Sunday, March 22

Mez: CLOAKED Part I - (3#) -

Meredith Kercher Murder -

If the testimony in Friday's proceedings seemed ho-hum, the testimony on Saturday which followed it, was anything but.

Marco Quintavalle, the shopkeeper of the convenience store testified that Amanda Knox came into his establishment at 7:45am the morning after the murder, while she has claimed she stayed in bed at Sollecito's until 10am.

Several reporters noted that
Amanda Knox did not visibly react to his testimony.

We currently believe that police found the shop's receipts for cleaning products at Sollecito's, but this issue has always been a bit nebulous, because we still don't know if those receipts had a time and date stamp on them. Does that detail matter? In this case, every detail matters. The accretion of details is crucial to the prosecution building its case.

What the prosecution is trying to accomplish in their presentation of this case is to methodically build a mosaic of many pieces. Depending on how tightly they can get those pieces to fit together, the end product would look like a finished jigsaw puzzle. And that would represent a credible picture which would support their theory of the crime.

While testimony of the shopkeeper witness may have been startling or dramatic in its contradiction of the defendant, what interests us more here, for the moment, is Amanda Knox's seeming lack of reaction to a witness starkly contradicting her. Why does she not react? Why does she not arise with one of those statements defendants are allowed to make in Italian courts on their own behalf? As we have already seen, she does not seem reluctant to speak up in court.

-- Is Knox suffering from Dissociative Fugue?

-- Or does Knox entertain a magical belief
that she can will herself into invisibility?

-- Or what else could explain her non-reaction?

Sorry, but I don't have a facile answer.

Part Two of this entry will follow next.

:: Telegraph :: - - :: ABC :: - - :: Sky ::

+ Typo or spelling error corrected - 1:21am.