EXCERPTS FROM THE CLOSING ARGUMENTS OF THE KNOX DEFENSE AT THE FLORENCE TRIAL
We have criticized the Supreme Court ruling, because it is true that rulings must be respected, we certainly do, but sometimes this sentence is a bit hypocritical, “it must be respected because it is a ruling of the Supreme Court”. Rulings of the Supreme Court themselves can be at fault. Claiming infallibility is a fault in itself. Infallibility does not exist, we all can err.
[…]
But it was the motive that according to me has been reason for deep reflection. I mean, in the end reconstructing the crime starting from an unflushed toilet, which causes a quarrel, which then escalates because Rudy Guede is there and one does not understand why, or at least how he entered. They do not know him, he is a stranger. And then tension raises between the two girls, Amanda argues for an unflushed toilet, also with this creative reconstruction of the bothering smell, and then they go on quarreling, a conflict increased by a 5’ 10’’ athletic boy with basket experiences, who shows a sexual attraction towards Amanda’s friend and hence attacks her, or however tries to have a physical contact with this girl. And what does Meredith’s friend [Amanda] do? She helps her aggressor against her friend, the victim, and even participates to this aggression. She draws a knife nobody knows where it comes from, how it arrives there, the usual story. This knife – we already talked about it, I will just add a few comments- it is valueless not [just] because of the DNA, it is valueless because of the logic behind it. This knife is totally illogical, it cannot go from one house to the other, be brought back, washed, unwashed, put back in a drawer. Nobody does that. A murderer would throw the knife away. The Prosecutor General said: “The perfect murder is done when one gets rid of the corpse”. Yes, it is true. But also when one gets rid of the murder weapon, without putting it back in one’s own kitchen. And this is an illogicality that has always been manifest, which still today is a granite stone here, in front of you. Or somebody has to explain to me how it is possible that one employs such a knife. We can then talk about DNA. But the motive, going back to that point, is mind boggling. I understand the Prosecution has a very difficult task. The motive changed four or five times. There has even been some observer, among those carefully following the trial chronicles, who made a list: the sex game, the refusal, the casual murder, the first ruling. Today what is the motive? A condominium murder, caused by a condominium quarrel, juiced up with Laura Mezzetti’s statement that she had established rules for house cleaning, an ordinary thing for those sharing a house, especially for students, with a five euro fine. Then they also allege that maybe Meredith wanted Amanda to pay five euro since Guede had not flushed the toilet. Must we devise fancy scenarios to find a motive? A murder, a so important crime, without a logical explanation in the things of nature, an explanation sustainable with evidence of the trial, and which hence never reaches that certainty of proof, is indeed a reason for immediate acquittal.
[…]
The Court of Cassation, making a reference to the United Sections [decisions] at the start, tells you, tells us: we have to do a double work; the first one is an autonomous evaluation, that is what I just said: the seriousness, precision and concordance of every single element of circumstantial evidence; when this element reaches this level [of reliability] one proceeds to the second evaluation [the collective one].
[…]
Here we have a ruling of the Supreme Court … and there is no offense, I never offended anybody, it is not a personal matter, I am a humble lawyer, but I cannot help but point out that such a pro guilt ruling, on the last page, after having in the first pages referred to the rules established by the United Sections, on the last page they forget the first part and tell you, Excellencies of the Court, that you must evaluate the presence of Amanda Knox and of Sollecito at the crime scene and they also tell you that you must do the global evaluation of all the elements, in an osmotic way, hence covering the shortcomings of an element towards [sic, but probably meaning “with”] another element, so that three hypotheses can be considered.
This ruling of the Supreme Court of legitimacy goes so far as to tell you how the defendants must be convicted.
Three hypotheses: a murder in which – one does not understand why – the kids go there and kill Meredith, that is the first hypothesis; the second: the refusal, the hypothesis that Meredith was involved in a sexual activity and that [her] refusal [to go along] caused an aggression; and the third hypothesis made by the Supreme Court, not by me, hence even in contrast with the motive presently put forward by the Honorable Prosecutor General [which would be a fourth one], where there is a forced sex game, apparently with the use of knives, that goes out of control and hence, let us say, we get the dead [“ciscappailmorto”]. I think that this final page of the Supreme Court, that we respect, is already an indication of the weakness of the whole case and of how someone wanted to reopen a case for various reasons, but it is useless to enter this field, since there are many hypotheses, but above all it is misleading because it omits the teachings of the United Sections.
Because the global analysis of the elements [must be done], it is written [in the United Sections provisions], there is exactly that expression, “after previous individual analysis”. That has done at length in this proceeding, and that is why we had the acquittal in Perugia.
[…]
Rudy Guede: the Supreme Court ruling deems important his statement given through the letter sent to his lawyers […] and the ruling gives importance to this letter, a letter, by the way, written – and one cannot but think that – by someone else, since he … and you even have evidence of this; just read the Coblence memorial, he writes a memorial, just like Amanda did, when he was arrested in Germany. Rudy Guede is almost illiterate. Both the style and the content of that memorial are worthy of a child. It shows grammatical mistakes. The letter instead is perfect.
And I say this because in evaluating Guede it almost seems that the Supreme Court neglects all that was done. He was brought in Court and heard many times. When he was arrested he was [accused of murder] in conspiracy [with others], he had followed the news, he tells that, he had followed the evolution [of the events] during those months [indeed just November]. He knew about Lumumba, about the Knife. Nevertheless he never says anything about Amanda. He tells [about Amanda] on March 26 he says that Amanda was outside [the house], even that Amanda ringed the bell of her own home. Amanda had the keys.
[…]
I was talking about the importance of the motive, which according to me shows not only the flaws of the Prosecution, since continuously changing the motive is a clear display of weakness. Specifically I think there are two fundamental points: first of all this coming all out of a quarrel. Laura Mezzetti says that it is true that there were these regulations, with a schedule for the cleanings, she had symbolically established it, she was practicing at an attorney’s office, so evidently she had been somewhat inspired [by her job], [she had established] also the five euro fine for those not abiding; but she also said that the two ones not abiding were indeed Meredith and Amanda. She never said the two girls argued for this reason.
This [story of Amanda and Meredith arguing] is derived from some statements of the British friends brought by the Prosecution [as witnesses], all of them coached, they all went back home to London, made the rehearsals with the lawyers, in the way they do there, they train you … all of them regimented, none of them looking [at you], they were all canned. And always the same questions and always the same answers, again a sum of zeroes, in an attempt to deceive [that] since there are eight girls saying that perhaps the two girls did not go along well. We even arrive to hatred, let us remember this. In the closing arguments during the [first] Appeal, they come to a motive linked to hatred. Today we get a motive linked to a condominium quarrel, borne out of the flushing of the toilet.
[…]
I have to necessarily go back to what we always called “mistakes”, without speaking in a complex way, without circumlocutions, and going straight to the matter. According to me these are … it is all full of errors, this is an enormous judicial mistake, and it is so enormous because it has been a resonance in the media.
[…]
I tell you that a judicial mistake is possible, absolutely possible. What happened on the night between November 5 and 6, that for us was the first mistakes.
[…]
Patrick Lumumba should have not been arrested, they should have not believed the confused statements of a girl which had been grilled for four days. She was questioned on [November] 2, 3, 4, 5 and on the morning of the 6 she was arrested, a total of 54 hours … 54 hours of questioning.
[…]
Then we have the evening of November 5, when … yes, when … I was talking about this original mistake, because from there, as it often happens, it is difficult to go back on one’s mistakes [to correct them], that is to admit the mistakes is always a difficult thing [to do] in certain situations, in Italy above all, since here at a certain level [of responsibility, command] one never makes mistakes, there are manifest mistakes but one goes on.
[…]
And certainly the focal point of the evening is the [SMS] message. When the Inspector asks Amanda “may I see your cell phone?” and Amanda promptly gives it and [the Inspector] finds that, with respect to [Amanda’s] version where she says “I was at home with my boyfriend, we went to sleep”, the alibi we already heard, there is at a certain hour this outgoing message for this Patrick Lumumba, written in Italian because she is studying Italian […] she answers to the SMS by her boss “do not come, because this evening” … it was the evening after Halloween, there was nobody, she replies “civediamopiùtardi, buonaserata”, “see you later, good evening”. But “see you later” turned on the light in the rooms of the Questura, because “see you later” [taken literally in the Italian, not English/American meaning] … what is that? You said you went to sleep; here the message is timestamped 8:35 pm, you are a liar, you lied, why did you lie? Because you are guilty. This is a typical mathematical sum [meaning a sort of automatic reasoning].
[…]
After the notorious message there is the 1.45 am statement, collected by three officers, Ficarra, Zugarini and Raffo, who were there. Strangely there is no video, strangely there is no recording. There are many cases, I’m not going to quote them … but today investigations are done this way, and it is very easy to do a recording, a simple phone is sufficient.
[…]
But how one can believe that there was no video, no recording, and that all what Amanda said at that so important moment, in which Amanda says a so serious thing, is resumed on three lines. They are three lines.
[…]
The Supreme Court tells to the Perugian judges: that document cannot be used because at 1.45 am and at 5.45 am you did not warn a person that she had switched role from person informed about facts to person under investigation.
[…]
The reference to the scream is contained in an illegitimate document which cannot be used.
[…]
[About the first “memorial” of November 6] But do not analyze the single word literally. Try to enter in the context and analyze above all the very serious parts where she says “exhausted”, “confused”, “things seem unreal to me”, “I’m very confused”, “my dreams cannot be true”, “I was worried”, “shock and panic”, “I know I did not kill Meredith”. This is her first act of defense, without technical assistance.
[…]
[Amanda] would have shrewdly tried to sidetrack the investigations naming the first one who was around [Lumumba], because there was this opportunity given by the SMS, to protect Rudy. But why, why?
This manifest illogicality is linked to another element brought to your attention, namely the alleged cleaning of the traces in the room. They delete Sollecito’s and Knox’s traces but they leave Guede’s ones. But why?To accuse Guede?[And if so why to protect him naming Lumumba?].
[…]
In that period the computer of the victim, Amanda Knox’s computer and the second computer owned by Sollecito were analyzed. […] The three computers were impounded and it was found they had undergone an electrical shock. […] These computers have been opened and for rather dubious reasons, in the December 2007 – February 2008 period, it came out [their hard disks] had been burnt. After a very careful analysis […] it resulted that the failure was due to an electric shock that burnt the three hard disks. [This electric shock] can be attributed to two hypotheses […] 1) an inversion of the data connector, [2)] a voltage mismatch. During the trial we discovered that indeed there was a fourth computer [belonging to FilomenaRomanelli, even if Della Vedova incorrectly says it was Mezzetti’s] […] After a few days they give it back to her and Mezzetti [indeed Romanelli] says: “They gave it back to me and it was burnt, it was not working anymore. Previously it worked”. […] She takes the hard disk and throws it away because it cannot be repaired. […] There were four computers and all of them underwent an electrical shock?
[…]
[Our consultant] Sarah Gino said that it was necessary because of the suspect-centric [investigation] that DNA from the other two housemates, Filomena and Laura, were sampled, to have a reference for the [DNA in the] footprints enhanced by Luminol. […] Because maybe the other footprints, when one speaks about multiple contributors, it may be that there were both Filomena and Laura besides Amanda, they lived all four in that house.
[…]
Quintavalle is – I’m sorry if I repeat myself – you did not have the chance to see him. He is a simple person, a shopowner, who was heard soon after the fact. Now, I don’t have to remind you that statements have to be linked to the fact. The value of a statement collected at a time near to the fact is much greater than that of a statement collected a year later. One cannot put them at the same level. He was questioned soon after the fact and the police officer – this is on record – shows them the photos of Amanda Knox and of Sollecito. He says “I did not see them”. […] Then by chance he [Quintavalle] remembers [them] as soon as they are sent to trial. […] Now, what is the reliability of a media influenced witness who pops up belatedly because he saw a photo, above all when in the first immediacy [after the crime] he stated he had never seen Amanda and Raffaele?
Curatolo. Or he is unreliable or he gives us an alibi. You decide. Unreliable because he is confused. […] And this tramp, but I call him, because so he is, multiple previous offender, cocaine addicted [apparently, heroin-addicted indeed] who testified the second time in a totally confused state.
[…]
Moreover at the first trial he said: “I saw the kids from nine to midnight”. The Prosecutor insists, asks questions, tries to … “how from nine”? [Curatolo] puts us [the defendants] out of the house [at the time of the murder]. He says “I saw them. No, no, I saw them”. […] He says with certainty, and says it immediately, then he repeats it again: “I saw young people that evening with masks, who were going to bluster around and were getting on the buses”. He repeats this statement at the second trial, so this is a certainty. The Supreme Court says: “You have however also to evaluate the other circumstance”. Since he also sees the Martians [the Scientific Police operators in their white overalls]. And what do we do? Which one has more value according to you? For me zero and zero gives zero. This memory has zero value because he remembers [October] 31, not [November] 1. And has zero value his memory of the cops dressed in white [also because, as Ghirga said, they arrived late in the afternoon of November 2] And hence it is a zero, this is a witness with a value of zero in the end.
[Rudy Guede] took a different [judicial] path, he chose the shortened proceeding [AKA fast-track trial], hence all the evidence in his trial isn’t any newer than September-October 2008, so [his trial] did not experience all the rest [the evidentiary findings of the two ordinary proceedings of Knox and Sollecito]. It is very dangerous to say now “the [acquittal] ruling is flawed because it did not consider a ruling [Guede’s] which ignored the evidence emerged in the whole proceedings”.