t write “see you later”. She wrote “Ci vediamo piu’ tardi”. Do you see the difference? One is in English and the other in Italian. Police obviously took the literal translation and in Italian it doesn’t mean “see you whenever” but it means “see-you-later”.
But you are just reiterating my original point. There are lexical items available in both Italian and English to make something approaching an expression which pans out as ''See you later.''
I believe a literal translation of ''Ci vediamo piu'tarde'' means ''ourselves I will see more later,'' which is a syntactical variation on the English counterpart.
However, the pragmatic intentions of the two expressions differ greatly. According to you, the Italian intends ''see you later'' (the same day); the English intention is ''see you whenever.''
cont.......
…...cont......
The point is, Amanda would have used the Italian expression ''ci vediamo piu'tarde,'' expecting herself to be understood as meaning ''see you whenever,'
I'm sure you'd agree this kind of error is perfectly understandable. The thing is, in everyday discourse, e.g. when an American tourist is talking to an Italian waiter, it doesn't matter a jot. But when an American girl has been accused of murder and has already been threatened with 30 years in prison if she doesn't explain why Lumumba did the killing, it presents us with rather a different prospect: one where unless a professional interpreter is employed and not some fly-by-night hauled in because they've got a smattering of Inglesi and can take a few notes (yes, we are aware of who the interpreter was and how they operated during Amanda's interrogation), we are very likely to be witness to the most gross miscarriage of justice this side of Gary Dotson in 1979.
To Miss Knox supporters
I trust that we shall not read any further comments from any of you regarding Alessi “deposition” to Mr Sollecito legal team; hopefully everyone will is “on message”.
John Winters. You're still going on that "ci vediamo piu` tardi"?
Yes, maybe when she wrote it, she might have thought that in Italian it was like in English Slang (where "see you later" might mean I might not see in the future at all!).
However it's perfectly understandable that when the police saw that message, in Italian, saying "ci vediamo piu' tardi" (which in Italian implies an expectation to actually meet later in the day), they might have thought that she was in fact going to meet somebody.
Hence, the misunderstanding.
By the way did you read the report yet? Ooops! I forgot you can't ever order a pizza in Italian.
Anyway, based on the report, the analysis of the cell towers revealed that when she received PL's message at 20:18 she wasn't at Raffaele's house. Based on the same analyses, she was at Raf's when she responded to the message at 20:38.
I wonder where she was at 20:18? The report says she was somewhere downtown.
Buying smoke, maybe?
Actually this might have been the sequence of events based on the cell towers' analysis:
ca. 20:15 Amanda is downtown buying pot from Rudy.
20:18 Amanda receives a message from Patrick saying she doesn't need to go to work that night since there are no customers.
20:18 Amanda reads the message, and tells Rudy that since she's free, they can have a little 'smoke' party at her house, and maybe he can try to make advances to Meredith who's home alone. Rudy agrees.
20:38 Amanda reaches Raf's apartment, responds to Patrick and tells Raf she met Rudy from whom she bought smoke.
20:40 Jovana comes to Raf's to tell she doesn't need ride to bus station anymore.
20:42 Amanda and Raf realize they have the night free to do something nasty with Rudy at the cottage. Maybe an orgy.
20:42 Raf receives call from father.
After call, all cells are turned off.
After Raf is done with the computer they go to the house. They carry a knife just in case Meredith doesn't agree to their plans.
…..cont.....
21:40 Giacomo and Meredith retire to her room to finish what they started earlier.
22:00 Bonassi, Rudy, and his friend are all drunk on whiskey. They playfully ''assault'' Meredith's room and begin joining in with what Giacomo and Meredith have been doing. Giacomo is not drunk and doesn't like it. When it goes on too long, he storms off and leaves the cottage.
22:24 Rudy goes to the toilet. When he comes back, he finds Bonassi has gone in search of Giacomo and the Alessi scenario begins.
Later, the friend meets Rudy in the club and gives him the stolen money telling him to go to Germany. He then goes back to the apartment to move the body in search of more money etc. and fake the break-in to make it look like a typical Rudy burglary and the murder is all Rudy's work.
No, this is the true timeline of events:
20:43 Giacomo Silenzi is caught arriving at 7 Via della Pergola on CCTV camera. He has secretly doubled back because he and Meredith have made an arrangement to see each other alone ''just one more time.'' They are aware they will have the place to themselves that evening. Another figure is seen exiting a white car and moving towards the cottage. This is Rudy's friend. He waits around for Rudy thinking the apartment is empty, out of sight of the CCTV camera.
21:15 Meredith arrives and she and Giacomo begin to kiss and stuff.
21:20 Rudy arrives with Stefano Bonassi. They have a lot of beer and whiskey with them. His friend spots them and they team up. Giacomo lets them into the apartment.
21:21 A hash party begins and the guys are all making sly faces at each other with reference to Meredith's sexual allure etc.
cont.....
Al-Fhak said:
''Yes, maybe when she wrote it, she might have thought that in Italian it was like in English Slang (where "see you later" might mean I might not see in the future at all!).
However it's perfectly understandable that when the police saw that message, in Italian, saying "ci vediamo piu' tardi" (which in Italian implies an expectation to actually meet later in the day), they might have thought that she was in fact going to meet
somebody.
Hence, the misunderstanding.''
If you'll forgive me Al-Fhak, that's some misunderstanding that misunderstanding about what Amanda really meant. And remember, this is not just a police questioning in the street. It is a misunderstanding which takes place between someone who cannot speak the native language, and her interrogators who subsequent to this misunderstanding, build a case against her which puts her in prison for 26 years! ''Hence the misunderstanding'' doesn't quite cut it for me as a result.
As an appendix to the previous post, I'd just like to point out that the reason I keep going on about ''See you later!'' is because for me it represents the basis of a much wider level of misunderstanding which took place between Amanda and her interrogators.
Amanda more than most really needed, not just a professional interpreter, but someone who would be able to interpret her cultural perspective on events, and incorporate this into the way her views were then translated for the interrogators.
The literal translations have caused enormous problems, especially when dealing with a slightly perverse personality like Amanda's. If Amanda thinks someone is deliberately misinterpreting her (ie. what she COULD have seen is translated as what she ACTUALLY saw), she is unfortunately very likely to play up and stubbornly assert things she knows to be incorrect. (''But what the hell, they're going to misinterpret me anyway'' kind of thing).
She really needs understanding!
I for some of Miss Knox’s supporters if I may paraphrase Ms Vargas of ABC “The prosecution is trying to say the sky is blue, whilst the defence is trying to say the sky is green”, a Freudian slip maybe but one that does describe some of her supporters.
Where I live the sky is blue.
Give up John Winters. You're trying to say that she was describing what she could have hypothetically seen had she been in the house with Lumumba. That's nonsense and is not even based on what really happened. She simply said that yes Lumumba is really bad, and he was really raping her. She was basically describing what she actually experienced except for the fact that she implicated Lumumba instead of Rudy, because implicating Rudy too early in the game could have caused the police to investigate Rudy and find out the truth. She was hoping that the Patrick story would stick for a time sufficient for her to leave the country. She didn't factor in that by admitting that she was in the house she could be arrested as well as an accomplice.
But anyhow, there is nothing I can do to convince you. Amanda Knox is like a religion for you. No matter what the evidence is, you'll believe your own gods.
Hey Winters: did you get a hold of the report yet? Anyway I heard they're working at translating it at TJMK. They have a bunch of Italian speaking translators, from 3 continents working on it. But it's gonna take a while I bet. I read the report and is very technical (and boring). There is the section on the autopsy that's like reading Gray's anatomy. The section on the DNA evidence is like a textbook of genetics. And the section on the computer activity is like reading those books on computer programming language that you see in the computer ref. section of a bookstore (those that only geeks bother to read).
After reading it I don't see how AK and RS could be totally innocent. Although the murder dynamics of who did what is probably hard to pinpoint exactly, however it's hard to phathom a scenario where both AK and RS where not there at all, it's simply impossible to even imagine how else the murder could have happened.
They're both involved my friend, stop being on denial.
Al- FY says 'stop being in denial'
John Winters is either a father or a stepfather or he is paid to be in denial.
John Winters you make accusations against a dead person. She can't defend herself. UGLY, UGLY, UGLY.
Al-Fhak said:
''Hey Winters: did you get a hold of the report yet? Anyway I heard they're working at translating it at TJMK.. . ... I read the report and is very technical (and boring). There is the section on the autopsy that's like reading Gray's anatomy. The section on the DNA evidence is like a textbook of genetics. And the section on the computer activity is like reading those books on computer programming language that you see in the computer ref. section of a bookstore (those that only geeks bother to read).
After reading it I don't see how AK and RS could be totally innocent.''
I love this. After laboriously pointing out the report's intense BS and failure to produce anything more than the puffball they did at trial, Al concludes: ''I don't see how AK and RS could be innocent!!!''
Al-Fhak, you told us once you were married and that you had a job. I'm beginning to suspect you're in fourth grade and are very bright.
John Winters,
How can you assess the judges' decision and call it BS?
1. You haven't attended the trial (not even one session)
2. You have not read the sentence motivations report
3. All you know about the trial is what the biased media and bloggers have fed you.
At least I've read the entire judges' reports (both Guede's trial and Knox/Sollecito's), in addition I've read and seen virtually everything the Italian media has produced re: this case (which had a much more comprehensive and unbiased reporting than the English language media).
Based on my knowledge, which is obviously not as extensive as the judges' and the jurors' who attended the trial and had access to the entire evidence, I can definitely say that the guilty sentence makes perfect sense.
But making sense and John Winters rarely appear in the same sentence, so I have no hope for you.
PS: I'm much older than a fourth grader and, as you pointed out, I'm also very bright, highly educated (and employed)
I have concluded based on reading some of Miss Knox supporters regurgitated arguments and the sheer desperation of clinging to the words of a convicted rapist and baby murderer that if her legal team take the same approach I doubt Miss Knox will be coming home anytime soon.
S'just a matter of time Al before I get my peepers on the report and, albeit that in light of Alessi I regard it as a futile act, I'll read it too. I know I'm gonna end up frustrated though. You know what carrying a lot of nothing around is like: it's psychologically much more hard work than carrying 150 lbs round on your back all day. Ask any construction brick-man, they never experience psychological problems. But me after reading the Masseibation report: it's gonna be hard dealing with all that nothingness and having to live with the fact that that nothingness is still holding an innocent girl in prison.
Al-Fhak: ''The Italian media....(which had a much more comprehensive and unbiased reporting than the English language media)''
Unbiased = Luciferina
''I can definitely say that the guilty sentence makes perfect sense.''
''Ci viedamo piu' tarde'' makes perfect sense!!
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!