It sounds like the prosecution is wanting to use something shown on TV. This is opposed by the defense.

The court presiding judge was trying to build consensus on the release of the court sketches to the media. Only Michele Misseri agreed.

Buccoliero shows the photo of Sarah in her pajamas, a self-portrait in the mirror. But the prosecutor asked [Ivano] who took that photo?

Appears the testimony today was more damaging than that with Ivano. Sarah's brother and mother both supported a jealousy motive. This is the best article that I can find that translates via Google fairly well:

http://translate.google.com/translate?s ... a_di_ivano

ETA, Italian link:

http://www.agi.it/in-primo-piano/notizi ... era_gelosa

There's really not a lot in that report. Sarah's mother drops in a few hints that her sister Cosima was jealous of her, and Sabrina gave a wry smile when reading in Sarah's diary that Sarah was in love with a 27-year-old (presumedly Ivano). Hardly the stuff of murders. We also heard from Ivano that he had perhaps lied - he did in fact have sex with Sabrina, as Sabrina had claimed, but it was incomplete. Sarah would criticise Sabrina for being so enamoured with Ivano. blah blah blah. This is all village gossip, for me, with nothing substantial regarding a murder. Nowhere has it been revealed that Sabrina was in fact jealous of Sarah. And even if she was?

From what I can read, a lot of doubt was placed on Petarra's testimony by the defense.

Thanks guys for the links and translations. Does it seem that at least there is more openness about this case than there was with the Kercher murder trial? Transcripts almost immediately, tapes of interrogations, and court documents easily available. Perhaps they feel public sentiment is so heavy on the prosecution side that it makes little difference what the evidence is. This Petarra sounds like Curatolo with the times. Amazing.

Do you have in mind Frank's amusing blog in which he recalls Massei's reaction when Curatolo, asked if he could narrow down the two hour time frame within which he claimed to have seen AK and RS, narrowed it down to somewhere between 9.27 and 9.28!

Here is a good summary of the problems with the times. It is clear that this witness was led to change his times to better fit the prosecution timeline, in my opinion.

http://translate.googleusercontent.com/ ... 0m7BQ#more

Sorry, try this one
http://translate.googleusercontent.com/ ... KPCEA#more

Today is another hearing date but I haven't seen anything on this so far. My computer seems to be giving me some troubles today as well.

Thanks guys. I am getting the feeling this case may go on for a year or longer. As in the case of AK and RS, it is the quantity of vagueness and suspicion rather than the quality of the actual evidence. Bet the motivation report when this is done will exceed 500 pages.

Gee, that's going to be tough on Teddy, Kompo, Katy and roteoctober

Well I didn't follow all the details but it seems that finally it was decided to keep Sabrina and Cosima in jail during the whole trial.
I 'm afraid they will remain in jail for as long as Amanda and Raffaele did, because the atmosphere in Taranto is such that conviction in the first trial is the most probable outcome.
Then one can hope that on Appeal the verdict will be overturn...but there is a "little" difference...Amanda had an international movement and the American media behind her after her conviction, Sabrina will probably have just an handful of mainly Italian supporters.
It is possible that the case has to arrive to Cassazione (as a recourse after the trials, not as a request of freedom from preventive imprisonment as it has been up to now) in order to see a reversal.

Well I didn't follow all the details but it seems that finally it was decided to keep Sabrina and Cosima in jail during the whole trial.
I 'm afraid they will remain in jail for as long as Amanda and Raffaele did, because the atmosphere in Taranto is such that conviction in the first trial is the most probable outcome.
Then one can hope that on Appeal the verdict will be overturn...but there is a "little" difference...Amanda had an international movement and the American media behind her after her conviction, Sabrina will probably have just an handful of mainly Italian supporters.
It is possible that the case has to arrive to Cassazione (as a recourse after the trials, not as a request of freedom from preventive imprisonment as it has been up to now) in order to see a reversal.

I know the Italian lay judges are meant to be less subect to prejudice than English jurors due to their semi-professional status, but I do have doubts about that.

Basically there have been a lot of "leaks" against Sabrina and the newspapers have almost unanimously echoed the themes of the Prosecution.

Did you hear this before?

The fact is that this happens all too often in Italy: it happened in Perugia, it happened in Garlasco with Alberto Stasi, it is happening with the Scazzi case and is happening in another case concerning one named Salvatore Parolisi.

And probably many more times, the difference being only that some cases become famous, others do not.

Why people become "guilter", be it against Amanda, Sabrina, Alberto or whoever else?

Because they read what the newspapers say and believe it without questioning, because they follow TV shows which almost always sustain a pro guilt view and swallow it all. Because very, very few people suspend judgement and wait for reliable information to become available.

Because many people think "if the Prosecution and the Police say that, they must have evidence", which is what I thought about Amanda and Raffaele before starting to document myself.

The smearing the defendant is subjected to changes according to the subject involved: Sabrina can't be, for obvious reasons, a great seductress, so she is the opposite, a girl jealous of her much more attractive young cousin.
But the techniques are always the same: carefully chosen words and photos and innuendos.

That's how a poisoned atmosphere is created in Perugia, Avetrana, Garlasco...everywhere.

Thanks roteoctober, I guessed that but didn't know for sure or had forgotten.

You have to understand that in the UK this problem just doesn't exist - when people are arrested that's it, their names will never be mentioned in the press until the court case starts, at that point it is strictly reporting of what is said in court, and not till after the verdict can the press put the boot in. If the press step out of line ( it hardly ever happens ) they get fined very heavily. There was a case last year, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Joanna_Yeates where the press published stories about Christopher Jefferies - an innocent who was implicated by the actual murderer, and they will have paid very heavily ( the papers were guilty of contempt of court and libel ).

It really does seem quite unfair, I know the Italian lay judges are meant to be less subect to prejudice than English jurors due to their semi-professional status, but I do have doubts about that.

But we can never know, since we don't get to know what they think - ever. This comparison of systems has me wobbling all over the place. I am in general a fan of American openness (TV cameras in court, pre-trial discussion, jurors free to discuss their decision) because I think we should all be adults who understand that what matters is the evidence heard in court. But then I see Amanda's case and think 'no, we Brits have it about right'. But then I think I maybe only think that because I am stringy partisan in Amanda's favour. I mean, I think our libel laws suck but I would happily deploy them in her interests.

Anyway, sorry, this is the Scazzi thread so no more about Miss Knox who has plenty of threads of her own!

It really does seem quite unfair, I know the Italian lay judges are meant to be less subect to prejudice than English jurors due to their semi-professional status, but I do have doubts about that.

@Teddy
I know very little about the professional judges of the Scazzi-Misseri trial but it seems to me that one of them has been Public Minister in Taranto and so a former colleague of the Prosecutors.
I could be wrong about that but you can find more infos in the many skeptical articles dedicated to the Scazzi-Misseri case by

http://albatros-volandocontrovento.blogspot.com/

There is a misunderstanding here: Italian lay judges are common people in the same way English or American jurors are, they aren't semi-professional at all, they are chosen by lot from a list of people who have demanded to be chosen.

Theoretically, since they have asked to belong to that list, they could be people with interest in law and justice and who document themselves accurately before and during the trial, but usually they are just people searching for the thrill of being part of a jury or the chance of being part of a famous trial.

Something I had missed and just learned about is the evidence provided by Petarra and his wife. This is the couple whose testimony says that Sarah passed their house before 2pm (hence giving time for Sabrina to commit the nasty deed). They were certain that she passed before 2pm, because Petarra recalls that it happened in the same moments that his wife was rushing about inside to get ready for work. Petarra's wife, Trono, starts work at 2pm, and had to arrive on time. She also had to go and pick her friend up in the car before heading off there to their place of work, a couple of minutes away. Her job was cleaning in a ceramics shop (or factory). She testified that she worked between 2pm and 5pm every day. Now, the owner of this ceramics business has testified something quite different. He has said that this lady did not work there every day at all, in fact it was more like once per week. In addition, she only worked about 1 hour, because her job was not time based but based on completing the cleaning. She had the keys to the building and would go there at any time that was convenient to her, whether it was 2pm, 3pm, 4pm or whatever. Clearly somebody is lying, or not remembering. We may have an example here of Petarra and his wife committing perjury in order to adjust their testimony so as to implicate Sabrina.

I get the feeling that a lot of these witnesses feel they are helping the cops put the bad guys in jail, so it's perfectly OK to say what the cops want you to say. Just part of being a good citizen. I wonder how they will feel if it is ever one of them being prosecuted for a crime they had nothing to do with.

90% of Italy seems to think Sabrina is guilty, so nobody is spotting this contradiction in evidence, and the media hasn't mentioned it. They're not interested in innocence, it seems. It's like a disease, and very few people are immune to it.

I think there is some sort of desire of having someone to blame, the monster, someone worse, much worse than you, the righteous, the one on high moral grounds.
Then there is the "flock effect": when the common opinion ("vox populi") goes in one direction, you need to be a brave man or woman to say openly "I disagree", to expose yourself to the criticism (or even contempt when the debate is heated) of the majority.

I think that many TV shows or newspapers articles reflect just these two factors.

To me is first of all a demonstration of human nature.
Then certainly it is a consequence of faith in authority that you are inclined to believe what Police and Prosecution says: they (should) symbolize the community, the State, while the defendant is just an individual...the great totalitarian dictatorships of twentieth century were the peak of this conception and maybe we are still too near, in historical terms, to them to have completely changed our mind.

90% of Italy seems to think Sabrina is guilty, so nobody is spotting this contradiction in evidence, and the media hasn't mentioned it. They're not interested in innocence, it seems. It's like a disease, and very few people are immune to it.

This is like the AK/RS case in the first trial. Everyone believed they were guilty. They were prosecuted by the media. A lot of the evidence was damaged in the first trial. The denial of independent DNA experts sealed the conviction. If this case follows the same pattern Sabrina will be convicted.

And there’s more, something else happened: even those prosecutors (probably not that bright) finally understood their theory was impossible! And, exactly as Mignini did in Perugia when his theory collapsed (for the nth time), they moved the time of death!
To do that they needed witnesses to also modify their testimony… Whoever had seen Sarah at 2:15 after one year suddenly “remembered” that actually no, it was 1:15…
Exactly as Mignini did in Perugia, the prosecutors even called in a new witness who was just minding his own business, because they heard-say that he had seen Sabrina and her mom attacking Sarah (!)…. This guy said it wasn’t true, that it was just a dream he had, and the prosecutor charged him with perjury!
Exactly as Mignini did, they started extra trials against everyone who wasn’t confirming their theory, even against the lawyers!

At that point we abandoned the case. It’s not that we can follow every mediocre prosecutor in Italy and their games. We demonstrate that they are wrong, then they change theory and everything starts over, then we demonstrate that they are wrong again, then they change theory again… No thanks. Trials (and critique of trials) are for serious people.

Welcome JackNL,

according to that article it seems that nobody in Avetrana wants to adopt Sarah's dog. For a while it stayed with the family of a former friend of Sabrina, Anna Pisanò, but now they say they can't keep it anymore since they have already four other dogs.

What is very strange to me is that Sarah' parents don't feel the need to keep it themselves...

Today's hearing was prevalently characterized by the testimony of Donato Massari, citizen of Avetrana, and of his wife, their daughter was a classmate of Sarah Scazzi.

Taken at face value their testimonies were rather damaging for Sabrina and her mother Cosima.

Donato Massari testified that the day of the murder between 14 and 14.20 he saw Sabrina and Cosima driving recklessly followed by a blue van. He also told that the two defendants came in the following days at his home and asked him to testify that the van was white and not blue since Cosima had reported to the Carabinieri that her nephew had seen a man with a white van kidnapping Sarah.
Cosima and Sabrina asked also to his daughter if she she knew something about Sarah.
A few days later Sabrina came again, alone this time, to question the girl about Sarah.
Massari also testified that her daughter told him that once Sarah asked her to accompany her back home since she was afraid of going alone with Sabrina.
Massari reported almost immediately after August 26 2010 (the day Sarah disappeared and was killed) that he had seen that model car, but added only in June 2011 that it was specifically Cosima's Opel Astra, according to him he waited so much time because he had "fear of what had happened".
Another former classmate of Sarah testified instead that chatting on Facebook Sarah had started some friendships, one of them with a married man named Antonio, which later was interrupted because of the difference of age. This girl has also said that Sabrina and Cosima came to her home a few days after Sarah's disappearance and asked her if Sarah had confided her of some boy she (Sarah) was interested in.

The report on the TV dinner news hour had a clearly guilt oriented slant: basically they reported what I've said above but obviously the point is in the choice of words. It was also openly stated that Cosima and Sabrina had tried to force witnesses to change testimonies inconvenient to them.

A note: Donato Massari is another Avetrana witness who has changed or modified by adding critical details his testimony and it sounds rather strange that he says he did so "out of fear", fear of whom? Of Cosima and Sabrina?

First of all, we still don´t know who did it and how and why. In my humble opinion it is not right to blame the journalists. Blame the Misseri family, blame the 'omertà' in this family. Without ANY doubt one of them MUST know everything about it. Yes I know, not guilty until proven... But you have to agree with me, speculations, from all sides!

Michele changed his story so often, evidences of others are being put in doubt. In who´s doubt? Bloggers don't know, journalists don't know, I don´t know and if anyone out there does know, step forward NOW!

Someone was painting his house. His wife had to be at her work at 2 o'clock and just before the wife left he saw Sarah. At this particular moment I would remember who was passing by. Plausible. That's what counts for me. When I'm working in my front garden I know when my wife has to go to work and I don't look at my watch after that time every moment someone passes, even not when I stop cleaning up after the outdoor job. Events after this time would'nt count for me if I was the judge! Figure this: would you look around every time someone passes when you are improving your property? Don't think so.

All of us here are interested in this case and we all hope that justice wil be done, otherwise this subforum wouldn't excist. Therefore I'm not taking side of journalists or bloggers. Each side has some points to ponder... Ma ancora nessuno sa la verità !

Tommorrow another day in court. Let´s see what happens...

(and translatons from italian to dutch and english "sono davvero terribile")

New hearing today in the Scazzi/Misseri trial.

Today's hearing has been dedicated to the evidence given by (primarily) two Carabinieri officers.

Lieutenant Giovanni Bardaro reconstructed the movements of the main characters of the trial on the day of the murder and spoke about the day when Michele Misseri finally revealed where he had left the corpse of Sarah (in a well).

Lieutenant Antonio Calò reconstructed a logical map of the phone call and sms exchange between Sarah and Sabrina on the day of the murder. He also explained what mobile phone cells were used by their phones.
From this reconstruction it appears that in a few minutes, starting from 14:42, Sabrina tried to call her cousin at least five times and that Sarah never answered, the phone giving the dial tone until the answering machine got engaged.

I found no more details and the evidence exposed in this way seems rather neutral, but, since no newspaper has apparently commented it in a sense adverse to Sabrina, it could be even favorable to her.

I have found some more info concerning yesterday's hearing.

Lieutenant Colonel Paolo Vincenzoni and Warrant Officer (Maresciallo) Giuseppe Pirò, both belonging to the Carabinieri, have argumented that since from the garage of the Misseri house at the time of the murder just one tower was reachable and this tower used the GSM frequency band, they are able to place both Sarah's phone at 14.42 and her aunt Cosima's phone at 15.40 in the garage, where they shouldn't have been according to their own testimonies.

In any case it would be interesting to know where all these analyses place Sabrina's phone at 14.42, because even if at that time Sarah's phone was in the garage, Sabrina could ignore it if she was calling her from upstairs.

Moreover the defense has challanged the precision of these "field mappings" and protested against the fact that since the time the Carabinieri made the survey the cell network at Avetrana has changed and so the defense cannot counter with a survey of its own.

If I ever go to Italy, I am leaving my cell phone behind. It seems to be a common tactic with LE in Italy to get an expert to place your phone at certain incriminating locations.

They'll find a way to use that against you!

Cosima's lawyer, Luigi Rella, makes a status of the ongoing trial from the defense point of view:

http://www.ilpaesenuovo.it/index.php/cronaca/lecce/32701-sarah-scazzi-celle-telefoniche-la-perizia-potrebbe-uscire-dal-processo.html

"I hope I will survive until the end -she explains - I read every trial document, I read some books. My life has changed completely. You hit something which you do not know how to give a reason, it's worse than a disease that comes suddenly but at least you can be able to explain why. "

With respect to Ivano Russo, the guy that Sabrina had fallen in love with and that would be the alleged motive for the murder of Sarah Scazzi, she says: "No obsession. I liked Ivano, I was attracted to him, I wished to have an affair with him, nothing more and nothing less. We were and we remain friends.

I have never hidden anything from anyone, and our friends knew very well what was the real nature of our relationship, they had come to know even even the most intimate and reserved details, there were no secrets. I heard and still hear at the hearings so many absurdities about this relationship, my morbid jealousy for Ivano, Sarah, about alleged violent quarrels, every little thing has been inflated beyond reasonable contact with reality ".

For the prosecution, the confirmation of the fact that Ivano is the motive is the fact that the rumour about the hot evening of the two youngsters in Ivano's car was starting to spread. But Sabrina flatly denies. "The incident to which reference is made - she precises - has not happened in June but in August 2010. Sarah has nothing to do with regard to its spread and I told him clearly to Ivano with whom I had complained of lack of confidentiality. The main responsibility is to my cousin Claudio, for his incorrigible habit of meddling in others' facts, to assume a role that is not its responsibility and that even in this case had not been requested. "

And about her relationship with her cousin Sarah, Sabrina says: "It was for me a little sister. She was always with me, when I worked in the evening, when we went out with friends, she was attached to me, we also had showers together. I just loved her. About that there should be no doubt, was known to all, and was also confirmed by Aunt Concetta ". "I often think to Sarah. All the memories I have of her are intact. I can think of many small episodes of our lives. "

If one day she will be acquitted, Sabrina has no doubts: "I will return to Avetrana, I'm not the one who has to hide herself."

(AGI) - Taranto, April 24 - The cousin of Sarah Scazzi was unaware of the interest of 15years od girl of Avetrana to Ivano Russo. Among cousins they ​​had never spoken about him. Instead Sarah had told David, confessing that she had been engaged for a day with a 16 year old boy, David, the fact that Kiss' for fun "but the same evening he left." This was reported today in the courtroom during the hearing in 13th Assize Court in the murder of Sarah Scazzi Taranto - the fifteen killed in Avetrana on August 26, 2010 - a cousin and contemporary of Sarah, who lives in San Pancrazio Salentino, common of Brindisi, and from which the same Sarah stay 'for a short period up to two days before being killed.
The girl (whose parents were in court earlier heard) He added that Sabrina occasionally scolded Sarah "'cause she said a few swear word, but it was normal."
The witness also spoke of the profiles that Facebook had Scazzi Sarah: "You - said about it - did not know the passwords and profiles were managed by her friends. Often Sarah asked her on the phone to enter her profile, but gave the wrong password ". As for the relationship between Sarah and Ivano Russo, heard in an earlier hearing of the trial being held in Taranto, the cousin said that her cousin told her that she "had a friend who was nice but nothing special. She never told me that she liked him. " Also heard the mother of Ivan, Elena Baldari, which, answering questions from the Buccoliero pm Mariano, reported that afternoon "When I enter the car to take him to work, Ivano read a message and said Sabrina "now lost also her cousin" bumping the phone on the dashboard. The prosecutor objected to the woman the time when the message would have been read and the content. The woman, heard by the police on August 31, 2010, had indeed attributed to Ivano the phrase "But what do I know about her cousin, I did not leave my house ...". and then was heard another witness, Claudio Benni, while skipped the deposition of Salvatore Misseri (brother of Michele), who sent a medical certificate. The records of summary information made by Michael Genovino, Clorinda and Antonietta Ferrara Genovino, all in quality 'of people informed aboutthe facts, were finally acquired. The Assize Court has adjourned the trial to 8 May, when it will be heard other witnesses, including Anna Pisano', one of the key texts for the prosecution, and Warrant Officer Fabrizio Viva, commander of the Carabinieri station of Avetrana. (AGI).