Monday, October 16, 2017

Netflixhoax 21(d) Omitted - This Very Telling Knox Questioning By Dr Mignini #4

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



Knox looks sadly at dad. She knows he knows, all the parents did.


(Long post, click here to go straight to Comments.)

1. Status Of Things At The Time

This follows from Post 1 and Post 2 and Post 3.

In this post we jump a year and a half to where Dr Mignini picks up the threads at trial.

As we’ll illustrate in other posts soon, Netflix deliberately incited a vast wave of hate and contempt and defamatory accusations against Dr Mignini, by way of omitting ALL of the careful steps he and others had taken to build an exceptionally strong case ALL of which Netflix omitted too.

The prosecution component of the trial in the first half of 2009 was almost a masterclass in how such things should be done. Evidence point after evidence point after evidence point was introduced with only perfunctory challenges by the defense. Netflix didnt tell you that?!

All that took place in the Perugia central police station after Meredith’s death took day after day for those many present to describe. Netflix didnt tell you that?!

The defense had almost no come-back and was generally anxious to move along. Knox and Sollecito haplessly sat through all of this. They knew what they were up against. Netflix didnt tell you that?!

The defense portion of the trial occupied only a few trial days and usually not full days at that, as they had so little to present. Netflix didnt tell you that?! Then the prosecutions summations hammered the bleak facts home. Netflix didnt tell you that?!

Knox was on the stand for two full days. She herself did her the most harm - those listening in Italian could see how rarely she told the truth or even made sense. Netflix didnt tell you that?!

She had zero explanation for why she fingered Patrick Lumumba and left him desperately scared in jail for about two weeks. Netflix didnt tell you that?!

Dr Mignini didnt even speak until Knox’s second day.

The first day consisted of Lumumba’s lawyer Pacelli giving Knox a very hard time. Then Knox’s lawyers labored for hour after hour to bring out the human in her and to make her malicious allegations a daffy oversight.

Three things to look for here: (1) Was Amanda Knox making things up? (2) Was Dr Mignini making things up? (3) In finding Knox guilty of calunnia for which she served three years, was the jury duped?

2. Amanda Knox Trial Testimony—Saturday, June 13 2009

Transcription of the full two days from tapes and translation was by Thoughtful for our Wiki case file.

Today we post the first half.  GCM is Judge Massei, GM is Dr Giuliano Mignini, AK is Amanda Knox, and CDV is Knox lawyer Carlo Dalla Vedova.

GCM:
If the public could politely cease the noise and comments…yes…we could begin the audience. [He recalls: trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, all the names of lawyers involved, defense and prosecution, civil plaintiffs]. Please state your identity again.
AK:
Amanda Knox, born July 9, 1987, in Seattle, Washington, USA.
GCM:
Please go ahead, pubblico ministero.
GM:
All right, Miss Knox, can you tell us about when you first met Raffaele Sollecito?
AK:
It was at a concert at the Universita per Stranieri, I think it was on Oct 25.
GM:
October 25?
AK:
So I’ve understood [odd remark: meaning “so I’ve been told?”]
GM:
So it was just about a week before the facts, more or less. Now, on the afternoon and evening of Oct 31, can you tell us what you did?
AK:
In the evening?
GM:
Afternoon and evening.
AK:
So, in the afternoon, I remember that I met a friend for coffee, my friend Spiros. We had coffee in the center, and then in the street when I was going back to meet Raffaele, I was still with him and I met someone I had gotten to know at “Le Chic”, who said “We’ll see each other later at Le Chic”...
GM:
You said “We’ll see each other later?”
AK:
Yes, yes.
GM:
To whom? To Raffaele’s friend?
AK:
No, no. It was my friend, that I had gotten to know in a bar, a cafe that also had internet service, and then, okay. What happened next? [Long pause with sound ‘ummmmm’, ‘hmmm’.] Did I go home? I can’t remember.
GM:
You can’t remember.
AK:
And then, for Halloween, I know I went to Le Chic first, and then after I was there for a little while, I again met Spiros, outside the Merlin, and we went to a place with a bunch of his friends, I can’t remember what place it was now, a kind of Irish pub, and then he…I said I was tired and wanted to meet Raffaele in the center, and so he accompanied me on foot to near the church, where I met Raffaele, who took me to his apartment.

[Start of 7:52 minute video segment]
GM:
Now. Have you ever made use of drugs? In particular on the afternoon or the evening of Nov 1?
AK:
I did smoke a joint with Raffaele in the evening, yes.
GM:
So you do confirm this detail.
AK:
Yes.
GM:
So now we get to Patrick’s message.
AK:
Okay.
GM:
So, Patrick’s message came, I believe you said, at 8:15.
AK:
Yes.
GM:
More or less. What did it say exactly?
AK:
I don’t remember the exact words…
GM:
[Interrupts] Was it in Italian? Was it in Italian?
AK:
Yes, it was in Italian. It had to do with the fact that there wasn’t anyone at Le Chic so I didn’t need to go to work.
GM:
And you saw this message at around what time?
AK:
Uh, I don’t remember the time.
GM:
But was it after a little while or right away?
AK:
I was on Raffaele’s bed and then I noticed that there was this symbol on my phone.
GM:
But you don’t remember when?
AK:
No. I don’t look at the clock.
GM:
And you answered Patrick—how did you answer?
AK:
Well, I wrote something like “Okay, see you later [“ci vediamo piu—um—tardi”], buona serata.
GM:
You answered in which language?
AK:
In Italian. He didn’t speak English.
GM:
“Ci vediamo piu tardi”, you said.
AK:
Yes.
GM:
OK—
AK:
Which in English means “See you”—
GM:
Yes but, excuse me, but you answered in Italian.
AK:
Yes.
GM:
“Ci vediamo piu tardi.”
AK:
He doesn’t speak English.
GM:
Very well. It follows that your cell phone [gives number] and Sollecito’s [gives number] stopped their activity respectively, yours at 8:35 and his at 8:42. Why?
AK:
I turned mine off, because I didn’t want to get another message from Patrick, because actually I didn’t really want to go to work. For example, he had told me that I didn’t have to work, but if then a bunch of people showed up, well honestly, he had told me I didn’t have to go to work and I wanted to stay with Raffaele.
GM:
Yesterday if I’m not mistaken, you said that you did it to stay with Raffaele.
AK:
Yes.
GM:
On page 40 (I don’t know if it corresponds) of the minutes of your interrogation of December 17, you said, I’ll read it, that: “I turned off my phone to save my battery.” Do you remember that?
AK:
Well, if it’s written there, it must be okay.
GM:
Today you’re saying one thing, in the interrogation you said another. [Voice intervenes: can you be more precise about the page?] Page 40: I’ll read it. “But why did you turn off your phone?” Interrogation of Dec 17. “To save my battery.” “Do you usually keep it on at night?” [He stops, annoyed at some murmuring.]
GCM:
Excuse me, excuse me.
CP?:
We’re not interrupting, we’re finding the page.
GCM:
Please, please [because of noise]. 39, 40, but anyway, these were the words. 39 or 40 is the page. Please, go ahead, pubblico ministero.
GM:
Knox’s answer: “To save my battery.” “Do you usually keep it on at night?” “If I have something to do the next morning.” “But the next morning was the day on which everyone skipped school.” “But we were supposed to go to Gubbio the next day with Raffaele.” The next day was the 2nd?
AK:
Mhm.
GM:
You wanted to go to Gubbio on the 2nd or the 3rd?
AK:
No, on the 2nd we wanted to go to Gubbio.
GM:
So, you turned off your telephone so Patrick wouldn’t be able to call you in to work, or you turned it off to save your battery, not to use up your battery. Now, you remember what, what battery you had? what kind of autonomy it had?
AK:
What kind of battery?
GM:
Yes.
AK:
I don’t know what type of battery it was, but…
GM:
The autonomy of the battery? Do you remember?
AK:
I think it was about one or two days. It wasn’t very long, but in the end, well, for example, the next morning, I was going to go to Gubbio, but I didn’t have time to charge up the battery, so I thought, I don’t want to get any phone calls this evening, and if I want to have my phone with me in Gubbio, I wanted it to be reasonably charged up. That’s why I turned it off.
GM:
I see. Now you’re saying this was the motive.
GCM:
I heard an objection. [Annoyed voices.] Please, please. Go ahead. [Voices arguing, dalla Vedova (I think it’s him) is standing up.]
GCM:
This is an analysis. Indeed, yesterday Amanda Knox stated that turning off the cell phone was to guarantee her a free evening without being… [interruption] Excuse me. But at the interrogation of Dec 17 she said that it was both to save battery and also for this reason [interruptions, arguing]. So, I thought I understood that she had two reasons. We’re not arguing about that.
??:
Also not to be called by Patrick.
GCM:
Yes, yes. Both reasons.
CDV:
The objection isn’t about that. It’s about…
GCM:
Excuse me, please. This is an analysis. let’s return to the cross-examination by the pubblico ministero. The defense lawyers will have the final words. Everyone will hear what they have to say then.
CDV:
My objection was because the introductory request—
GCM:
Please, please.
??:
Enough now [“adesso basta”].
CDV:
My objection concerned the way the pubblico ministero presented his question, appearing to contest the fact that in the Dec 17 interrogation, Amanda also explained that she turned off her phone because she didn’t want to be called by Patrick, because she didn’t want to be disturbed. This doesn’t correspond to the truth, because on page 40 of the minutes, she actually says “So, I turned it off also to not run the risk that Patrick would change his mind and call me in.”
GCM:
Excuse me, fine. We heard. The pubblico ministero gave—
CDV:
It wasn’t an objection.
GCM:
All right, but this is an analysis. The pubblico ministero gave everything concerning the reason, two reasons, why the cell phone was turned off. Later there will be analyses to determine if there is a contradiction, or a fifty per cent contradiction, or no contradiction. Now let’s leave this question.
GM:
I would like not to be interrupted.
GCM:
Please, pubblico ministero. Go ahead.

[End of video segment]
GM:
Why? erm-ahem—why did you—we will return to this point several times.
AK:
Okay.
GM:
Why did you speak about Patrick only in the interrogation of Nov 6 at 1:45? Why didn’t you mention him before? You never mentioned him before.
AK:
Before when?
GM:
In your preceding declarations, on Nov 2 at 15:30, on Nov 3 at 14:45, then, there was another one, Nov 4, 14:45, and then there’s Nov 6, 1:45. Only in these declarations, and then in the following spontaneous declarations, did you mention the name of Patrick. Why hadn’t you ever mentioned him before?
AK:
Because that was the one where they suggested Patrick’s name to me.
GM:
All right, now is the time for you to make this precise and specific. At this point I will take…no, I’ll come back to it later. You need to explain this. You have stated: “The name of Patrick was suggested to me. I was hit, pressured.”
AK:
Yes.
GM:
Now you have to tell me in a completely detailed way, you have to remember for real, you have to explain step by step, who, how, when, was the name of Patrick suggested to you, and what had been done before that point. The name of Patrick didn’t just come up like a mushroom; there was a preceding situation. Who put pressure on you, what do you mean by the word “pressure”, who hit you? You said: “They hit me”, and at the request of the lawyer Ghirga, yesterday, you described two little blows, two cuffs.
AK:
Yes.
GM:
So that would be what you meant by being hit?
AK:
Yes.
GM:
Or something else? Tell me if there was something else. You can tell us.
AK:
Okay.
GCM:
So, you are—[Interruptions] The question is—[Interruptions] Escuse me. Excuse me. The question is quite clear. He is repeating this in order to give the accused a chance to add something to these events that were explained by the accused yesterday. The pubblico ministero is asking to return to these events mentioned yesterday in order to obtain more detail about exactly what happened and who did it. Please be as precise as possible.
GM:
So you were in front of—
GCM:
The question is clear.
GM:
All right, so tell us.
GCM:
Yes, it’s clear.
AK:
All right. Okay.
GCM:
If you could give more detail, be more precise, exactly what was suggested to you, about the cuffs, all that.
AK:
Okay.
GCM:
And who did all this, if you can.

[Start of 16:01 minute video segment]
AK:
Okay. Fine. So, when I got to the Questura, they placed me to the side, near the elevator, where I was waiting for Raffaele. I had taken my homework, and was starting to do my homework, but a policeman came in, in fact there were I don’t know, three of them or something, and they wanted to go on talking to me. They asked me again—
GM:
Excuse me, excuse me—
AK:
[coldly] Can I tell the story?
GM:
Excuse me for interrupting you otherwise we’ll forget—
CDV:
Presidente, I object to this way of doing things. The question was asked—[Yelling, interruptions]—we should wait for the answer.
GM:
It’s impossible to go on like this, no, no.
CDV:
If a question is asked, she has to be able to answer.
GCM:
Please, please. That’s correct. There is a rule that was introduced, which says that we should absolutely avoid interruptions from anyone.
CDV:
I want to ask that she be allowed to finish her answer. She has the right, no?
GCM:
Please, please, pubblico ministero. It’s impossible to go on this way.
GM:
I would like to, I can—
GCM:
No no no, no one can. We have to make sure that while someone is speaking, there are never any superimposed voices. And since the accused is undergoing examination, she has the right to be allowed to answer in the calmest possible way. Interruptions and talking at the same time don’t help her, and they can’t be written down in the minutes, which obliges the courts to suspend the audience and start it again at a calmer and more tranquil moment.
GM:
Presidente—
GCM:
No, no, no! Interruptions are absolutely not allowed! Not between the parties, nor when the Court, the President is speaking. So, interruptions are not allowed. Now, the accused is speaking, and when she is finished, we can return to her answers—
GM:
Presidente.
GCM:
Excuse me, please! But at the moment she is speaking, we have to avoid interrupting her. But—I don’t know if this is what was wanted—but while you are speaking, if you could tell us when. For instance, you say you were doing homework, but you didn’t tell us when. We need to know when, on what day, the 2nd of November, the 3rd, what time it was. While you are talking, you need to be more detailed, as detailed as you can with respect to the date and the time.
AK:
Okay.
GCM:
And we must avoid interruptions, but when you have finished, we can discuss your answer.
AK:
Thank you. So, here is…how I understood the question, I’m answering about what happened to me on the night of the 5th and the morning of the 6th of November 2007, and when we got to the Questura, I think it was around 10:30 or nearer 11, but I’m sorry, I don’t know the times very precisely, above all during that interrogation.
:
The more the confusion grew, the more I lost the sense of time. But I didn’t do my homework for a very long time. I was probably just reading the first paragraph of what I had to read, when these policemen came to sit near me, to ask me to help them by telling them who had ever entered in our house. So I told them, okay, well there was this girlfriend of mine and they said no no no, they only wanted to know about men. So I said okay, here are the names of the people I know, but really I don’t know, and they said, names of anyone you saw nearby, so I said, there are some people that are friends of the boys, or of the girls, whom I don’t know very well, and it went on like this, I kept on answering these questions, and finally at one point, while I was talking to them, they said “Okay, we’ll take you into this other room.” So I said okay and went with them, and they started asking me to talk about what I had been doing that evening. At least, they kept asking about the last time I saw Meredith, and then about everything that happened the next morning, and we had to repeat again and again everything about what I did. Okay, so I told them, but they always kept wanting times and schedules, and time segments: “What did you do between 7 and 8?” “And from 8 to 9? And from 9 to 10?” I said look, I can’t be this precise, I can tell you the flow of events, I played the guitar, I went to the house, I looked at my e-mails, I read a book, and I was going on like this. There were a lot people coming in and going out all the time, and there was one policeman always in front of me, who kept going on about this. Then at one point an interpreter arrived, and the interpreter kept on telling me, try to remember the times, try to remember the times, times, times, times, and I kept saying “I don’t know. I remember the movie, I remember the dinner, I remember what I ate,” and she kept saying “How can you you remember this thing but not that thing?” or “How can you not remember how you were dressed?” because I was thinking, I had jeans, but were they dark or light, I just can’t remember. And then she said “Well, someone is telling us that you were not at Raffaele’s house. Raffaele is saying that at these times you were not home.” And I said, but what is he saying, that I wasn’t there? I was there! Maybe I can’t say exactly what I was doing every second, every minute, because I didn’t look at the time. I know that I saw the movie, I ate dinner. And she would say “No no no, you saw the film at this time, and then after that time you went out of the house. You ate dinner with Raffaele, and then there is this time where you did nothing, and this time where you were out of the house.” And I said, no, that’s not how it was. I was always in Raffaele’s apartment.
GCM:
[taking advantage of a tiny pause to slip in without exactly interrupting] Excuse me, excuse me, the pubblico ministero wants to hear precise details about the suggestions about what to say, and also about the cuffs, who gave them to you.
AK:
All right. What it was, was a continuous crescendo of these discussions and arguments, because while I was discussing with them, in the end they started to little by little and then more and more these remarks about “We’re not convinced by you, because you seem to be able to remember one thing but not remember another thing. We don’t understand how you could take a shower without seeing…” And then, they kept on asking me “Are you sure of what you’re saying? Are you sure? Are you sure? If you’re not sure, we’ll take you in front of a judge, and you’ll go to prison, if you’re not telling the truth.” Then they told me this thing about how Raffaele was saying that I had gone out of the house. I said look, it’s impossible. I don’t know if he’s really saying that or not, but look, I didn’t go out of the house. And they said “No, you’re telling a lie. You’d better remember what you did for real, because otherwise you’re going to prison for 30 years because you’re a liar.” I said no, I’m not a liar. And they said “Are you sure you’re not protecting someone?” I said no, I’m not protecting anyone. And they said “We’re sure you’re protecting someone.” Who, who, who, who did you meet when you went out of Raffaele’s house?” I didn’t go out. “Yes, you did go out. Who were you with?” I don’t know. I didn’t do anything. “Why didn’t you go to work?” Because my boss told me I didn’t have to go to work. “Let’s see your telephone to see if you have that message.” Sure, take it. “All right.” So one policeman took it, and started looking in it, while the others kept on yelling “We know you met someone, somehow, but why did you meet someone?” But I kept saying no, no, I didn’t go out, I’m not pro-pro-pro—-
GCM:
[taking advantage of her stammer] Excuse me, okay, we understand that there was a continuous crescendo.
AK:
Yes.
GCM:
As you said earlier. But if we could now get to the questions of the pubblico ministero, otherwise it will really be impossible to avoid some interruptions. If you want to be able to continue as tranquilly, as continuously as possible…
AK:
Okay, I’m sorry.
GCM:
So, if you could get to the questions about exactly when, exactly who… these suggestions, exactly what did they consist in? It seems to me…
AK:
Okay. Fine. So, they had my telephone, and at one point they said “Okay, we have this message that you sent to Patrick”, and I said I don’t think I did, and they yelled “Liar! Look! This is your telephone, and here’s your message saying you wanted to meet him!” And I didn’t even remember that I had written him a message. But okay, I must have done it. And they were saying that the message said I wanted to meet him. That was one thing. Then there was the fact that there was this interpreter next to me, and she was telling me “Okay, either you are an incredibly stupid liar, or you’re not able to remember anything you’ve done.” So I said, how could that be? And she said, “Maybe you saw something so tragic, so terrible that you can’t remember it. Because I had a terrible accident once where I broke my leg…”
GCM:
The interpreter said this to you?
AK:
The interpreter, yes.
GCM:
I also wanted to ask you because it isn’t clear to me: only the interpreter spoke to you, or the others also?
AK:
All the others also.
GCM:
Everyone was talking to you, all the others, but were they speaking in English?
AK:
No, in Italian.
GCM:
In Italian. And you answered in Italian?
AK:
In Italian, in English…
GCM:
And what was said to you in Italian, did it get translated to you in English?
AK:
A bit yes, a bit no, there was so much confusion, there were so many people all talking at the same time, one saying “Maybe it was like this, maybe you don’t remember,” another saying “No, she’s a stupid liar,” like that…
GCM:
But everything was eventually translated, or you understood some of it and answered right away?
AK:
It wasn’t like an interrogation, like what we’re doing now, where one person asks me a question and I answer. No. There were so many people talking, asking, waiting, and I answered a bit here and there.
GCM:
All right. You were telling us that the interpreter was telling you about something that had happened to her. [Interruption by Mignini.] But you need to get back to the questions asked by the pubblico ministero. This isn’t a spontaneous declaration now. This is an examination. That means the pubblico ministero has asked you a question, always the same question, and we still haven’t really heard the answer to it.
AK:
Yes, sorry.
GCM:
Right, so you were saying that there was this continuous crescendo.
AK:
It’s difficult for me to say that one specific person said one specific thing. It was the fact that there were all these little suggestions, and someone was saying that there was the telephone, then there was the fact that… then more than anything what made me try to imagine something was someone saying to me “Maybe you’re confused, maybe you’re confused and you should try to remember something different. Try to find these memories that obviously you have somehow lost. You have to try to remember them. So I was there thinking, but what could I have forgotten? And I was thinking, what have I forgotten? what have I forgotten? and they were shouting “Come on, come on, come on, remember, remember, remember,” and boom! on my head. [Amanda slaps herself on the back of the head: End of video segment] “Remember!” And I was like—Mamma Mia! and then boom! [slaps head again] “Remember!”
GCM:
Excuse me, excuse me, please, excuse me…
AK:
Those were the cuffs.

[Voices: “This is impossible!” “Avoid thinking aloud!” “Or suggestions”]
GCM:
So, the pubblico ministero asked you, and is still asking you, who is the person that gave you these two blows that you just showed us on yourself?
AK:
It was a policewoman, but I didn’t know their names.
GM:
Go ahead, pubblico ministero.
GM:
So, now, I asked you a question, and I did not get an answer. You ... [interruptions]!
LG or CDV:
I object to that remark! That is a personal evaluation! Presidente! That is very suggestive. He is making an unacceptable conclusion. He can ask a question, but this is a personal opinion. It seems to me that she did answer. She answered for a good five minutes.
GCM:
Sorry, but I said that we were supposed to avoid interruptions, that we weren’t supposed to interrupt when someone was speaking—
LG or CDV:
But—
GCM:
Wait—avvocato, excuse me, please, let’s try to avoid these moments which don’t help anybody and probably harm the person undergoing the examination because they create tension in the court—
GM:
When I am doing the cross-examination I would like—
GCM:
Please, pubblico ministero. This is another recommendation: let’s avoid analyses. Let’s take the answers as they come, later the right moment will come to say that from this examination, you did not obtain the answer that you expected, that the accused did not answer the questions. That is a later phase. At this moment, let’s stay with the answers that we have, even if they are not exhaustive, and return to the question, but avoiding personal evaluations of their value. Go ahead, publicco ministero, go ahead.
GM:
I would like to—
GCM:
Yes, yes, go ahead, return to your question. And then you can come back to it with more details.
GM:
The central point of that interrogation was the moment when the name of Patrick emerged. You spoke of suggestions, you spoke of pressure, you spoke of being hit, I asked you to give me a precise description of who gave you the blows, you need to describe this person. Was it a woman or a man? Who asked you the questions? Who was asking you the questions? There was the interpreter, who was the person who was translating. But the exam, the interrogation, who was doing it? Apart from the people who were going in and out. You must have understood that there was a murder, and this was a police station, and the investigation was hot, and what I am asking you is, who was actually conducting the interrogation?
GCM:
The pubblico ministero is asking you, you said that the two blows were given to me by someone whose name I don’t know. The pubblico ministero is asking you firstly if you can give a description of the person who hit you, if you saw her, and if you can give us a description. The second question—
AK:
So, when I—the person who was conducting the interrogation—
GCM:
That was the second question! You’re starting with the second question, that’s fine, go ahead, go ahead.
AK:
Oh, sorry…
GCM:
Go on, go on. The person who was conducting the interrogation…
AK:
Well, there were lots and lots of people who were asking me questions, but the person who had started talking with me was a policewoman with long hair, chestnut brown hair, but I don’t know her. Then in the circle of people who were around me, certain people asked me questions, for example there was a man who was holding my telephone, and who was literally shoving the telephone into my face, shouting “Look at this telephone! Who is this? Who did you want to meet?” Then there were others, for instance this woman who was leading, was the same person who at one point was standing behind me, because they kept moving, they were really surrounding me and on top of me. I was on a chair, then the interpreter was also sitting on a chair, and everyone else was standing around me, so I didn’t see who gave me the first blow because it was someone behind me, but then I turned around and saw that woman, and she gave me another blow to the head.
GCM:
This was the same woman with the long hair?
AK:
Yes, the same one.
GCM:
All right. Are you finished? Tell me if you have something to add.
AK:
Well, I already answered.
GCM:
Fine, fine, all right. Go ahead, pubblico ministero.
GM:
I’ll go on with the questions. In the minutes it mentions three people, plus the interpreter. Now, you first said that they suggested things to you. What exactly do you mean by the word “suggestion”, because from your description, I don’t see any suggestion. I mean, what is meant by the Italian word “suggerimento”, I don’t find it.

[Interruptions]
GCM:
[quelling them] Excuse me, excuse me, please, please, excuse me, excuse me! Listen, the pubblico ministero is asking you: “suggestions”, you also mentioned words that were “put in your mouth”, versions, things to say, circumstances to describe.

[Start of 15:22 minute video segment] The pubblico ministero is asking two things: who made the suggestions, and what exactly were you told to say? }}
AK:
All right. It seems to me that the thoughts of the people standing around me, there were so many people, and they suggested things to me in the sense that they would ask questions like: “Okay, you met someone!” No, I didn’t. They would say “Yes you did, because we have this telephone here, that says that you wanted to meet someone. You wanted to meet him.” No, I don’t remember that. “Well, you’d better remember, because if not we’ll put you in prison for 30 years.” But I don’t remember! “Maybe it was him that you met? Or him? You can’t remember?” It was this kind of suggestion.
GCM:
When you say they said “Maybe you met him?”, did they specify names?
AK:
Well, the important fact was this message to Patrick, they were very excited about it. So they wanted to know if I had received a message from him—

[Interruptions]
GCM:
Please, please!

[Interruptions, multiple voices]
CDV:
It’s not possible to go on this way! [Mignini yells something at dalla Vedova]
GCM:
Please, please, excuse me, excuse me!
??:
I’m going to ask to suspend the audience! I demand a suspension of five minutes!
GCM:
Excuse me, excuse me! Please!
CDV:
Viva Dio, Presidente!
GM:
Presidente, I’m trying to do a cross-examination, and I must have the conditions that allow me to do it! The defense keeps interrupting.
??:
That’s true!
GCM:
Excuse me, excuse me, please—
GM:
We’re asking for a suspension!
GCM:
Just a moment, excuse me. I’ve heard all the demands and suggestions, now the Court will decide. So.

[Several moments of silence, during which Amanda murmurs in a very tiny voice: “Scusa.”]
GCM:
I want to point out that the accused offers answers to every question. She could always refuse to respond. She is answering, and that doesn’t mean she has to be asked about the same circumstances again and again. She is not a witness. The accused goes under different rules. We have to accept the answers—
??:
But—
GCM:
Please, please! We have to accept the answers given by the accused. She can stop answering at any time. At some point we simply have to move on to different questions. One circumstance is being asked again, the accused answered. The regularly, the tranquillity, the rituality of the court, of the process, has to be respected. The pubblico ministero was asking about suggestions. [To Amanda] If you want a suspension we can do it right away.
AK:
No, I’m fine.
GCM:
So the pubblico ministero was asking about the suggestions. All right?
AK:
Sure.
GCM:
So, you were the one who gave the first indication, introducing this generic pronoun “him”? This “him”, did they say who it could be?
AK:
It was because of the fact that they were saying that I apparently had met someone and they said this because of the message, and they were saying “Are you sure you don’t remember meeting THIS person, because you wrote this message.”
GCM:
In this message, was there the name of the person it was meant for?
AK:
No, it was the message I wrote to my boss. The one that said “Va bene. Ci vediamo piu tardi. Buona serata.”
GCM:
But it could have been a message to anyone. Could you see from the message to whom it was written?
AK:
Actually, I don’t know if that information is in the telephone. But I told them that I had received a message from Patrick, and they looked for it in the telephone, but they couldn’t find it, but they found the one I sent to him.
GCM:
I also wanted to ask you for the pubblico ministero, you wrote this message in Italian. I wanted to ask you, since you are an English speaker, what do you do when you wrote in Italian? Do you first think in English, and then translate into Italian, or do you manage to think directly in Italian?
AK:
No, at that time, I first thought in English, then I would translate, and then write.
GCM:
So that clarifies that phrase. Go ahead, pubblico ministero, but I think we’ve exhausted the question.
GM:
Yes, yes. I just wanted one concept to be clear: that in the Italian language, “suggerire” means “indicate”, someone who “suggests” a name actually says the name and the other person adopts it. That is what “suggerimento” is, and I…so my question is, did the police first pronounce the name of Patrick, or was it you? And was it pronounced after having seen the message in the phone, or just like that, before that message was seen?
??:
Objection! Objection!
GM:
On page 95, I read—
CDV:
Before the objection, what was the question?
GM:
The question was: the question that was objected was about the term “suggerimento”. Because I interpret that word this way: the police say “Was it Patrick?” and she confirms that it was Patrick. This is suggestion in the Italian language.
GCM:
Excuse me, please, excuse me. Let’s return to the accused. What was the suggestion, because I thought I had understood that the suggestion consisted in the fact that Patrick Lumumba, to whom the message was addressed, had been identified, they talked about “him, him, him”. In what terms exactly did they talk about this “him”? What did they say to you?
AK:
So, there was this thing that they wanted a name. And the message—
GCM:
You mean, they wanted a name relative to what?
AK:
To the person I had written to, precisely. And they told me that I knew, and that I didn’t want to tell. And that I didn’t want to tell because I didn’t remember or because I was a stupid liar. Then they kept on about this message, that they were literally shoving in my face saying “Look what a stupid liar you are, you don’t even remember this!” At first, I didn’t even remember writing that message. But there was this interpreter next to me who kept saying “Maybe you don’t remember, maybe you don’t remember, but try,” and other people were saying “Try, try, try to remember that you met someone, and I was there hearing “Remember, remember, remember,” and then there was this person behind me who—it’s not that she actually really physically hurt me, but she frightened me…
GCM:
“Remember!” is not a suggestion. It is a strong solicitation of your memory. Suggestion is rather…
AK:
But it was always “Remember” following this same idea, that…
GCM:
But they didn’t literally say that it was him!
AK:
No. They didn’t say it was him, but they said “We know who it is, we know who it is. You were with him, you met him.”
GCM:
So, these were the suggestions.
AK:
Yes.
GCM:
Go ahead, pubblico ministero.
GM:
I object here on the dynamics, because here there’s a contrast…well… per carita—[Brief interruption from GCM]—From Amanda’s answer, it emerges that there was this cell phone and this message and this “Answer, answer,” whereas in the minutes of the Dec 17 interrogation, page 95, we find: The police could not have suggested—[Arguing, everyone speaking, Maresca, Pacelli etc., some saying that they need to know the exact page, it’s different in their version. ]
GCM:
While the pubblico ministero is talking, let’s avoid interrupting him. It’s true that the pages are different, but still, if you can’t find the page, ask for a moment’s pause, don’t interrupt the reading.
GM:
So, on line number one, two, three, four…
GCM:
Pubblico ministero, don’t worry about the lines, please read.
GM:
[reading] She said: “I accused Patrick and no one else because they were continually talking about Patrick.” Suggesting, to use Amanda’s words. I asked: “The police, the police could not suggest? And the interpreter, was she shouting the name of Patrick? Sorry, but what was the police saying?” Knox: “The police were saying, ‘We know that you were in the house. We know you were in the house.’ And one moment before I said Patrick’s name, someone was showing me the message I had sent him.” This is the objection. There is a precise moment. The police were showing her the message, they didn’t know who it was—
GCM:
Excuse me, excuse me pubblico ministero [talking at the same time] excuse me, excuse me, the objection consists in the following: [to Amanda], when there are contrasts or a lack of coincidence with previous statements, be careful to explain them.
AK:
Okay.
GCM:
Do you confirm the declarations that the pubblico ministero read out?
AK:
I explained it better now.
GCM:
You explained it better now. All right pubblico ministero. Go ahead.
GM:
So, let’s move forward.
AK:
Okay.
GM:
Now, what happened next? You, confronted with the message, gave the name of Patrick. What did you say?
AK:
Well, first I started to cry. And all the policemen, together, started saying to me, you have to tell us why, what happened? They wanted all these details that I couldn’t tell them, because in the end, what happened was this: when I said the name of “Patrick”, I suddenly started imagining a kind of scene, but always using this idea: images that didn’t agree, that maybe could give some kind of explanation of the situation. I saw Patrick’s face, then Piazza Grimana, then my house, then something green that they told me might be the sofa. Then, following this, they wanted details, they wanted to know everything I had done. But I didn’t know how to say. So they started talking to me, saying, “Okay, so you went out of the house, okay, fine, so you met Patrick, where did you meet Patrick?” I don’t know, maybe in Piazza Grimana, maybe near it. Because I had this image of Piazza Grimana. “Okay, fine, so you went with him to your house. Okay, fine. How did you open the door?” Well, with my key. “So you opened the house”. Okay, yes. “And what did you do then?” I don’t know. “But was she already there?” I don’t know. “Did she arrive or was she already there?” Okay. “Who was there with you?” I don’t know. “Was it just Patrick, or was Raffaele there too?” I don’t know. It was the same when the pubblico ministero came, because he asked me: “Excuse me, I don’t understand. Did you hear the sound of a scream?” No. “But how could you not have heard the scream?”. I don’t know, maybe my ears were covered. I kept on and on saying I don’t know, maybe, imagining…

[End of video segment]
GCM:
[Stopping her gently] Okay, okay. Go ahead, pubblico ministero.
CDV?:
I’d like to ask a question, I’d like to make an objection about—
GCM?:
All right, so—
GM:
Is it a question or an objection? [crossing, arguing voices]
GCM:
Please, no interruptions.
CDV?:
[stronger] I said, I am asking a question and making an objection—
GCM:
But, excuse me, let’s stay with essentials. Let’s hear what the pubblico ministero has to say, and then we’ll see. That’s a premise.
GM:
I appeal to the court that this is making the examination impossible.
GCM:
Please, please, sorry. Go ahead.
GM:
I am trying to understand. In the interro—[he breaks off in mid-word, I think dalla Vedova must have stood up again.]
GCM:
But it’s not possible to hinder things this way, avvocato. Excuse me. Why?
CDV?:
[hard to hear because he’s speaking at the same time as GCM] The defense would like to formally ask for a break [?]
GCM:
We haven’t even heard what he is trying to say yet. You can’t make preventive objections! I’m sorry, avvocato.
CDV?:
I’m not making an objection—
GCM:
[really trying to stop him but not succeeding, CDV goes on talking at the same time] Please, please avvocato, no no no no, the pubblico ministero is speaking. [GM also says some words] Excuse me, excuse me.
CDV?:
The suggestions of the PM before asking the question are inopportune, because he is suggesting and making suggestive…
GCM:
Please, please, excuse me, excuse me! [He really, really needs a gavel to bang!]
GM:
[some words]
GCM:
Please, pubblico ministero! We are creating useless moments—
GM:
[some words]
GCM:
[much louder] Please, pubblico ministero! Please! Now, excuse me.
GM or CDV:
Please explain this concept to me.
GCM:
Please, please! [He finally obtains silence] I understand that when these interruption happens, the tone gets a bit louder, but that is not helpful. [Interruption] Please, please—but we are getting the impression that the objections are preventive. So while the pubblico ministero is speaking, which he has every right to do in this phase, and the defense already had their chance to do it, and they weren’t interrupted yesterday, so we ask for equal treatment today, at the present moment of the examination of the accused. And the tone should always remain cordial without giving the impression of a—
CDV:
Yes, yes, no, no. But it’s just that, I am asking that—
GCM:
Please, avvocato. There’s no reason. We are trying to reconcile the interests of all parties, we are gathering circumstances on which the different parties are called to make analyses and the Court to decide. This will be helpful for everyone. Go ahead.
GM:
The question is this: You say, you just told me a little while ago, that… the police—I’m trying to—well, I have to give a little introduction so she understands my question. You said “they found this message and they asked me whom it was to, if it was true or not true.” And you answered. Then the police obviously goes forward with their questions. “So, tell us”. And you…you just told me, I can’t read it, obviously I don’t have the transcription right here, but, I might be making a mistake, I don’t know, but you were saying that you remembered Piazza Grimana. Did you really say that?
AK:
Yes.
GCM:
Please, please, excuse me, there, now what the accused is saying is: “On the basis of these elements, I tried to reconstruct a scene that could be verified.” In these terms, not because she… She mentally elaborated, with her imagination: this is what I understood, how the scene could be realized, containing those elements that had come up.
AK:
Certainly.
GCM:
But she wasn’t speaking of an effective memory of circumstances that had effectively occurred in her perception. That is the meaning of the response of the accused.
AK:
Certo.
GM:
But you said that you remembered Piazza Grimana.
AK:
I had an image of Piazza Grimana.
GM:
An image of Piazza Grimana, that’s right. Now listen, in the interrogation, page 95, the same interrogation, but the same expression turns up in other places, I can give references if necessary…

[second half to follow]

Posted on 10/16/17 at 12:31 AM by The TJMK Main PostersClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (2)

Monday, October 09, 2017

Netflixhoax 21(c) Omitted - This Very Telling Knox Questioning By Dr Mignini #3

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



Knox again failing to convince 18 months later in court


(Long post, click here to go straight to Comments.)

1. Status Of Things At The Time

This follows from Post 1 and Post 2.

Six weeks after Meredith had died - in Perugia’s first murder for many years - a lot of events had occurred. Guede had been caught and Patrick finally released, through no help from Knox. Many leads had been followed up. All evidence emerging pointed only to the three.

The Matteini and Riciarelli oversight courts had received and reviewed copious evidence directly from the investigators, and had decided that AK and RS could be a flight risk and risk to witnesses and should remain locked up. Contradictions in their statements were rife.

Stuck with massive evidence, the defenses increasingly narrowed to a two-pronged attack: (1) Blame Guede and (2) Blame the police. It was not really begun here, as you can see, but soon did and continued to crescendo for seven years.

This unusual interrogation invited by Knox could actually have helped to get her released, if it had helped to prove either of the above. But in this final hour it becomes blindingly obvious to all present that Knox has boxed herself in.

So this became in effect a dry run for her second interrogation at the 2009 trial. That also was initiated by Knox and beamed more narrowly to fight the charge that she had feloniously impugned Patrick for Meredith’s death.

That was a far more public fail. This interrogation in December 2007 was not really reported, because the court ruled to keep the media out, as it did many times (oh, you didn’t know that?!)

But in June 2009 Knox was widely watched in Italy on the video feed from the court, and for many or most open-minded Italians that was it, there was no going back, to them Knox simply permeated guilt.

Our report then from Florence  in part.   

I don’t believe her. It is interesting to see Amanda Knox being cool and self-confident, but testifying about how disturbed she became when the police became pushy during her interrogation. It doesn’t fit.

And it comes across as untrustworthy and contradictory that when asked about her drug use, she puts on a “schoolgirl”’ attitude: In effect “Sorry, daddy judge, I was bad, don’t punish me for being young”.  This seems definitely out of order with the rest of her performance.

“Performance” is the impression I get from viewing the segments shown from the court - a well-rehearsed performance. I suppose that the jury will wonder how this cool person can forget whether she has replied to a sms-message, how she can get so confused that she names Patrick, afterwards “is too afraid to speak to anyone but her mother”, and so on.

Our report then from Milan  in part.

As many of us were expecting, Amanda’s testimony has backfired. She came across not as confident but arrogant, not as sweet but testy, not as true but a fake who has memorized a script, an actress who is playing a part but not well enough to fool the public.

It is true that the Italian media and public opinion in general have not been very benign with Knox. But not for the reasons that the American media seem to want to push.  Let’s make it clear, Amanda Knox is not on trial because Italians are unaccustomed to or even “jealous” of her freedom and lifestyle… The first time we read these “explanations” we found them quite laughable.

But for many or most Italians the initial amusement has now given way to a profound irritation. Amanda Knox’s lifestyle is shared by hundreds of thousands of Italian girls, who like partying and sex as much as she does - or even more - and they live a happy carefree life with no fear of being perceived as “bad girls.” They behave no differently from any other girl of the same age in America or in any other Western country.

   

2. The 17 December Interrogation Knox Requested (Part 3 Of 3)

Note: This is the third hour of three hours. The excellent translation is by Yummi, Catnip and Kristeva. The original in Italian is in the Wiki Case File here; it has been accessed nearly 4,000 times.

Transcript of Interview 17 December 2007: Statement of interview Of Ms Amanda Knox (cont)

[Ed note: start of overlap with Post #2]

PM Mignini: Well, but in the meanwhile, did two other young people arrive?

Knox: Yes after the police arrived, I led them into the house, because I thought they were those Raffaele had called, and I showed them that the door was locked and I showed them the window was broken and in the meanwhile Filomena and the boyfriend arrived…

Interpreter: Yes when the two police officers arrived, she thought they were those Raffaele had called and so she showed them…

Knox: And also two friends of hers [arrived]

Interpreter: … Meredith’s locked room and Filomena’s room with the broken glass, with the broken window and then Filomena with her boyfriend arrived and also other two young people…

PM Mignini: Oh… so you… you entered, I ask you this once more, you didn’t enter Filomena’s room, did you enter the other rooms?

Knox: It’s not that I went to look around, but I opened Laura’s door, that was all ok, there the bed was done up. There was the computer, so it was all ok.

Interpreter: She opened Laura’s room and she saw it was all in order

PM Mignini: Did you enter the room?

Knox: Maybe one step but I didn’t go inside

Interpreter: Maybe she made a step but she didn’t go around much

PM Mignini: And in which other… did you enter other rooms?

Knox: I entered my room, and I tried to open the door of Meredith’s room

[Ed note: end of overlap with Post #2]

[73]

Interpreter: She entered her room, and tried to enter Meredith’s room but it was locked

PM Mignini: And so what did you… what happened at that point?

Knox: After Filomena arrived, she handled the talking with the police, and I stayed in the kitchen with Raffaele

Interpreter: After Filomena arrived, it was Filomena talking with the two officers and Amanda and Raffaele remained in the kitchen

PM Mignini: And so did you two see… what happened next? You two, did you see?

Knox: I know the police opened Meredith’s room

Interpreter: She knows the police opened Meredith’s room

PM Mignini: You know that because they told you?

Knox: No, no, I was in the kitchen, and from there I could see they were beside Meredith’s room, but I was not there, I was in the kitchen

Interpreter: No, no, she saw that from the kitchen

PM Mignini: But you, what did you see of Meredith’s room?

Knox: I did not see inside the room

PM Mignini: You didn’t see anything…

Interpreter: She didn’t see down into the inside of the room

PM Mignini: So did you see the scene? Neither you nor Raffaele?

Interpreter: No

Knox: No we didn’t see

PM Mignini: Neither of you two, when they opened it, where were you?

Knox: In the kitchen

[74]

Interpreter: In the kitchen

PM Mignini: So you were a few meters away

Knox: Yes, yes

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: In what area of the kitchen were you staying?

Knox: more or less near the entrance

Interpreter: In the.. near the [outside] entrance of the kitchen…

PM Mignini: About the entrance, you mean the house entrance, just beyond… so you were…

Knox: Yes we were inside

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: When they entered, then was the door immediately closed again?

Interpreter: With the officers?

PM Mignini: Meredith’s [room].

Knox: I don’t know, they just told me to get out of the house

Interpreter: She doesn’t know, because they told her to get out of the house

PM Mignini: The Carabinieri, at what time did they arrive? Did [some people] wearing black uniforms come? Other police officers?

Knox: The Carabinieri came… at that point I was very frightened… I don’t remember when they arrived, I’m sure that was after, when I went out, and I sat on the ground and I couldn’t understand what was going on…

Interpreter: The Carabinieri arrived afterwards when I was outside

PM Mignini: How long after the arrival of the two plain-clothed police officers?

[75]

Knox: I’ve already said in these instances it’s too difficult to define the time, because I only remember Filomena saying “A foot! A foot!” We were pushed out, there were police officers outside and I sat on the ground, I couldn’t… I was under shock and couldn’t understand what happened…

Interpreter: What Amande remembers is that after Meredith’s door was opened, Filomena was screaming “A foot! A foot!” and Amanda was told to get out of the house and it’s hard to explain at this point, to tell if she was frightened..

PM MIgnini: When did the Carabinieri come? When? After the body had been discovered?

Knox: I saw the Carabinieri when I went out, I don’t know when they came…

Interpreter: She saw the Carabinieri when she got out of the house, she doesn’t know when they came

PM MIgnini: But the Carabinieri did not enter? You did not see them inside the house.

Knox: No I don’t think so…

Interpreter: No

PM MIgnini: So you saw them when you went out, so was that after a long time since the arrival of the Postal Police? After… ten minutes, fifteen minutes?

Knox: Yes, maybe after some ten minutes, I was still in shock and I was scared so it’s difficult to tell at what time the various things happened…

Interpreter: It’s difficult for her to say how much time had passed because she was in shock but something like ten minutes must have passed

PM MIgnini: Oh well, I wanted to know this: did Raffaele tell you about what was in the room?

[76]

Knox: Before, he didn’t know himself what was inside the room

Interpreter: Before, he didn’t even know himself

Knox: But after, when they were all talking… he found out yes… After the police was there and we were all outside together I don’t know who told him but it must have been Filomena or I don’t know who else… but someone explained him that it was not just a foot in the room but the body… but what they saw of it was the foot… So he explained to me that the body was in the room, but you could only see the foot.

Interpreter: When she was outside with Raffaele, to [sic] him, he understood that it was not just a foot but it was the body that had been found

PM MIgnini: But he told you, did he tell you textually “there was a girl’s body inside the wardrobe covered with a sheet, and the only thing you could see was a foot”. This, did Raffaele tell it to you?

(the interpreter, at this point translates the question asked by PM MIgnini this way: “did Raffaele tell you that in the room there was the body covered by a cover?)

Knox: Yes

Lawyer: She [the interpreter] did not say: in the wardrobe?

PM MIgnini: These are your statements. You declared on December 2…. on November 2. … On November 2. 2007 at the first questioning when you were heard, the very first one, a few hours after the discovery of the body, you told, you said Raffaele told you that “in the wardrobe, there was the body of a girl covered by a sheet and the only thing you could see was a foot”. Is this true, that Raffaele told you this?

Lawyer: Please judge, could you read it to us?

[77]

PM MIgnini: So “in the wardrobe..” Excuse me, please translate this word by word to her… “in the wardrobe there was the body of a girl covered with a sheet and the only thing that you could see was a foot”

Knox: As Raffaele said

Interpreter: This is as Raffaele told it to Amanda…

PM MIgnini: Yes, she said this in the first [2 November] questioning.

Knox: Yes, apparently, it seemed to me, he told me the body was in the wardrobe… it’s this that he told me… obviously he did not see himself inside the room, it was things that were told to him by someone else…

Interpreter: Yes, on November 2. she said so because it’s what Raffaele told her. Because not even what he thought he understood [sic “neanche quello che secondo lui ha capito”]... Since he did not see… he did not see inside the room…. Raffaele told her that way

PM MIgnini: These are textual, precise words so? … I may read them again to you… You confirmed…

Lawyer: She confirmed that Raffaele heard other people saying that maybe this was the version, and he referred this version, referring to something he heard

PM MIgnini: I read them again, I can read them again….

Lawyer: We’ve read it, you explained to us

PM MIgnini: So on November 2. you say, that means the first questioning at 15: 30, this is the first one, the most aseptic one let’s say, so: “I learned in that moment from my boyfriend that inside Meredith’s room in the wardrobe there was the body of a girl covered with a sheet and the only thing you could see was a foot”.

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

[76]

PM MIgnini: You confirm that he spoke to you this way

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

Lawyer: She pointed out to the previous question, the source from which Raffaele had this information

Interpreter: Raffaele did not see, so it was what it seemed to him

Lawyer: Raffaele collected this information from other people

Interpreter: From the people around, Carabinieri and other young people

PM MIgnini: But excuse me, excuse me, did Raffaele tell you this, did he tell you “this one told me, that one told me”, or instead Raffaele limited himself to just telling you this? What did Raffaele tell you?

Knox: I think it was Filomena’s friends who told him

Interpreter: She thinks it was Filomena’s [male] friend who told Raffaele

PM MIgnini: You think…

Knox: I don’t know who told him

PM MIgnini: Excuse me…

Interpreter: Yes she thinks but doesn’t know

PM MIgnini: Excuse me, the question was as follows, here’s the question… Are you ready? … So, Raffaele comes to you…

Knox: Yes

PM MIgnini: And what does he say? “There is the body of a girl in the wardrobe, covered with a sheet, and you can only see a foot”? Or did he say “someone told me that there is the body of a girl” and said who [told him]?

[79]

Knox: I understand… I understand… He said precisely “Apparently there is a girl, there is the body of a girl, in the wardrobe… But the only thing that you can see is her foot”

Interpreter: He did not say who told him, he just said “it seems like…” and “apparently…”

PM MIgnini: He said so: “It seems like…” ?

Interpreter: Yes

PM MIgnini: The body is in the wardrobe covered with a sheet, and you only see a foot

Interpreter: Yes it seems like they say apparently

PM MIgnini: Oh, then when did you know, you, how Meredith died?

Lawyer: How Meredith was dead?

PM MIgnini: That she was dead, and about how she died

Knox: The police told me

PM MIgnini: When did they tell you?

Knox: At the beginning they didn’t tell us if was Meredith or not, Filomena said “Oh no, Meredith!” so I imagined it was her but I didn’t know… So at the Questura when they were already questioning they told me then that it was Meredith. I don’t remember the exact moment when they told me but it was at the Questura…

Interpreter: She actually learned this when she was at the Questura, later, before she learned about the body of a girl and then she heard Filomena saying “Oh my god, its Meredith!” and hence…

[80]

PM Mignini: And about the way she was killed, when did you come to know that? Excuse me, I’ll give you an example, she could have been shot with a gun, with a stab, poisoned… I mean…

Knox: I didn’t know how she was killed… I thought that there was this foot in the room but didn’t know anything else… The police…

Interpreter: The police told her

PM : When? Who told you from the police?

Knox: I don’t remember

Interpreter: She doesn’t remember

Lawyer: No, but she also said that she doesn’t know how she was killed…

PM Mignini: This is important: therefore you don’t know how she was killed?

Knox: No

Interpreter: No, she didn’t know

PM Mignini: You didn’t know how she was killed, what was it the police telling you?

Knox: The police told me that her throat had been cut… and from what they told me I had pictured something horrible…

Interpreter: The police told her that her throat had been cut

PM Mignini: Who told you from the police?

Knox: I don’t remember

Interpreter: Eh, she doesn’t know who

PM Mignini: Well, a man, a woman…?

Knox: I don’t remember

Interpreter: I don’t remember

[81]

PM Mignini : And when were you told?

Knox: When I was at the questura, but I don’t remember. When they interrogated me the first time I remember that they said “we don’t even know if it’s Meredith” I don’t remember when they told me, I only remember that the police told me when I was in the Questura because I didn’t know what had happened…

Interpreter: She only remembers that she was in the questura when she came to know how

PM Mignini: At what time?

Knox: I don’t remember…

Interpreter: I don’t remember.

PM Mignini: After having talked, after you were heard at the Questura, did you go away or did you wait?

Knox: The first day I was questioned I was there for hours… maybe 14…

Interpreter: The first time it seems to her that she had been there a very long time, 14 hours

PM Mignini: But questioned

Knox: No, maybe they questioned me for 6 hours but I stayed at the Questura a very long time…

Interpreter: It must have been more or less 6 hours that Amanda was questioned but staying in the Questura must have been about…

PM Mignini: But was there… were you in the waiting room?

Knox: Yes the whole time together with everyone else we were there in the waiting room…

Interpreter Yes, yes together with the other ones

PM Mignini: And who were the other people?

[82]

Knox: The housemates, and later others arrived… After quite a long time our neighbors arrived, after a while some people Meredith knew arrived, her friends

Interpreter: Her housemates and then other people who arrived later, the neighbors after a while… and after, Meredith’s friends arrived, the people Meredith knew…

PM Mignini: But did you speak to them? Did you exchange any confidences?

Knox: Yes we were all there and I said “it appears that Meredith’s body was found in a closet”

PM Mignini: Who said that?

Knox: I remember talking to her friends and I remember telling them that it appeared the body had been found inside a closet…

Interpreter: She remembers having said it to Meredith’s friends

PM Mignini: But friends, who? You must tell us the name… a name even just the name…

Knox: I remember having talked to Sophie… But I don’t know the name of the other friends

PM Mignini: A certain Natalie? From London

Knox: The name sounds familiar but I don’t think I could recognize her face

Interpreter: She can’t tie the name to her face but…

PM Mignini: And what were you saying? What kind of comments were you making?

[83]

Knox: I told them what I knew, I told them that I had arrived home and found the door open, and told them what I knew…

Interpreter: She told what she knew that she had arrived home and found the door open

PM Mignini: Did you ever see, did you see in those moments the wound on Meredith’s neck?

Interpreter: Up to the moment?

PM Mignini: In that moment.

Knox: I never saw Meredith dead, I never saw her dead body…

Interpreter: No, she never saw her dead

PM Mignini: Ok, but was there anyone that night who said, anyone who said that she had died quickly? Did someone else say that she must have suffered for a long time… was there anyone who said this?

Knox: Nobody of the people I talked to knew what had happened…

Interpreter: No, none of the people she talked to said something… knew what had happened

PM Mignini: Did you come to know, did you ever come to know, and if yes, when, in what moment, Meredith had died… that is, if Meredith’s death was immediate or if it was prolonged, if there was a death agony… if yes, when did you find that out?

Knox: The only time when I heard of this was when Luciano [Ghirga] was describing the wound and how deep it was… What kind of wound it was and he said “maybe she died slowly because no big vein had been struck”

Interpreter: So, the first time you had heard talking about the wound and how she died… when was it with Luciano?

Lawyer: The morning of the 8th

[84]

PM Mignini: So, after the 6th…

Lawyer: The morning of the 8th

PM Mignini: The morning of November 8th

Lawyer: After the arrest validation [hearing]

Interpreter: And there she found out that no vital vein was directly struck and therefore…

PM Mignini: You say that she came to know on the 8th from the lawyer.

Lawyer: From the lawyers.

PM Mignini: From the lawyers, sorry.

Lawyer: We always came all together

PM Mignini: Either one or the other [of you] could have told her… so… [talking to Knox] I formally notify [for the record, a contradiction] that an Erasmus student and a colleague of this student, they said, on this past December 10th that on the night of the second in the Questura, while having… a girl called Natalie, I won’t tell you her last name but she… she was a friend of Meredith, she had noticed that you were talking at length with Sollecito, and at a certain point, in response to a comment made by one of these girls that they hoped Meredith had died without suffering, you instead said “ with those kind of wounds the death would not have come fast and that therefore Meredith must have died after a certain period of time”. I’ll reread it to you if you’d like, ok?

Knox: The police told me that her throat was cut, and what I know about that topic, I mean when they cut your throat, it is terrible and I heard that it’s a horrible way to die…

Interpreter: Yes the police had told her that Meredith’s throat was cut and what Amanda knew is that it’s an agonizing way to die…

[85]

PM Mignini: But this is something we found out after, we too found it out only later… not right away…

Knox: The police told me that her throat had been cut.

Interpreter: The police had told her that her throat had been cut.

PM Mignini: Who from the police? Excuse me I’d like to know… cutting the neck, it can happen in many ways, vital veins can be struck and might also not be struck, therefore one thing is about cutting the throat, and another is about the way how to cut it and therefore make it so that the death occurs instantaneously, or cause a death with agony. On the evening of the second, if it’s true, according to these results, on the evening of the second you knew that, with those kind of wounds, she must have suffered an agony… and the police didn’t know that…

Knox: I thought that a death by cutting the throat was always slow and terrible…

PM Mignini: The autopsy was made on the fourth, two days later

Interpreter: What she thought was that cutting the throat was always a slow death in general

PM Mignini: It’s not like that…not necessarily… anyway, who from the police told you about the neck wound? Tell us.

Knox: It was probably the interpreter…the first interpreter was the person I talked to the most… all information I had came more or less from him…

Interpreter: Probably the translator/interpreter

PM Mignini: Therefore, therefore he told you while you were being heard…

Lawyer: She was in there 12 hours

[86]

Knox: When I was in there I was talking to the police and they told me that her throat was cut… the whole conversation was between me and the interpreter. It was him who must have told me, a long time has passed but I think it was like that…

Interpreter: Directly from the interpreter, indirectly from the police

PM Mignini: So [it was] when you were questioned. Not before.

Interpreter: No, before she was questioned she didn’t know how she was…

Knox: No, when I was home the way she died…

PM Mignini: Before being questioned… you were questioned until 15:30, until what time have you been heard? You were being heard since 15:30, until what time were you being heard?

Knox: I don’t know it was a long questioning…

Lawyer: She had been heard in the presence of an interpreter, maybe the interpreter…

PM Mignini: It was D’Astolto… Fabio D’Astolto

Lawyer: The interpreter was present from the beginning or only from the questioning onwards?

PM Mignini: Yes, well he was a policeman acting as an interpreter, translating. Fabio D’Astolto. Assistant D’Astolto. When and how, in what terms did D’Astolto express himself, this translator what did he tell you?

Lawyer: When?

PM Mignini: When and what did he tell you

Knox: I don’t remember when but I asked him how she died

Interpreter: She doesn’t remember when but she asked him how she was killed…

PM Mignini: And he pointed out to you the wound on the neck. The wound on the neck and that’s all. Fine. This translator.

[87]

Lawyer: [to the Prosecutor] You referred to an Erasmus student who had said that on December 10th.  Ms. Natalie would have said this.

PM Mignini: Yes

Lawyer: And is the Erasmus student indicated [in the records]?

PM Mignini: It is indicated

Lawyer: Do we have a name?

PM Mignini: Capruzzi, Filippo and the other one is a certain, a colleague of his, Chiara, Maioli.

Lawyer: So it was two Erasmus students

PM Mignini: Two Erasmus students who confirmed this confidentiality from this English girl. Some… this is the December 10th hearing report… ok

Lawyer G. She clarified if she had talked with the interpreter, with someone before…

Lawyer C. We have clarified that the interpreter was not an interpreter but was a police officer who speaks English and that apparently was present from the beginning and therefore at this point…

PM Mignini: Wait.. one moment… did you, did you… did you see this person who was translating at the house?

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: Perfect

Lawyer: She was approximately 12 hours in the Questura and at some time she heard the first… let’s call it questioning but it was a long time, and before the questioning she heard of this wound on the neck, is that right?

[88]

PM Mignini: During the questioning, you said before, during the questioning so much as this policeman translator was present, therefore… no I’m very sorry, who did you hear this from? The translator? The policeman

Interpreter: About the wound? The first time?

PM Mignini: The wound

Knox: I think so

Knox: The first time?

PM Mignini: Yeah

Interpreter: I think the interpreter the first time

PM Mignini: And it would be this D’Astolto… so this D’Astolto told you, please excuse me you told me this “it was D’Astolto” now… therefore this D’Astolto told you this during the course of the questioning?

Knox: I think so…

Interpreter: Yes, she thinks so

PM Mignini: Ok, one more thing, so the… you did, the morning of the… actually no, the night between the fifth and the sixth of November, you did, let’s say partially modify your previous declarations, so then you modified your previous declarations and you made a specific accusation against Patrick Dia Lumumba known as Patrick. You said that you were supposed to meet with Patrick, that you met with Patrick at the basketball court of Piazza Grimana, that you went to Meredith’s house, to your house, and then he had sex with Meredith, then you heard a scream and you accused him even if in terms you say “confusedly” of killing Meredith. Isn’t that so? Why did you make this accusation? … Now remember, I was hearing you, I was present, you were crying, you were

[89]

profoundly upset, and you were as if relieved when you made this statement.

Lawyer: Maybe she was stressed?

PM Mignini: Well, stressed or not, in any case she was very   she made these declarations

Lawyer: You asked her a question “Why did you make these declarations”?

PM Mignini: Well I also have to…

Lawyer: Eh these are opinions

PM Mignini: I am saying that you made a declaration not in a detached way, in other words in a very involved manner, why did you make these statements?

Knox: I was scared, I was confused, it had been hours that the police that I thought were protecting me, and instead they were putting me under pressure and were threatening me.

Interpreter: She was scared, she was confused, it had been hours that the police were threatening and pressuring her.

PM Mignini: Yes, tell me, go on

Knox: The reason why I thought of Patrick was because the police were yelling at me about Patrick… they kept saying about this message, that I had sent a message to Patrick…

Interpreter: The reason why she thought of Patrick was because the police was asking her who was this Patrick to whom she sent, with whom there was this exchange of messages, they were asking her insistently.

Knox: That was the worse experience of my life

Interpreter: The worse experience of her life

[90]

Knox: I had never been more confused than then

Interpreter: She had been so confused or scared

PM Mignini: But in the following memoriale [spontaneous statement around noon 6 November] that you wrote before going to prison, basically you don’t retract this accusation. Even if in terms, still in terms let’s say of uncertainty, between dream and reality, in other words in such a way … still you didn’t … I believe that in this memoriale you say “I still see this image in front of me” and then you see yourself while hearing it, you say that in that first memoriale you wrote “you hear Meredith’s screams and you put your hands over your ears”. Why do you have this image? Your ears… the scream… it’s not like it’s changing much after all isn’t that so?

Lawyer: No, but she says she was very confused… she was under a lot of stress

PM Mignini: Yes, but why does it basically remain the same, this one…

Knox: Yes, I imagined these things…

Interpreter: Imagined this scene

Knox: I was so scared and confused

Interpreter: I was so scared and confused

Knox: that I tried to imagine what could have happened. The police told me that I was probably not remembering well. So I thought of what could be another answer and therefore I imagined it…

Interpreter: She tried to think of what could have happened since the police was saying that probably she didn’t remember well. And therefore she imagined this scene, trying to think how it could have happened

PM Mignini: Well, you, I just tell you, I tell you only that this Dia Lumumba, this Patrick, only comes up in your statements, he wasn’t, he has never been indicated previously in the slightest, I mean why did you, why did you almost feel…

[91]

...forced to, so you say, to give this name? While this name had never been, you had never mentioned him previously… in the statements of the 2nd, the 3rd…. Why only at a certain point di this Patrick pop up? I’m telling you, do you realize… excuse me, eh? … excuse me….

Knox: They were telling me “why did you send this message to Patrick, this message to Patrick!”

Interpreter: Because they were always insisting about this message to Patrick and because…

PM Mignini: Well because there’s the message so [it’s] the message but it’s just that, it’s not that there was an attitude, I mean it’s not like there was any reference to a message according to what emerges from the statements. In fact there was a message that you… since there had been an exchange of messages right before the time of the murder between you and this person it’s normal that the police would want to know why, what this message meant, this… therefore it’s not something… why did you threw yourself in this kind of… ? While you had, you had the possibility to…?

Knox: Because I thought that it could have been true

Interpreter: Because she thought it could have been true…

PM Mignini: It could have been true?

Lawyer: Why?

Knox: When I was there, I was confused…

PM Mignini: [to the lawyers, ed.] No, no, excuse me, at this point no, I’m sorry. Not the lawyers. The defense can intervene against me but against the person investigated…?

Lawyer Ghirga: But there was no question… Prosecutor there was no question

PM Mignini: It could be true. What does it mean?

[92]

Lawyer Ghirga: There was no question

PM Mignini: What? I am asking the question.

Lawyer Ghirga: Then ask it.

PM Mignini: What does it mean, how ‘could it be true’? What?

Lawyer Ghirga: What could be true?

PM Mignini: Excuse me, lawyer

Lawyer Ghirga: It’s like the phone call with her parents

PM Mignini: What could be true

Lawyer Ghirga: It’s like the phone call with her parents

PM Mignini: …Lawyer Ghirga… what…?

Lawyer Ghirga: [seems to Knox] What do you want to say then? Let’s ask her…

PM Mignini: Excuse me, I am asking the questions, I am asking them now

Lawyer Ghirga Yes of course

PM Mignini: Then after you can… I am asking her…

Lawyer Ghirga: Yes of course, we will ask them too…

PM Mignini: Lawyer… she is saying “it could have been true”…

Lawyer: What?

PM Mignini: “it could have been true”. She was telling me why did she accuse Lumumba of this fact? “It could have been true” is what she answered. Gentlemen, here…

Knox: I said it because I imagined it and I thought that it could have been true…

Interpreter: She said because she had imagined it and therefore she thought it could have been true.

[93]

PM Mignini: Look, listen… listen, why did you imagine it?

Knox Why?... Because I was stressed

PM Mignini: Why didn’t you imagine…

Lawyer: No she was answering

PM Mignini: Yes; what did you want to say?

Interpreter: Because she was under stress…

Knox: Knox: Why? I was stressed, I was scared, it was after long hours in the middle of the night, I was innocent and they were telling me that I was guilty

Interpreter: Because they were saying that she was guilty

PM Mignini: Who was saying it? Guilty who’….

Interpreter: After hours…

Lawyer: Excuse me, prosecutor, if we can correctly compile this translation, these words that were said in English at the right moment

PM Mignini: She is crying, we acknowledge, I’m sorry, we acknowledge that the… investigated is crying.

Interpreter: Because she was stressed, scared under pressure after many hours, she was… in the middle of the night, they had reached the middle of the night and because they were saying that Amanda was guilty.

PM Mignini: Who was saying that she was guilty?

Interpreter: The police

Lawyer: The police was accusing her

Interpreter: The police was accusing Amanda

[94]

PM Mignini: Why… why did you accuse Lumumba and not others? How many people did you know who could…

Knox: Because they were yelling Patrick’s name…

Interpreter: She accused Patrick and not others because they were always talking about Patrick, suggesting…

PM Mignini: The police, the police couldn’t suggest…

Interpreter: Yelling Patrick’s name

PM Mignini: Excuse me, what was the police saying?

Interpreter: What did the police tell you?

Knox: The police were telling me that ‘we know that you were at the house, we know that you left the house’, and the moment before I said Patrick’s name they put.. someone was showing me the message that I had sent on the phone

Interpreter: The police said that they knew that Amanda was inside the house, and when she went in, when she went out, that she was inside the house, and while they were asking her this someone showed her Patrick’s message on the phone.

PM Mignini: But this is… But this is normal. You… there was this message… I’m sorry, I’m very sorry. There’s a murder here. There’s a girl whose throat is slit, there was a phone number, there was a call that had been made, you were being heard. There was a call that had been made to you on the night of the murder from this person, you replied to this call in a way that could have been interpreted, according to the meaning in Italian “will see you”. Eh, so what is more normal than to insist? The police are doing their job. They insist to know, what did that mean, what was the, what relationship was there between you and Lumumba. This is normal.

[95]

Knox: I didn’t understand why they were insisting that I was lying… they kept telling me that I was lying…

Interpreter: She didn’t understand why they were insisting that she was lying.

PM Mignini: Why are you…?

Interpreter: The police was insisting that she was lying.

PM Mignini: But why did you accuse, then if it was like this….  Again you are, you are crying again, for a long while since you started, I put in the record, I put in the record that… it’s been ten minutes that you have been crying. Why did you accuse a person that, today, you’re telling us he is innocent, but earlier you just told us “it could be true” what does “it could be true” mean? You have told me “it could be true”.

Lawyer: The subject is missing

PM Mignini: No the subject is there, because I asked the question. Why did you accuse Lumumba?

Lawyer: Can we suspend a moment please?

PM Mignini: What reason?

Knox: It means that in the moment when I told Patrick’s name, I thought that it could have been true.

Interpreter: In the moment in which she said Patrick’s name, in that moment, she thought it could have been true.

Lawyer Ghirga: We ask for a suspension… she is calm, you say she is crying, and we think she’s not.

PM Mignini: I put that in the record it because I could see the tears, she was crying and I could hear her too.

[96]

Lawyer: It was not ten minutes long

PM Mignini: Well, even more, maybe

Lawyer: maybe, no less

PM Mignini: Let’s interrupt, break off.

Lawyer: You asked her six times…

PM Mignini: For Heaven’s sake, let’s interrupt, break off.

(interruption)

[from this point on Amanda declares her right to remain silent]

PM Mignini: So, at 15:12 lawyer Luciano Ghirga resumes the interrogation

Lawyer Ghirga: In the name of the defensive collegium we submit a reason to confer personally, privately, we mean alone together with our client, for a time not longer than ten minutes.

PM Mignini: So, the Public Prosecutor is pointing out that the interrogation had already been suspended and it’s 15: 13 now, pointing out that the interrogation was suspended several times, and the last time for, how long? Ten minutes on request of the defence, and the defence will be allowed to fully have counsel with the person under investigation at the end of the interrogation. [The Public Prosecutor] orders to proceed, orders to go forward with the investigation procedure. So now I would like…

Lawyer Ghirga: If you may, ask to the suspect, to the person under investigation, whether she intends to go on or to invoke her right not to answer…?

PM Mignini: This is a… it’s a… it’s a… she decided to answer questions at the beginning. Now if she decides to make a statement where she says “I don’t want to answer any more” she’ll be the one who says it, and it’s not that I must ask now, that question was done at the beginning of the interrogation. If now she wants to say…

Knox: I prefer not to answer any more…

[97]

Lawyer Ghirga: What did she say?

Interpreter: She doesn’t want to answer anymore.

PM Mignini: So, at this point, at 15: 15, on a question asked by the defence lawyers, about whether the person under investigation intends to go on answering or not…

Lawyer Ghirga: To your questions

PM Mignini: To a question by lawyer Ghirga… yes, well, Lawyer Ghirga asked her that

Lawyer: He didn’t first ask the question

Lawyer Ghirga: But what question did I ask?

Lawyer: We told you to ask her…

PM Mignini: Yes, you asked me, and I did follow the request. But…

Lawyer Ghirga: She made a declaration, and we took note, unfortunately, about forbidden suggestions… but on what request…?

PM Mignini: Now at this point, at 15: 15 the defence lawyers… Let’s put like this, the defence lawyers ask this Prosecutor about whether he intends to ask the person under investigation if she intends to go on answering questions, but then, after my decision, Lawyer Ghirga said…

Lawyer Ghirga: Who said? You said

PM Mignini: You asked her, I put in the record what happened, it’s recorded anyway, this is what I perceived you asked her, and she answered “I do not intend to answer”, she said, and then the interpreter…

Lawyer Ghirga: I asked whether she intended to make a statement, and she made a statement

PM Mignini: You indicated that to her, it changes nothing, doesn’t change… I must only put in the record what happened. The public prosecutor points out that…

[98]

...the warning about the right not to answer was explained to the person under investigation at the beginning of the interrogation, as provided by the Code, and that same [person under investigation] declared she wanted to answer. It is not possible now to invoke the duty to inform the suspect about her right, because such requirement has been already fulfilled. Anyway the person under investigation can, if she decides to, declare that she doesn’t want to answer any more. Such option has been shown to the person under investigation by lawyer Ghirga.

Lawyer: ...by the defence lawyers

PM Mignini: By the defence lawyers, to the person under investigation. What do you want to do?

Lawyer: What do you mean by “It was shown?”

PM Mignini: It was shown, because you said… I need to put in the record what happened. The lawyer… Facing my warrant which I described, the notice was provided at the beginning of the interrogation as the code requires. She said “I want to answer, I do not intend to invoke my right not to answer”. That answer had been given already, I informed her, and she answered. Now to this, at this point, however, I said nothing prevents her from wanting, from declaring “at this point I do not intend to answer any more”. I put it in the record and I don’t ask why, at that point, at that point.

Lawyer: You should not put in the record “the defence lawyers have shown…”

PM Mignini: “at that point”

Lawyer: We did not show anything, we asked to be allowed to, well… and you said no.

PM Mignini: So… lawyer, lawyer?

Lawyer: And you said no, and we didn’t have the possibility to show her…

[99]

PM Mignini: Lawyer Ghirga… Lawyer Ghirga…

Lawyer: that she might invoke her right to not answer. It’s not that it’s we who’ve shown this possibility this is what I want to explain…

PM Mignini: Lawyer Ghirga told her something, so…?

Lawyer Ghirga: No, no, I only said, if you could give us a ten minutes suspension

PM Mignini: You told her something, now come on… I need to put that on record

Lawyer Ghirga: what did I say…

PM Mignini: You have shown, I don’t know if the other lawyer did too, you told, Lawyer Ghirga, you told the person under investigation about… You said, if you can, if I remember correctly,  we’ll hear her again…

Lawyer Costa: It was me who told her, Mr. Prosecutor

PM Mignini: So I understood Lawyer Ghirga… Lawyer Giancarlo Costa declares he explained that, I didn’t say anything else

Lawyer Costa: ... To Ms. Amanda Knox to use her right to invoke her right not to answer

PM Mignini: ... And she herself declares so, she is supposed to declare what she wants

Lawyer: She has already said that

PM Mignini: Let’s repeat it since with this superimposition of voices… the interpreter will translate faithfully word-by-word what you say.

Knox: At this point I don’t want to answer any more

Interpreter: At this point she doesn’t want to answer any more

PM Mignini: So “at this point I don’t want to answer any more”. We put on record that the current transcript was recorded entirely.

[100]

Lawyer Costa: Mr Public Prosecutor, we lawyers may renounce to our own time terms of deposit if Your Honour would give us a copy

PM Mignini: Yes, no problem… at 15: 22. The parties demand a transcription, I mean the defence lawyers request the transcription of the recording.

Posted on 10/09/17 at 11:00 PM by The TJMK Main PostersClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (11)

Tuesday, October 03, 2017

Netflixhoax 21(b) Omitted - This Very Telling Knox Questioning By Dr Mignini #2

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



That’s better…


(Long post, click here to go straight to Comments.)

1. Amanda Knox’s Problem Going In

The first post on the interrogation of 17 Dec 2007 by Dr Mignini that Knox herself invited can be read here

These are two fairly typical quotes from the 240 online reviewers (yes 240 is our latest count) who the dishonest Netflix report had inflamed - and most in their turn had inflamed their numerous readers, who posted angry comments underneath. So the extent of the inflaming was huge.

The documentary is good. But it leaves out a lot of things. For example, the prosecutor Mignini continually proclaimed that it was a ritual killing with all kinds of Satanic overtones. The documentary should have discussed those bizarre thoughts more to emphasize how ridiculous this man was and still is.

Mignini’s statements are so fanciful that it’s easy to wonder if nuance has gotten lost in translation; however, perhaps as its nod to objectivity, the documentary politely omits that Mignini has not only a history of abuse of power but also an obsession with the occult and a history of fantasizing imaginary crimes based on faulty assumptions.

All untrue - if the claims were true, this interview would never have taken place.

No supporting proof from those reviewers. No grounding in what the official documents described as really having happened, though those documents were already available by the hundreds in translation by then. No research into the real Dr Mignini. No checking of his various interviews. No warning flags thrown up by Amanda Knox’s lies in the Netflix report and before. No mention that for lying she served three years, and will remain a felon for life.

The standard Knox-Mellas-Marriott mantra. “Simply blaze away. After all, the guy is in Italy, so if we make things up and defame him, what can he possibly do? As incompetent and biased as we may be, we are home and dry. And safely harass the victim’s family from afar, too, as the Netflix producers had done.”

That would make the mafias proud….

Okay. Do you know why defense counsel so often insist that their clients simply shut up? It’s not simply the possibility of lies - it is the possibility of CONTRADICTIONS that could really hurt.

It is from contradictions that investigators and prosecutors and judges will know in a heartbeat that both claims cannot be true - that at least one is a lie. And innocent parties don’t often lie.

From the day of her arrest (6 November) investigators and her soon-appointed defense not only knew that Knox was already a mass of contradictions.

They had proof in writing: Knox’s three statements on the day of her arrest, and her long email home of several days before, which did not fit together at all well.

Knox’s new defense must have feared that investigators had in writing in their notes numerous other contradictions too - more proof of lies. Sure enough, written proof of a fatal contradiction which went toward imprisoning her for three years did in fact exist.

Sollecito’s written statement early on 6 November claimed that Knox had made him lie. Sollecito’s written statement for his judicial hearing on 8 November before Judge Matteini started “I wish to not see Amanda ever again.”

Is it therefore surprising that at both the Matteini hearing and that before the Ricciarelli panel of review judges later that month, Knox’s defense team are known to have told Knox “Don’t talk” ?

So. On with the Great Contradiction Hunt. And see if any Netflix reviewers’ claim about the prosecutor shows here.

2. The 17 December Interrogation Knox Requested (Part 2 Of 3)

Note: This is the second hour of three hours. The excellent translation is by Yummi, Catnip and Kristeva. The original in Italian is in the Wiki Case File here; it has been accessed nearly 4,000 times.

Transcript of Interview 17 December 2007: Statement of interview Of Ms Amanda Knox (cont)

[Ed note: start of overlap with Post #1]

PM Mignini: So she needed to go home, to take a shower and, let me understand, take a shower and to what?

Interpreter: To change her clothes

PM Mignini: To change your clothes… well and so what [did you]… did you bring anything with you?

Knox: I think I brought some clothes… dirty underwear…

Interpreter: Yes she thinks she brought dirty clothes from Raffaele’s home

PM Mignini: Dirty clothes that is… dirty clothes from previous times? Or since which… since what day were they lasting from?

Knox: I had spent two weeks living a bit at my home and a bit at his home

Interpreter: Because for two weeks she had been living half the time at her home and half the time at his home, and thus she had a bit of…

PM Mignini: What clothes were those ones?

Knox: Maybe underwear

Interpreter: Probably…

Knox: But I don’t remember, maybe it was a t-shirt

PM Mignini: You don’t remember

Interpreter: Dirty clothes…

PM Mignini: Well dirty clothes, I mean a skirt, a pullover…

Interpreter: No rather…

PM Mignini: Underwear garments

Interpreter: Underwear garments

PM Mignini: She doesn’t remember?

Interpreter: She thinks rather pants and vests /undershirts… and t-shirts

PM Mignini: Well, how were you dressed when you went at your house?

Interpreter: From Raffaele’s house to her house?

Knox: I was wearing trousers I remember that and let’s see…  so much time has passed… I know it was trousers

PM Mignini: Yes

Interpreter: She put on some trousers, she remembers it was trousers

PM Mignini: What colour?

Knox: A t-shirt and a sweater

Interpreter: And a sweater

PM Mignini: A jumper?

[Ed note: end of overlap with Post #1]

Interpreter: No, sweater normally means felpa [cotton sweater]

PM Mignini: A sweater [felpa]? Ask her

Attorney: Was it made of cotton or wool?

Knox: I don’t know

Interpreter: She doesn’t know

PM Mignini: What colour?

Knox: I don’t remember… a long time has passed, I remember what I put on but I don’t remember exactly… I’m sorry…

Interpreter: She doesn’t remember

[46]

PM Mignini: You don’t remember

Interpreter: She remembers she put on but not what…

PM Mignini: And the trousers, what colour were they?

Knox: I don’t remember, I only remember I was wearing trousers… I think they were jeans…

Interpreter: She does not remember even this one… maybe they were jeans

PM Mignini: So around blue? Light blue?

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: What route did you follow to walk…

Knox: The same route I do every day, I walk down Corso Garibaldi I follow the lane close to the basketball court, and next there’s my house

Interpreter: Down Corso Garibaldi then along aside of the basketball court to the house, the route she did every day

PM Mignini: You walked down the stairs?

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: On the side of the basketball court…

Knox: This road here that…
 
PM Mignini: Oh, so you walked down the lane not the…  the basketball court was on your right?

Knox: Yes

PM Mignini: So, excuse me, did you carry a bag, a [plastic] bag with the dirty clothes, or an empty [plastic] bag?

[47]

Knox: The clothes in a plastic bag

Interpreter: Yes a plastic bag with the dirty clothes

PM Mignini: With the dirty clothes. Well, please go on with the description… then…

Knox: When I arrived home the door was wide open and I thought it was strange, I thought that maybe somebody..  but nobody ever leaves the door open, however there was the possibility that someone went out without locking, maybe for a moment. I saw it I thought it was strange, I closed the door without locking it, because I didn’t know if someone was out,  I went into my room, I undressed and I went into the bathroom, I took a shower, first I took off my earrings, I took a shower and I used the bath mat on which there was some blood because I left my towels in my room. I saw the blood on the mat and I dragged it to my room to grab the towels. And then I took it back into the bathroom.

PM Mignini: Maybe you should stop

Interpreter: So when she arrived home she found the house door open, that was strange, she thought it was one of the girls who went out for a moment, she pulled it ajar [sic],  she did not lock it because she thought maybe someone left it open on purpose and she went in her room to remove her clothes to take a shower.  When she took a shower…

Knox: When I went to take a shower I forgot the towel in my room, I took off my earrings, I took a shower I had to use the bath mat and drag it to my room and then I dragged it back into the bathroom I put on my earrings

[48]

.. again, I saw the blood on the bath mat and in the bathroom but I did not think something terrible happened.

Interpreter: when she had gone [sic] into the bathroom to take a shower she forgot the towel and so there was this, how’s the word in Italian, bath mat which she used to go back and walk in her room to take the towel… she had taken away her earrings in the bathroom and from there she noticed there was some blood on the mat and on the basin, but she noticed it was strange but she didn’t think about something….

PM Mignini: I’m sorry I didn’t understand, but you took the bath mat to walk, to go in her bedroom?

Interpreter: Yes in order not to slip.. so to avoid walking barefoot

PM Mignini: When did you realize?

Knox: After the shower

Interpreter: After the shower

PM Mignini: When did you realize there was blood?

Interpreter: After the shower

Knox: I saw the blood when I entered the bathroom, I saw a little of blood just as I entered the bathroom, before taking the shower I took off my earrings, I took the shower and then I noticed blood on the bath mat

Interpreter: She noticed the blood while entering the bathroom, on the basin when she took off her earrings, then she had a shower and after the shower she was without the towel, so she used the mat to shuffle into her room

PM Mignini: Yes, so you saw blood before you took a shower?

[49]

Interpreter: Yes, in the basin

PM Mignini: In the basin

Interpreter: But on the bathmat, there she saw it when she was about to use the bathmat

PM Mignini: On the basin, where did you see it… where was the blood?

Knox: It was inside the basin, that was after… and it was also on the faucets

Interpreter: Inside the basin and on the taps

PM Mignini: So the blood was in the basin in the [inside] part… and on the tap… well, then… this was before taking a shower… then after taking the shower..

Interpreter: The towel was missing and she used

PM Mignini: She walked and realized that there was blood on the bathmat as well

Interpreter: Yes, yes

PM Mignini: And what did you do then?

Knox: I used the bathmat to walk to my room to get the towel and I went back into the bathroom, I think I washed my teeth, something I usually do, and when I dried myself I went back to my room and I put my clothes on.

Interpreter: So after she dried herself up in the bathroom and…

PM Mignini: Just a moment, before going on. The dirty clothes you had with you, where did you put them?

Knox: Between my bed and the wardrobe there is a heap of dirty clothes… there is a little space between the two and I usually put the dirty clothes there, behind the guitar… the guitar is not mine… the guitar is Laura’s..

Interpreter: So she put the [plastic] bag between the bed and the wardrobe, there is a space where she placed the guitar her friend has lent her

[50] 

Knox: Not the bag, just the clothes

Interpreter: And she placed the clothes, without the [plastic] bag, behind the guitar

PM Mignini: Why didn’t you put them into the washing machine?

Knox: Because I put all the dirty clothes in the same place, and when I’m ready to do a washing I put all the clothes in the washing machine

Interpreter: Because she was waiting to have some more to do a whole washing

PM Mignini: The bathmat, where did you… where did you take it after?

Knox: Once I finished using it to go and to come back from my room, I put it in the bathroom again

Interpreter: She put it back into the bathroom

PM Mignini: Were the bedroom doors open or closed?

Knox: No they were all closed…  Filomena’s door was closed, Meredith’s was closed and Laura’s I think it was slightly ajar

Interpreter: Only that one, the door of Laura was only a little bit open, so it seems to her, the other two were closed.

PM Mignini:  The other two were closed, you tried to open ... to knock?

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: Why didn’t you try? With .... blood ... with the front door open .... I mean….

Knox: I didn’t see a reason to do it…

Interpreter: She did not see a reason for knocking.

[51]

PM Mignini: So, excuse me, you find the door open, the front door open and itself this is something… then you find the blood in the bathroom and you have a shower despite this and this is something, allow me to say that, for… a bit strange this one, I mean you could imagine that there could be some, there could be some ill-intentioned person in the house or around, you find the front door open and the blood in the bathroom and in spite of everything you took a shower. The rooms were closed. You didn’t attempt to knock. Did you enter the rooms? This is strange.

Knox: In my whole life nothing that was ever remotely similar to this has ever occurred to me… I do not expect to come back home and find there is something wrong  

Interpreter: She did not expect to find something wring because she never experienced something…

PM Mignini: But there was blood, there was the front door open

Knox: There was not so much blood.. it could have been anything… when I saw the open door I thought it was strange, it’s that the thing I found most strange, I did not think it was so strange to find blood in the bathroom…

PM Mignini: But did you enter the rooms? I asked if you entered the room

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: You didn’t even knock?

Knox: No because when I came in I called to hear whether there was somebody at home

[52]

Interpreter: As she entered the house she called to know if there was somebody

Knox: But there was no answer

Interpreter: But there was no answer

PM Mignini: Listen, where did you dry up yourself?

Knox: In the bathroom

Interpreter: In the bathroom

PM Mignini: The bathroom, the small one, the one nearby… yours?

Knox: Yes I took the towel from the room, I dragged myself into the bathroom [sic], I dried myself up a little more…

Interpreter: Yes she dried herself up in the bathroom more or less, then she finished drying herself up in her bedroom

PM Mignini: Listen, were there broken glasses?

Knox: When I came out of from the shower I used the bathmat to go to my room, I took the towel I obviously wrapped it around myself and then I went back to the bathroom and I dried myself up

Interpreter: Before, since after taking the shower she had no towel cause she had forgotten it she went back into her room with the bathmat, there she took the towel which she wrapped around herself and then she finished to dry up herself in the bathroom. She went back in her room when she had finished drying herself

PM Mignini: Still stepping on the bathmat? Still bringing the bathmat?

Knox: I dragged the bathmat, I made more or less a heap to enter my room, I jumped back on the bathmat again and meanwhile my feet had got dry…  and since my feet were dry I brought the bathmat back into the bathroom… I did not drag it back with my feet

[53]

Interpreter: To go back she picked it with her hands because her feet were dry, she was dry

PM Mignini: Listen, but what did you do after?

Knox: I put my earrings on again

Interpreter: She put on her earrings again

PM Mignini: Oh just one thing, I wanted to know, did you see the pieces of broken glass?

Knox: No, I didn’t see them. I saw them the second time I entered the house

Interpreter: No she didn’t see the broken glasses

PM Mignini: Another thing I wanted to know: did you enter the other bathroom? The one with the washing machine?

Knox: Yes after I dressed up I went to dry my hair, and I used the hairdryer that Laura and Filomena use so I went into the other bathroom which is a large bathroom, there is a part, an area where they store all the make-ups… and there is another part with the bathroom fixtures. I passed through the anteroom where they have the make ups, the hairdryer and…

Interpreter: Yes after she dressed up, then…

PM Mignini: Try to interrupt her, or it gets [difficult] 

Interpreter: She dressed up she went in the other bathroom of Laura and Filomena because they have the hairdryer to dry her hair, the bathroom has two areas, let’s say the toilet area and the hairdryer area.. she saw the toilet from a distance, she did not see well because she was not in front of it she was far, and she say some shit, yes

PM Mignini: The toilet paper was there too?

Knox: I did not look into the toilet. From a corner

Interpreter: She only looked from far distance, not at close distance

[54]

PM Mignini: Excuse me, excuse me, I wanted to know this: when you saw this thing, what did you think? I mean did you think that a foreign person entered the house or… ?

Knox: It’s then when I thought something could have happened because the open door and that little amount of blood did not worry me

Interpreter: The fact that the front door was open and the blood seemed strange to her but not so much to feel alarmed…

PM Mignini: I was talking about the faeces

Knox: It’s there that I thought there was something strange, I felt scared…  It’s when I decided to go back to Raffaele’s house, because I got scared…

Interpreter: On that circumstance when she sat the [big] bathroom she started to become afraid

PM Mignini: Have you seen that other times? Did you see un-flushed faeces in the toilet other times? 

Knox: No that’s why it was strange, because nobody in our house would do that

Interpreter: No she never saw that before and exactly for this reason it seemed strange to her and she started to worry

PM Mignini: At this point there were many elements, the blood, the open front door…

Knox: Yes I was worried, after when I saw this, I saw the open front door and also the blood and I thought okay, maybe, I don’t know, but when I saw the blood…

[short break; recording begins again at 01.35 pm]

PM Mignini: At 13.35 the recording resumes, so where were we, so you, I asked you if you looked inside the toilet, or not?

Knox: I didn’t look closely inside the toilet

Interpreter: Only from a distance

[55]

PM Mignini: And you saw the faeces, but this time you got worried, what did you think, because, we said that already, didn’t we? Have you seen them [faeces] other times in the house?

Knox: It’s there when I thought something was wrong

Interpreter: At that point she started to be worried and to think there was something wrong

Knox: I couldn’t imagine what it could be because the house was in order

Interpreter: But she was unable to imagine what it could be because the house was in order

Knox: First of all I didn’t know the phone number of the Police

Interpreter: She didn’t know the police number here in Italy

Knox: Second I didn’t know if it was necessary

Interpreter: She didn’t know if it was necessary

Knox: So what I decided to do, I was thinking about it, I thought what these things would mean put altogether

PM Mignini: What is “if it was necessary”, I’m sorry, I don’t understand…

Interpreter: To call the police, she thinks… it didn’t seem to her it was necessary to call the police

PM Mignini: But, excuse me, you found the house door open, blood in the house, closed bedroom doors, and you did not try to… they didn’t answer, you called and then you didn’t try to look inside the rooms, you found faeces in the bathroom, sign of the presence of a foreign person, and you didn’t feel the need to call the police or the Carabinieri?

[56]

Knox: No, because if you come into the house and nothing is missing it usually means that no foreign person has come in

Interpreter: No, because nothing was missing, and so it appeared to her that…

PM Mignini: I understand, but there was blood…

Knox: It was not much…

PM Mignini: Did you check if anything was missing?

Knox: I didn’t really check; there was my computer in my room, and that was a big clue that everything was ok in the rest of the house.

Interpreter: She saw the computer was still in her room, so this…

PM Mignini: But you didn’t look inside the other rooms

Knox: They seemed okay.

Interpreter: And for the rest everything seemed ok to her…

PM Mignini: The drawer with the money, did you look [there] where the money was supposed to be?

Knox: No, I didn’t think that a foreign person or a thief could have been there, and I didn’t even think about it

Interpreter: No, She didn’t think about a theft and she didn’t imagine…

PM Mignini: Ok, let’s go forward, then I’ll make… so you went to Sollecito, how were you dressed?

Knox: I was wearing the white skirt, the blue t-shirt and tights

Interpreter: White skirt, the light blue t-shirt and tights

PM Mignini: Well, what was the time, what route did you walk? Was it the usual rout to walk to Sollecito’s…? At what time did you arrive?

Knox: I think around midday

Interpreter: Around midday

[57]

PM Mignini: What did you say to Sollecito? Who was there… was there someone with him or was he alone?

Knox: He was alone, and when he opened the door he was in his underpants

Interpreter: Yes he was alone, and when he answered he was in his underpants

Knox: When I went to the house, I took the bucket and mop with me

Interpreter: So she said (same as before our pause) before returning back to Raffaele’s house, she picked up the bucket and mop she promised to bring him on the previous evening…

PM Mignini: What bucket? How was that? What colour?

Knox: Red

Interpreter: Red

PM Mignini: Red. So where did you take it from?

Knox: In the corridor, which is between my room and Meredith’s room, there is a wardrobe, it was in there

Interpreter: She picked it up from a wardrobe that is in the corridor between her room and Meredith’s [room]

PM Mignini: There was a cleaning rag or a… a towel… a rag?

Knox: It was a red bucket and the mop

Interpreter: She took, it was a set, a bucket, and a rag with stick [mop]…

PM Mignini: The mop

Lawyer: The bucket was red, the rag was not, the bucket was red

Interpreter: Yes, sorry

PM Mignini: And you picked this in the…? Where was this mop?

Interpreter: This bucket was in the wardrobe that is in the corridor

[58]

PM Mignini: So you arrived at Sollecito’s, and you found him in his underpants, and what did you tell him?

Knox: At the beginning I didn’t tell him anything because I didn’t know what to say to him, still I didn’t know if there was anything strange…

Interpreter: She didn’t speak immediately with him because she was not sure whether there was something strange or not

PM Mignini: What, you were not… Excuse me.. excuse me but you just told me everything was strange

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: I can’t [understand]… I mean you, what were you thinking, please explain yourself because this is a version that honestly…

Knox: I was trying to understand what the whole could mean

Interpreter: She was trying to understand how the things could fit together

Knox: Because I knew it was strange

PM Mignini: Thus, understand it by asking Sollecito about it, didnt you?

Knox: At the beginning I didn’t tell that to Raffaele because I didn’t know if there was something really serious… I understood there was something strange, but I didn’t understand if it was serious…

PM Mignini:  Contradiction is noted [for the record] here [io le contesto = a legal formula by which a judge points out a contradiction] that you…. that you…

Interpreter: But the situation was not worrying…

PM Mignini: Because about this [point]… in particular about this point you said contradictory things… well because you said, at a certain point “blood, open front door, faeces, etcetera, I became worried”, now you are saying “I was not worried”

[59]

any more, I asked Raffaele if I should worry”… so honestly, explain yourself, because it’s not clear at all

Knox: It seemed strange to me but not worrying or alarming

Interpreter: It seemed strange to me but not so worrying, alarming

Knox: Because the house is exactly how it should have been, except for those small things

Interpreter: At her house, in Amanda’s house, everything was as it should have, except for those details

Knox: I had the idea that if someone entered the house and did something there should be visible chaos

Interpreter: Had some foreign person come in they would have made more mess

PM Mignini: Well so, did it happen other times that you saw blood in the house, open house door, faeces in the toilet?

Knox: No

PM Mignini: This one was the first time?

Knox: Yes

PM Mignini: And… and Raffaele, when you asked him about it, what did he say to you?

Knox: I talked with him about it after we cleaned up the water…

Interpreter: She told him after they cleaned up…

PM Mignini: So before that you told him nothing

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: You cleaned up… but excuse me?... Let me understand, that was water… was that the water that spilled on the previous evening? At what time did it spill? Around 21 hours?

[60]

Knox: I don’t know because I didn’t look at the watch… it was after dinner…

Interpreter:  Ehm… after dinner

PM Mignini: Ok, what time could that be? When did the leakage occur? 21: 30?... 20: 30? Have no clue?

Knox: I think it was about 10: 30

Interpreter: More like half past ten

PM Mignini: Half past ten… and so almost, about twelve hours… had passed, if I’m not mistaken, well, but didn’t the water dry up?

Knox: No, there was a lot of it

Interpreter: No it was a lot of water

PM Mignini: But hey it’s twelve hours that had passed, I didn’t make the count now but anyway it’s many hours that had passed, so…

Interpreter: But there was still the water

PM Mignini: As if those hours hadn’t passed. And then, what did Raffaele tell you? When did you talk about it with him? After finishing drying up [the floor]…

Knox: While he was dressing up I dried up the floor and when he got dressed I had finished drying up, we started to have breakfast, and then I told him…

Interpreter: Amanda was drying up the water while Raffaele was getting dressed and then when they…

PM Mignini: So when you finished everything taking your time, you said “this happened”

Interpreter: After he had dressed and they had breakfast she talked with him about it

PM Mignini: Oh so he dressed up, you had breakfast, so like about an hour has passed… how long?

[61]

Knox: Yes, I don’t think quite a whole hour…

Interpreter: Almost an hour yes… about an hour…

PM Mignini: At that point you told him what had happened… what you had seen

Knox: Yes I told him the door was open, that there was some blood in the bathroom and there was the shit in the other bathroom… the first thing I told him was “look, hear about these strange things that happened to me this morning”

PM Mignini: And what did he say?

Interpreter: Yes she told him about these three elements that were in the house

PM Mignini: And what did he say? What did he say?

Knox: Yes it’s strange, you need to call your housemates…

Interpreter: He said “yes it’s strange, call your housemates”

PM Mignini: But excuse me, he didn’t say call the Police or the Carabinieri? Not even on that occasion?

Knox: No, he said to call the housemates, I didn’t think that someone entered the house but that something could have happened to the girls… thus he said “you should call the housemates”

Interpreter: She was thinking something happened to her housemates, not that someone, a foreign person had entered, so he suggested to her to call the housemates

PM Mignini: And did you [plural, referred to both] call them immediately?

Knox: I called Filomena

Interpreter: She called Filomena

PM Mignini: And what did Filomena say to you?

[62]

Knox: She was more worried than me…

Interpreter: Filomena was more worried than her…

Knox: She said she spent the night with her boyfriend and Laura…

PM Mignini: Excuse me… excuse me… excuse me… when you called, where did you call Filomena, from where did you call Filomena and when?

Knox: From Raffaele’s house

Interpreter: From Raffaele’s house

PM Mignini: After you talked with him

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: Is that after?

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: So, now I note a contradiction [for the record] from you, that Ms. Romanelli said she received a phone call from you, she reported that “you were very frightened… you told her you were very frightened, and you were going to call Raffaele Sollecito”. Thus on these findings, you called Filomena before you talked with Mr. Sollecito. And she, Filomena, urged you to call Police or Carabinieri

Knox: I’m sorry, I didn’t understand well

Interpreter: I’m sorry, I didn’t understand well

PM Mignini: So from statements given by Ms. Romanelli on Dec. 3., it comes out that you, Amanda, you called Filomena, you told her you had slept at Raffaele’s house, that you had gone back to the cottage in the morning and you found the front door open and some blood in the bathroom, you told her you took a shower anyway, that you were scared and that you intended to call Raffaele Sollecito. Then the thing seemed strange [to] Ms. Romanelli, and she urged you to call immediately Police and Carabinieri….

[63]

...This is what Ms. Romanelli says, according to what Ms. Romanelli says, you called her before talking to Raffaele Sollecito.

Knox: What I remember about that morning, the first time I remember I called Filomena it was when I was at Raffaele’s home… An interesting thing I didn’t remember about that morning is that I called my mother three times, but I had completely forgotten about it. So what could have happened is that I forgot I called Filomena or we failed to communicate because she doesn’t speak English very well and I don’t speak Italian well. So I may have forgotten about calling her before, or I could have talked with her with some difficulty… but… I remember the first time I called her it was at Raffaele’s home. I might be mistaken but the other thing I didn’t remember was I called my mother three times and I don’t even remember about it…

Interpreter: As for what concerns her, as for what Amanda remembers, she remembers she called Filomena the first time from Raffaele’s home. It may not be she called her before. She doesn’t remember about it because she also talked that morning three times [sic] with her mother, something about which she doesn’t remember. Or it could be that they didn’t understand each other very well, since Filomena doesn’t speak English well and Amanda doesn’t speak Italian well, so they didn’t understand each other well.

PM Mignini: How many times did you speak with Filomena that morning, how many?

Knox: I recall she called at least three times when I was at Raffaele’s. I called her and she told me to call Meredith. So I tried to call Meredith and then she called me again to ask me if Meredith answered and I told her no, she didn’t answer. I said “we must go home and check then” and while we were getting ready she called again asking if we had arrived at home yet.

[64]

Interpreter: She believes she spoke with Filomena three times because Filomena told her to call Meredith, something she did but she didn’t answer. After that Ms. Filomena wanted to know the answer, and then Amanda said she would go to her house again to see the situation, and then she called Filomena again.

PM Mignini: You alerted Filomena, let’s go forward with the… then we’ll see…  So you talked with Filomena, then you went with Mr. Sollecito, you went to the house, didn’t you? At what time did you arrive?

At this point, we put in the record that, at 13.55, clerk of the court Daniela Severi leaves and [Carabinieri] officier Paciotti takes her place.

Knox: I think I’ve left at around half past twelve

Interpreter: She thinks about half past twelve

Knox: I know it seems strange, I realize I should have arrived at the house before that time, before twelve. Because I washed (? unintelligible)

Interpreter:  She should have arrived at Raffaele’s house before twelve, earlier than she thought. Because she did…

PM Mignini: Did you look at the time? The time?

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: Who was there when you arrived at the house?

(interruption of the recording)

PM Mignini: So we start again at 14.02

Lawyer: On a question by the lawyers, we ask if she was in possession of a watch

PM Mignini: Did you have a watch?

[65]

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: Well, but the cell phone had a watch, you had the time

Knox: Yes but I didn’t think about looking at the time

Interpreter: Yes but she didn’t think about looking at the time

PM Mignini: Well, so there were… what did you see inside the house when you came in?

Knox: It was there that we started to open the doors, I checked in Filomena’s room and there was some broken glass…

Interpreter: So she opened FIlomena’s room where she saw broken glass

Knox: Yes it was broken, on the floor and the window

Interpreter: On the floor and the window

PM Mignini: Did you enter the room?

Knox: No I just opened it [the door]

Interpreter: No she just opened the door

PM Mignini: Excuse me, just to understand better this point, the first time you saw the door closed you might even… you didn’t open it? You only opened on your return visit?

Knox: The first time I didn’t open the door

Interpreter: The first time she didn’t open the door

PM Mignini: It was closed. Now why did you open the door this time?

Knox: Because Filomena was afraid there could have been a burglary, a theft, so I opened to check if everything was ok.

Interpreter: Amanda opened Filomena’s room door because Filomena feared there could have been a theft and so she wanted to verify

[66]

PM Mignini: So then why didn’t you check? Didn’t you check if anything was missing?

Knox: I don’t know exactly what Filomena has in her room, I saw the computer on the table so I was not so much worried. The computer was the most valuable thing

Interpreter: So she didnt know of all Filomena’s items, but she immediately saw that Filomena’s computer was on the table, and so she thought…

PM Mignini: Well, and the door? Meredith’s door?

Knox: I was unable to open it

Interpreter: She couldn’t open it, the door of Meredith’s room

PM Mignini: Did you try to open the door?

Knox: Yes, first I tried to open it but it was locked so I knocked to see if she was sleeping, since it was locked I imagined she could be inside so I knocked to see if she was asleep

Interpreter: Yes she did try… yes she tried to open but the door was locked and so she knocked to see if she was inside, if she was sleeping…

PM Mignini: I go back for a moment… did you entered Filomena’s room, or you didn’t?

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: You should be precise about this

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: You didn’t enter… so, as you saw that… you knocked at Meredith’s door you saw her door, her room… her room door was locked, at that point, did you try to call her?

Interpreter: Do you mean calling by voice?

[67]

PM Mignini: No, I mean calling her cell phone

Knox: I had already tried to call her three times from Raffaele’s home. I thought it would be easier to wake her up by knocking at the door.

Interpreter: She had tried to call Meredith three times already, when she was at Raffaele’s home, so she wanted to wake her up by knocking at the door

PM Mignini: And then what happened? … oh just a moment, [you mean] you went to look inside the bathroom on the right, from the entrance point of view, not in your bathroom, the other bathroom…

Knox: When I looked inside, after we tried to open her door and everything, we were in the kitchen, and he would call his sister [sic]. I went to check the bathroom, I didn’t do down to the bottom, I went into the anteroom and what I had previously seen it had slipped down. It was as if it [the toilet] had been cleaned.

Interpreter: Amanda came back into the larger bathroom while Raffaele was calling his sister, and from a distance she could see the faeces had slipped down, apparently it had been cleaned.

PM Mignini: But did you go to look?

Knox: I didn’t look inside, I checked from a distance

Interpreter: She didn’t get close to see, she saw that from a distance

PM Mignini: From a distance? It’s hardly understandable… from a distance of how many meters?

Knox: From the anteroom where I had dried my hair, I looked very quickly and I didn’t see anything and I got scared, because the man or whoever left the faeces had been there.

Interpreter: From the area where she dried her hair she gave a quick glance and she saw it was no more like it was before, it was clean, the faeces had slipped down and…

[68]

... thus at this point she got worried because apparently someone…

PM Mignini: At the same distance you… you saw that from the same distance?

Knox: Yes, I had gone a bit closer the first time

PM Mignini: It’s where you dried your hair?

Knox: In the bathroom anteroom in front of the mirror…

Interpreter: In front of the mirror, in the area in front of the mirror…

PM Mignini: At what distance is that from the toilet?

Knox: I don’t understand meters…

PM Mignini: You mean it was in the bathroom anteroom [apparently Mignini shows her a picture or a map, ed.]

Knox: From here… maybe I was here…

PM Mignini: It’s a couple of meters

Knox: The second time I was not at the mirror [sic] I was in the door [sic], I entered this way here and…

PM Mignini: At the same distance, so…

Knox: No, not at the mirror, because when I entered the mirror is this way, but I entered…

Interpreter: The second time from a bit more far away

Knox: But only a little more far

PM Mignini: Excuse me, you couldn’t see anything from there… there is the bathroom anteroom and the bathroom, where were you?

[69]

Knox: I was at the door, I mean I entered the anteroom yet I was very close to the door, that leads to the kitchen..

Interpreter: Between the bathroom anteroom and the bathroom. Yes she was in the anteroom

PM Mignini: From the anteroom, so I note a contradiction [for the record], that you can’t see anything from there, so you made a statement, you told Raffaele the faeces were not there anymore, despite that you didn’t see anything. Because you would not be able to…

Knox: Because the first time I also saw from a distance

PM Mignini: Ok, that’s ok… I doubt that you could see from there anyway… you didn’t go to check, you say “let’s see if the faeces are still there or not”?

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: You remained outside [from the bathroom], you didn’t check, but you said to Raffaele “the faeces are not there anymore” in a worried fashion

Knox: I thought they were not there anymore

Interpreter: Because she thought they were not there

PM Mignini: Listen, so, then did you tell Romanelli about the break-in? about the broken glass? … Filomena?

Knox: Yes I called her and she said she was coming

Interpreter: Yes she called her and she said she was coming too

PM Mignini: And what was Raffaele doing in that moment?

Knox: We decided to call his sister

Interpreter: They decided to call Raffaele’s sister

Knox: And she said, call the Carabinieri or the Police

Interpreter: And Raffaele’s sister told them to call the Carabinieri

[70]

PM Mignini: What time it was? … excuse me I wanted, there’s another question I wanted to… did you have any vaseline at home? Vaseline?

Interpreter: At their house?

PM Mignini: At their house, the apartment, Via della Pergola

Knox: No I don’t use it, the only thing I know about Vaseline is Meredith always looked for it and when we went in a store together she would always go to see if there was any Vaseline… because she said it was very useful. I don’t think we had any, I don’t think, but I never use it

Interpreter: Amanda never used it, she only knows Meredith was always looking for it since she thought it was very useful, she [Knox] herself doesn’t know if there was any at home

PM Mignini: So you don’t know if Meredith had any?

Knox: I know she wanted it but I don’t know if she bought it

Interpreter: She knew she was going for it but she doesn’t know whether she bought it or found it

PM Mignini: Who arrived next?

Knox: After we called the police, I and Raffaele, we went outside because we felt very uncomfortable, two police men came…

Interpreter: After they called the police Amanda and Raffaele went outside and two police officers came

PM Mignini: So they called the police?

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: At what time?

Knox: I don’t know because it was Raffaele who called them.. they came.

[71]

Interpreter: She doesn’t know if they called the Police or the Carabinieri because it was Raffaele who did it but two officers came, dressed in uniform…

PM Mignini: Yes, yes… no, not in uniform

Interpreter: In plain clothes

PM Mignini: At what time did they arrive?

Knox: I didn’t look at the time

PM Mignini: I note the contradiction [for the record]  that the calls to the Carabinieri were done after the arrival of the Provincial Police [sic]… the Postal Police…

Knox: I did not call

Interpreter: Amanda didn’t call

PM Mignini: Well, did you see Raffaele calling?

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: How many times did he call?

Knox: Once

Interpreter: Once

PM Mignini: Once? He called twice…

Lawyer: she doesn’t know

PM Mignini: So two officers of the Police came, did they identify themselves as such? [Did they say] “Polizia Postale”?

Knox: Yes, they showed us the badges

Interpreter: Yes, they did.

[72]

[Ed note: start of overlap with Post #3]

PM Mignini: Well, but in the meanwhile, did two other young people arrive?

Knox: Yes after the police arrived, I led them into the house, because I thought they were those Raffaele had called, and I showed them that the door was locked and I showed them the window was broken and in the meanwhile Filomena and the boyfriend arrived…

Interpreter: Yes when the two police officers arrived, she thought they were those Raffaele had called and so she showed them…

Knox: And also two friends of hers [arrived]

Interpreter: … Meredith’s locked room and Filomena’s room with the broken glass, with the broken window and then Filomena with her boyfriend arrived and also other two young people…

PM Mignini: Oh… so you… you entered, I ask you this once more, you didn’t enter Filomena’s room, did you enter the other rooms?

Knox: It’s not that I went to look around, but I opened Laura’s door, that was all ok, there the bed was done up. There was the computer, so it was all ok.

Interpreter: She opened Laura’s room and she saw it was all in order

PM Mignini: Did you enter the room?

Knox: Maybe one step but I didn’t go inside

Interpreter: Maybe she made a step but she didn’t go around much

PM Mignini: And in which other… did you enter other rooms?

Knox: I entered my room, and I tried to open the door of Meredith’s room.

[Ed note: end of overlap with Post #3]

Posted on 10/03/17 at 04:40 PM by The TJMK Main PostersClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (16)

Saturday, September 30, 2017

Netflixhoax 21(a) Omitted - This Very Telling Knox Questioning By Dr Mignini #1

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters





(Long post, Click here to go straight to Comments.)

1. The Very Dominant Netflix Takeway

Approximately four out of every five online Netflix reviews - about 160 out of about 200 - were somewhat, or strongly, or ISIS-level worked up about those Italians.

They were bothered or very ticked or totally outraged at the treatment of the supposedly saintly Amanda Knox, the complete lack of evidence, the cruel Italian and British media, and the even more cruel persecution of Knox (the inconvenient Sollecito is largely forgotten) by a moralistic loose-cannon prosecutor.

See these random examples by Netflix reviewers Adrienne Bischoff, and Rachel Brodsky, and Lorraine Courtney, and Natalie Finn, and Lou Lumenick, and Sara Stewart, and Genevieve Van Voorhis, all under-researched and all flaming Dr Mignini.

Not one of them mentions that around Perugia Knox was a notorious, frequently-high handful who directly caused the imprisonment of the drug dealer she was sleeping with, or that she was not actually an exchange student or in fact even enrolled at Perugia University.

Not one of them mentions that the body of evidence is actually enormous, or that the 2009 trial was very conclusive, or that she did actually have a team of lawyers, who publicly warned her to stop lying, or that the uniquely careful Italian system protected her via numerous reviews by judges, or that the claimed 54 hours of interrogation is a complete Knox fabrication.

Not one of them mentions that Knox let Patrick stew in prison for several weeks and cruelly destroyed his business despite his risk in hiring her without a work permit, or that she is a felon for life and still owes Patrick $100,000 in damages, or that Knox tried to criminally frame Dr Mignini and for that could still be prosecuted.

The Netflixhoax #20 post below featured Dr Mignini describing a comprehensive, routine and above-board investigation by a large team under judicial supervision. We have not yet seen any part of it questioned as irregular by any of the American lawyers and judges who read here. 

Now we post in three parts Dr Mignini’s one and only interrogation of Amanda Knox, on 17 December 2007. His brilliance is really on display here. The Netflix report made zero mention of this, at a guess because it clashes in multiple ways with Knox’s court testimony in June 2009 and her unchallenged lies on Netflix.

Dr Mignini agreed to this three-hour session at Knox’s own request, contrary to the advice of her lawyers, presumably made because she hoped to explain away all the small mountain of hard facts already compromising her.

It seemed clear to everybody after three hours, Knox herself included, that she had failed, and her lawyers halted the session at that point (see Part 3 coming).

Mignini now had a lengthy statement from Knox on the record reflecting a timid and erratic Knox utterly unable to explain why she fingered Patrick. This transcript played a major part in her calunnia conviction and 3-year sentence and her inability to persuade even the Hellman or Marasca/Bruno appeal courts that up was really down and so on.

Your task here and in the next two posts is perhaps to spot any hint of a “mad prosecutor” or fictitious sex-crimes or satanic rituals or moral judgments or 50-plus hour interrogations that 160 Netflix reviewers were so lathered-up about.

2. The 17 December Interrogation Knox Requested (Part 1 Of 3)

Note: This is the first hour of three hours. The excellent translation is by Yummi, Catnip and Kristeva. The original in Italian is in the Wiki Case File here; it has been accessed nearly 4,000 times.

Transcript of Interview 17 December 2007: Statement of interview Of Ms Amanda Knox

Criminal Proceeding n. 9066/07, r.g.n.r. Public Prosecutor’s Officer Perugia

On the day of 17.12.2007 At the Perugia Prison

Those Officials Present:

Public Prosecutor Dr Giuliano Mignini
Daniela Severi – Clerk of the Court
Agent Danilo Paciotti – Carabinieri Section Judicial Police
Giacinto Prefazio – Head of Flying Squad Perugia Police
Monica Napoleoni – Deputy Superintendent Perugia Police
Julia Clemesh – Interpreter

[Ed note: Amanda Knox was present with her legal team of Costa & Ghirga; Dr Costa resigned after this interview, apparently unable to see a way to defend her if this was her best shot.] 

Complete statement of the declarations made as a person being investigated on the facts by Ms Amanda Knox.

Public Prosecutor Mignini: It’s 10:45 am I’m assisted for the redaction of this current statement. The date is 17 December 2007, in the proceeding 9066/07 mod. 21 in Perugia, Capanne Prison, before the Public Prosecutor Dr Giuliano Mignini, assisted for the redaction of the statement by Clerk of the Court Daniela Severi and by Carabinieri Agent Danilo Paciotti from the Carabinieri Judicial Police Section qualified for recording, present for investigative exigency Dr Giacinto Profazio, head of the Perugia Flying Squad, and Deputy Superintendent of the Perugia Flying Squad Monica Napoleoni, also present, and the interpreter Dr Julia Clemesh, born at Frankfurt-on-Maine?

Interpreter: Yes.

PM Mignini: Federal Republic of Germany, 17 September 1974, resident in Perugia, Via [address edited]. Amanda Knox has appeared, since she in a state of detention audio recording is provided for and the other requirements under Article 141 bis of the Criminal Procedure Code and the other requirements of Law. A summary report is also provided for; she is invited to declare her particulars and whatever else is required to identify her with the admonition of the consequences which apply when one refuses to give them or gives them falsely, [2] in answer. Now then, you have to tell me your particulars. And you have to tell me, exactly. So, what’s your name? You have to say, I am and my name is…

Knox: My name is Amanda Knox.

PM Mignini: Born at? You see, you have to tell me…

Knox: Born in Seattle.

PM Mignini: Seattle, Washington State, isn’t that?

Knox: Yes in the United States on the 9th July 1987.

PM Mignini: What date sorry? The…

Knox: The 9th July ’87.

PM Mignini: 9 July ’87. Resident at?

Knox: Here?

PM Mignini: No, resident in the United States in Seattle…

Knox: 37th Avenue… a pen…

PM Mignini: She needs to write it down… a pen… yes so yes notice is given that 9821. Now then, can you speak Italian? Do you understand it a bit?

Knox: Yes but I prefer to speak in English.

PM Mignini: Yes, but in any case do you understand Italian a little bit?

Knox: Yes, yes but I can help better…

PM Mignini: Do you have a pseudonym? A nickname?

Knox: In the soccer team they called me Foxi Noxi (naughty fox, ndr)

Interpreter: In the soccer team they called her Foxi Noxi.

PM Mignini: Can you dictate it for the…

Interpreter: How to spell it?

PM Mignini: They call me Foxi Noxi.

Knox: Only when I play soccer.

PM Mignini: Nationality from the United States, residence as above, domicile as above, place of employment? … Where do you work, are you a student

Knox: I’m a student.

Interpreter: Yes, student.

PM Mignini: Marital status, single, is it? Conditions of your specific life, social relations, study title?

Knox: I’ve finished high school.

Interpreter: She hasn’t graduated yet.

PM Mignini: High school diploma.

Interpreter: Yes senior high yes.

PM Mignini: Occupation? ‘I am…’ You’re a university student?

Knox: Yes.

PM Mignini: “I’m a university student [male adjectival form], university student [female adjectival form].” ?

Knox: Yes.

PM Mignini: Listen, do you have real estate? Do you own houses, land?

Knox: No.

PM Mignini: Propertyless. Are you under other criminal trials, besides this one, involved in other processes or proceedings?

Knox: No.

[4] PM Mignini: Do you have any convictions under the State or in foreign countries? Careful, you need… Whether you have proceedings in foreign countries. Do you understand? Proceedings in the investigation phase.

Knox: No.

Interpreter: The second question instead?

PM Mignini: Whether you have had convictions, in the Italian State or in foreign countries… so therefore also in the United States…

Lawyer: I would like that you explained…

PM Mignini: But is that a crime?

Lawyer: No administrative.

PM Mignini: You shall say it, have you had fines, have you paid fines in the United States

Knox: Yes

PM Mignini: Yes? … But was it about facts constituting an offence? You don’t know this… or was it facts which constitute administrative breach

Knox: For having made noise

PM Mignini: I understand. Do you exercise or have you exercised public offices or services or of public necessity? No. Have you ever carried out public duties? Electoral for example…

Knox: No

PM Mignini: Public duties no. Now then you therefore have the right to nominate a defender, you have two defenders, you confirm the nominating of these defenders that are present, therefore you confirm the nominating of the advocates Luciano Ghirga of the Perugia Bar and Advocate Carlo Dalla Vedova of the Rome Bar, present at the taking down of this document. Also present as collaborator from the Dalla Vedova Law Firm, advocate Giancarlo Costa also of the Rome Bar. Now then. [5] The choice of domicile, where do you want the notices of this proceeding to go to?

Interpreter: In Italy right?

Knox: To the office of my lawyer

PM Mignini: I confirm the choice of domicile as at the firm of advocate Ghirga. The Public Prosecutor therefore notifies to you the charges that you have seen in the precautionary custody orders which are the offences contrary to Articles 110, 81 main paragraph, 575, 578, and 609 bis of the Criminal Code, committed in Perugia on the night of the 1st and the 2nd of November 2007 against Meredith Kercher in acts as registered. Statements of summary information, findings pursuant to Art 354 and 360 CPC searches and seizures, statemented search proceedings and all the elements mentioned by the Perugia Re-examination Court in the order dated 30 November, 5 December 2007. Therefore all the elements against you there are declarations by persons informed of the facts, there are the results of the tests carried out by the Scientific Police, therefore the traces, in particular the trace on the knife, the DNA trace on the knife, the DNA in the bidet, and all the other results mentioned by the Perugia Re-examination Court in the 30 November, 5 December 2007 order. Therefore you shall make known what you consider to be useful for your defence.

Lawyer: Excuse me, we’re given to understand that there have been indicated things, in the 30 pages of the re-examination some other things have been indicated, so you put them to her and invite her to say things useful for the trial, you’ve given four or five examples, if… I don’t believe that it acquits your task to put them to her.

PM Mignini: Now then look. Well she was found to be…

Lawyer: You’re going through the evidence against her, can we describe it like that? Now then.

PM Mignini: Of course. So it resulted during the course of the investigations there was a series of items of evidence, items against her that are, that derive from the declarations of persons informed of the facts, in particular the declarations made by, from some declarations that have been made by you yourself during the phase, during, in the period in which you were a person informed of the facts, so prior to the 6th November 2007, there are also declarations by Raffaele Sollecito when he was still a person informed of the facts, and declarations by Raffaele Sollecito at the Validation Interview, because at the Validation hearing Sollecito had responded to the interrogatory and has therefore, his declarations are therefore fully utilizable and are… now then from these declarations, then I’ll pass to the other items, from these declarations one can deduce a reconstruction that in the opinion of the Public Prosecutor’s Office is not credible, of what had occurred. Of what had occurred, things are different, I’ll explain to you then in particular it’s not credible in the opinion of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, what was and then what had been declared by Sollecito even during his interrogation, the whole reconstruction that had been made of both your whereabouts, yours and Sollecito’s, the night of the 1st and 2nd of November 2007. In particular what happened the morning of the 2nd November up until 13:00. Then there are the findings, the DNA trace, the DNA trace on Sollecito’s knife and on the blade of this knife there’s Meredith’s DNA. Then on the handle there’s your DNA, the blood traces therefore in the bidet, yours, also in the washbasin.

Lawyer: On the bidet there’s DNA and in the washbasin.

PM Mignini: On the bidet of her and of Meredith and in the washbasin there’s blood, her haematic traces. Then there are, in the ambit of fingerprint tests that were done, the prints despite she lives, despite she lived in that house and she was the person who remained, who had moved around the inside of the house as [7] the last one there, up until… there was one trace only on a glass, only one print of hers. And this, this makes one think that there had been, that she had removed her other prints, because it isn’t, in the opinion of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, it’s not likely that she had, that there would be only one single print of hers from… although she lived in the house. Now then. It’s these ones. Then there are the findings they are basically these ones. Now then. There are also further findings that derive from declarations made by persons informed of the facts. I’ll limit myself to mentioning this. So you have the possibility, I invite you to specify what you consider useful for your own defence with the advice that your declarations can be used against you, right? But in any case you have the right to not answer, you can refuse to answer any question but in any case the Proceedings will take their course. Even if you don’t answer. Then if you make declarations on the facts that concern the responsibility of others you’ll take on as regards these facts the role of witness with all the… now then, so you intend to answer?

Knox: Yes

PM Mignini: First of all do you intend to answer? Then ‘I intend to answer’, ‘I claim I’m innocent’, right? What do you say? Do you admit the deed or not? Admit the facts that are being put to you or not? … That is you have been accused of the murder-in-company of Meredith Kercher and sexual violence. You, do you admit this fact or else do you protest your innocence?

Knox: Innocent.

PM Mignini: I protest my innocence. So… when did you arrive in Perugia?

Knox: The first time I had arrived with my sister for three days but the second
Interpreter: When?

Knox: It was August that I had come the first time in my life here

[8] Interpreter: This year?

Knox: Yes, for three days.

Interpreter: The first time was August of this year for three days with her sister.

PM Mignini: And your sister is called?

Knox: Diana.

Interpreter: Diana

PM Mignini: And then?

Knox: And I went to Germany for a bit and then I came for the second time to Perugia to stay on the 20th September…

Interpreter: In August for three days, then she went to Germany and came back to Perugia to stay, to remain for a while…

PM Mignini: In Germany where?

Knox: Grunenwald near to Hamburg where my aunt lives.

Interpreter: Where her aunt lives near Hamburg.

PP Mignini: And your aunt is called?

Knox: Dolly which is the diminutive of Dorothy.

Interpreter: Dorothy. She came back to Perugia on 20 September

PM Mignini: On the 20th September and you found, in the Via della Pergola house who did you find when you’d come back to Perugia on the 20th September?

Knox: In reality I found Laura the three days that I was here with my sister and they introduced me to Filomena and we had decided to live together. I had met Laura in front of the University for Foreigners, we had spoken of the fact that [9] she was looking for a flatmate and I had met Filomena and we had decided to live together…

Interpreter: In August during the three days she had met the housemate name of Laura

PM Mignini: Mezzetti?

Knox: I don’t know… we were calling her Laura.

Interpreter: She doesn’t know.. she met Laura in those three days when she was looking for a housemate and then they had agreed that in September she would have gone…

PM Mignini: And it was only Laura there?

Interpreter: She had met her, when she had gone to see the house, she had also met Filomena

PM Mignini: Filomena Romanelli

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: Meredith wasn’t there?

Knox: No

PM Mignini: Listen, do you use drugs?

Interpreter: Marijuana sometimes

Knox: I take marijuana

PP Mignini: Marijuana. Only marijuana?

Knox: In the form of hashish

Interpreter: Marijuana in the form of hashish

[10]  PM Mignini: No other substances?

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: And up until when have you used it?

Knox: Do you want to know when I started? Ah no, you want to know up until when …

Interpreter: The last time the first of November? But you asked up until when right?

PM Mignini: Up until when, yes, yes the first of November. In the evening?

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

Knox: Yes

PM Mignini: With Sollecito?

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

Knox: With Raffaele yes

PM Mignini: And how much did you have that evening?

Knox: We shared a joint…

Interpreter: She had shared a joint, yes they had shared a joint.

PM Mignini: From whom had you obtained this substance?

Lawyer: From whom had you obtained it?

Knox: I didn’t obtain it myself… it was Raffaele’s I simply used his smoke

Interpreter: It was a joint of Raffaele’s.

PM Mignini: And you don’t know who he got it from

[11] Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: And before, when you had come to Perugia had you used it? Before the first of November.

Interpreter: Ah, before the first of November?

PM Mignini: Yes

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: And from whom were you getting it?

Knox: I was smoking it with friends I never bought any… I wasn’t buying it since for example I would give ten euro to Laura and she used to buy it for me…

Interpreter: She never bought it directly herself only with friends they shared joints

PM Mignini: And who were these friends?

Knox: A flatmate…

Interpreter: A housemate, the two Italian housemates and the neighbours down below.

PM Mignini: Who of these? Giacomo?

Knox: We were all together and we were smoking all together… There was a young man who was living on the floor below who was called Riccardo and we didn’t use to visit him, so we weren’t smoking with Riccardo and with the others yes.

Interpreter: Everybody. It was shared amongst everybody, except for a young man who is called Riccardo who had never been around, who happens to be downstairs who had never been in their company, apart from him with the others

[12]  PM Mignini: And Meredith was using it?

Knox: Sometimes but not as often as me… not as much

Interpreter: Eh sometimes times but not much.

PM Mignini: But who was giving it to you? … Do you know who gave it to you?

Knox: No, I don’t know who was giving it, we were smoking together but I don’t know who was giving it…

Interpreter: The same story, only in company.

PM Mignini: Listen and when did you start working for Patrick, for Lumumba?

Knox: Straight after when I had arrived I had looked for a job, I knew a friend of Laura’s called Jube (phonetic) and who was working for Patrick… I don’t know the day, I can’t remember the day. It was October, I think…

Interpreter: Then when she had arrived she was looking for a part-time job through, there was a boy called Juve (phonetic) who was working with Patrick and he was a friend of the housemate Laura, through Laura and this boy Juve (phonetic) she ended up at Patrick’s in October it would have been.

PM Mignini: October?

Knox: I don’t remember precisely.

Interpreter: She doesn’t remember exactly.

PM Mignini: And the salary, what was it? That is how much was Patrick giving you?

Knox: Around 5 euro an hour…

Interpreter: Around 5 euro an hour

PM Mignini: How many hours were you working at Patrick’s?

Knox: It depended on how many people there were at the beginning I was working every day up until around… between midnight and 2 am, starting at 10. But I was also [13] handing out flyers during the day, independent of how many hours I was working her was giving me 15, 20 euros at the end of the day… and so it was…

Interpreter: Depending on the amount of work, how many people there were in the pub, she used to finish work between midnight and two in the morning and she used to start at ten. During the day she was distributing flyers, always for Patrick, and Patrick at the end of the evening used to give her 15 to 20 euro and doing the sums it came to 5 euro an hour on average.

PM Mignini: I want to know this, what were the work hours? If you can repeat it.

Knox: Depending on if there were things to do, I was finishing at midnight or at two.

Interpreter: She was starting at ten and depending on how much work there was she was finishing between midnight and two AM.

PM Mignini: Every day or else only some days only during the week?

Knox: At the beginning it was every day but when they had arrested me the last two weeks I had worked twice a week.

PM Mignini: What days?

Knox: Thursday and Tuesday…

Interpreter: Tuesday and Thursday

PM Mignini: Did it ever happen that you weren’t, beyond that, apart from the evening of the first of November right? Before, did it happen that you didn’t go to work one night on which you had work, right? That you hadn’t gone and for what reason… anyone advised you?

Knox: If it had ever happened… let’s see… did it ever occur to me? It could have happened that one time I didn’t go because I was feeling sick…

[14] Interpreter: It’s possible that she didn’t go there one time because she was ill

PM Mignini: So only on one occasion. So the evening of the first?

Interpreter: She said maybe also one other time

PM Mignini: Ah so

Interpreter: But she wasn’t feeling well

PM Mignini: Ah because she wasn’t feeling well

Interpreter: Yes, yes, to be precise she doesn’t remember

PM Mignini: You weren’t feeling well and you’d informed Patrick about not being well and so you couldn’t go

Interpreter: This she didn’t say. She hasn’t said this.

PM Mignini: You say: ‘it could have happened that I hadn’t gone because I was sick once’

Interpreter: You’ve asked apart from the first of November, true?

PM Mignini: yes, yes

Interpreter: So we speaking of apart from the first of November, the question is whether she had informed Patrick…

PM Mignini: The question is if on other occasions she had not been able to go to work because she had been advised… on other occasions… ask her the question

Lawyer: Eh but this one is different to the one from before

PM Mignini: Now then the question that I asked before was this one: did it happen at other times she had not gone to work?

Interpreter: And the answer was yes, maybe when she was feeling ill

[15]  PM Mignini: She was feeling ill, did it happen on other occasions that you hadn’t gone to work because Patrick had called you telling you not to go to work?

Knox: No, it never happened

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: It never happened. Listen, how were you maintaining yourself? That is how much were you earning? How much let’s say per week were you earning from Patrick?

Knox: I had saved that I had had from my parents…

Interpreter: The money from her parents and also her savings she had from before

PM Mignini: But how much from Lumumba were you earning in a week? You’ve said so right? … I think

Interpreter: From 15, 20 euro a night

PM Mignini: A night, so 30 euro a week broad brush right? Because it was two days

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes.

PM Mignini: And the parents, how much were your parents sending you, what amount were they sending you and how often?

Knox: They were sending me each month more or less what was needed to pay the rent…

Interpreter: They were sending her enough each month to pay the rent

PM Mignini: How much? So how much was the rent?

Knox: 300 euro a month… but they were giving me a bit more… they used to put in my bank account…

[16]  Interpreter: 300 euro a month. But they were giving her a little bit extra, they were putting in her account. Her parents were putting it into Amanda’s account

PM Mignini: So they were giving you a little bit more, so how much? How much, around 400… 500 euro I don’t know…

Knox: Maybe around 400 euro…

Interpreter: Around 400 euro yes

PM Mignini: Oh, and then your savings, isn’t that? … Yes

Knox: Yes

PM Mignini: Right then, can you tell us how much money you had, the first of November… eh?

Knox: In my bank account?

Interpreter: Where did she have this money? …

PM Mignini: How much did you have and where did you have it? If you had accounts…

Knox: Okay, it was in my bank account

Interpreter: In her savings account

Knox: …I think around about 5 thousand dollars but I don’t know

Around [sic: read: Interpreter]: She thinks around 5 thousand dollars in her savings account

PM Mignini: Savings account at which bank?

Knox: Washington Mutual

Interpreter: Washington Mutual

PM Mignini: Did you have an ATM [=cash dispenser]? Or a credit card?

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

[17]  PM Mignini: Right then, this ATM [card] where is it? This card or credit card?

Knox: In my wallet

Interpreter: In the wallet that has been seized

PM Mignini: How much had you withdrawn the last time before the first of November?

Knox: I always take out 250 euro because that’s the maximum and I always take the maximum because there’s a cost to pay for each withdrawal so I always take the maximum… and I put in the drawer of my desk…

Interpreter: She doesn’t recall exactly which day she would make withdrawals, she knows that she always used to withdraw the maximum because she has to pay a fee and the maximum is 250 euro and this money she used to put in the little drawer of the desk at home

PM Mignini: In your room?

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: And so you had 250 euro on the first? How much did you have?

Lawyer: Translate the question for her

Knox: In my room?

PM Mignini: I’m asking you where you had it, where were you holding it?

Knox: I think I could have had around 300 euro… about… in my desk…

Interpreter: She thinks she might have had 300 euro in total in the little drawer

Knox: Usually I would take 20 euro and I would put it in my wallet when I needed to

Interpreter: and she would take 20 euro that she would put in her wallet

[18] PM Mignini: Listen, did you know Guede? Rudy?

Knox: Vaguely…

Interpreter: Vaguely

PM Mignini: How did you know him? Where did you meet him?

Knox: I’d encountered him a couple of times, I’d seen him at my place of work and also in the city centre and I’d encountered him with my neighbours in the city centre and I’d also seen him at the basketball court… I was there with all the others in my neighbours’ house

Interpreter: At the basketball court?

Knox: No

Interpreter: At a party at the neighbours’ house?

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: She’d met him she thinks in Patrick’s pub, no, she had seen him she thinks in Patrick’s pub and then she’d seen him at the basketball court and at a party in the neighbours’ house below.

PM Mignini: Now, when had you known him?

Lawyer: How much time before

PP Mignini: How much time before, with when you’d arrived in September…

Knox: I believe that it was around mid-October but truly I don’t remember…

Interpreter: I think towards the middle of October

PM Mignini: Did you used to visit him? Guede

[19]  Interpreter: Meaning?

PM Mignini: If she visited him with a certain regularity in short, with a certain, whether they were going out together

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: Did it happen that you had to give him some money?

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: Listen, but were you, were you missing any money that night of the first and second?

Knox: I don’t know I didn’t look… the 2nd I didn’t look…

Interpreter: She didn’t look in the room

Lawyer: But when?

Interpreter: The 2nd of November

Lawyer: Ah right

Interpreter: On the 2nd of November she didn’t look

PM Mignini: And where did Meredith used to keep her money?

Knox: I don’t know

Interpreter: She doesn’t know

PM Mignini: Listen, when was the last time you see Guede?

Knox: I think that the last one is that of which I have already spoken and that is a party at my neighbours’ house on the floor below

[20]  Interpreter: The last time she thinks that it was at the party at the neighbours’ house below

PM Mignini: Which had taken place when?

Lawyer: More or less

PM Mignini: More or less, if you don’t recall…

Knox: Towards the end of October…

Interpreter: Towards the end of October

PM Mignini: The end of October, so close to the 31st? Eh the end of October… the end of October… in any case you don’t remember. Listen, did Rudy know Patrick? Had he visited his pub?

Knox: Yes I’d seen him at the pub but I’d seen him only once…

Interpreter: She had seen him in the pub but she’d seen him only one time

PM Mignini: But do you know whether those two knew each other?

Knox: I don’t think so but actually I don’t know, I didn’t get the impression that they knew each other…

Interpreter: She doesn’t think that they knew each other, she doesn’t know

PM Mignini: You know or you don’t know?

Interpreter: She’s not sure about it but what it looked like to her is that they weren’t acquainted…

PP Mignini: What’s the basis of this conviction?

Knox: Because everybody that knows Patrick go straight to him to talk with him and Rudy didn’t do that…

Interpreter: Because everyone who knows Patrick goes straight to him to talk to him and Rudy didn’t do that

PM Mignini: But did they greet each other, did you see them…

[21]  Knox: Patrick greeted everybody who was coming in…

Interpreter: Patrick greeted everybody who was coming in

PM Mignini: Listen, were you getting on OK with Lumumba?

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: There were no problems between you?

Lawyer: Of what nature?

PM Mignini: Problems of any sort I don’t know …

Lawyer: Money ones, personal ones, right…

PM Mignini: Problems I mean in general eh …

Knox: No we were getting on OK…

Interpreter: No, they were going OK

PM Mignini: Listen, Lumumba was irascible?

Interpreter: Was?

PM Mignini: Irascible [=bad-tempered], that is easily annoyed, was he irritable?

Knox: No he’s a relaxed young man, calm…

Interpreter: No he’s a calm young man.

PM Mignini: Listen and who had the keys to the house at Via della Pergola?

Knox: Me, Meredith, Filomena and Laura…

Interpreter: All four of the girls

PM Mignini: All four of the girls

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: No one else had keys?

[22] Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: One other thing, your rooms… inside the flat there were your rooms, did you use to lock your rooms or leave them open?

Knox: When we were going out? … I never used to close my door, it was always open, Laura and Filomena used to close their doors but I don’t believe that they would lock them, even when they were going out they would close their doors but not lock them… but I had never tried to open their doors. Meredith sometimes used to lock her door, for example if she was inside and was getting changed, and mine was always open…

Interpreter: Now then, only Meredith was locking her door when she was getting changed, she said in substance, otherwise no one used to lock their rooms

PM Mignini: But on the occasion of… when the police arrived and they found themselves in front of Meredith’s door isn’t that? What did you say? Did you by chance say that Meredith never used to lock her door, or that instead she did?

Knox: I said that it was strange that it was locked and she wasn’t answering while usually if the door was locked it meant that she was inside and the fact that she wasn’t answering was strange…
Interpreter: It was strange that it was closed without Meredith responding, because normally when it was closed…

PM Mignini: To us it results that she didn’t use to lock her door. So then I’ll put this to you [contestare= (leg.) to formally point out a contradiction]. That is, that it was only during one absence of hers for a few days that she locked her room

Knox: She doesn’t do it that often, it isn’t a frequent thing I would say that there were times in which I had tried to open her door to say hello to her and it was locked [23] and she was inside… and when instead she was out I had never tried to open her door. So I don’t know if it’s locked…

Interpreter: It happened that, when Meredith wasn’t home she had never tried to open the door, Amanda had never tried to open the door, only it happened that she wanted to say hello opening [it] and had said, “It’s locked”

PM Mignini: I haven’t understood this, that is … that is she used to lock the door or not? According to what you’re saying… she used to lock the room or not?

Interpreter: Only when she was…

PM Mignini: Only when she was getting changed you say

Interpreter: Yes, yes

Lawyer: No also when she went away

PM Mignini: And when she went away…

Interpreter: Also once when she had gone away for a few days

PM Mignini: Sure, sure… oh, did you get on well with Meredith?

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: There was never any ups and downs in your relationship?

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: Oh, did Meredith ever go with you to Sollecito’s? To Sollecito’s house

Interpreter: Whether she had gone…

PM Mignini: No, whether Meredith had gone with you to Sollecito’s house?

Knox: No

[24] Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: She had never gone there?

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: So she had never been for lunch at Sollecito’s house?

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: You had noticed prior to 2 November eh? I mean, you had noticed… I mean the 2nd, had you noticed traces of blood in the bathroom prior, in the days prior? … on the mat, in the bathroom next to Meredith’s room

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: Oh, so… then let’s go back to this day later. Now I want to go back a step. Where did you spend the night of Halloween between the 31st of October and the 1st of November?

Knox: I had been at Le Chic for a bit, then I left and went out to the Merlin because I wanted to meet a friend and then around two in the morning I had met up with Raffaele outside the cathedral and we had decided to go to his place…

Interpreter: On the 31st of October she had been at the Le Chic pub

PM Mignini: Yes, up until what time? And with who?

Knox: I was there I knew more or less everybody but I was there on my own account… I wasn’t there working

Interpreter: She wasn’t working but she was there

[25]  PM Mignini: You were there like that

Interpreter: Yes with her friends

PM Mignini: With her friends… who were these friends?

Knox: I had arrived alone, I know Lumumba, I know other people, other classmates, I know that there were people who go there exactly to have fun at the pub

Interpreter: There’s this young man who works for Patrick, Patrick there were classmates, at the Chic

PM Mignini: Of yours?

Interpreter: Yes, yes

PP Mignini: And who were these girls?

Knox: They were girls from Kazakstan who used to always be together…

Interpreter: They were girls who stayed in a group, these girls from Kazakstan and who came to find her a few times

PM Mignini: And you don’t remember their names? Was Raffaele there?

Interpreter: No

Knox: No

PM Mignini: He wasn’t there and where was he, Raffaele?

Interpreter: She said that after…

PM Mignini: Now then up until what time… up until what time were you at Le Chic?

Knox: I think around one…

Interpreter: Around one

PM Mignini: Till one and then?

[26]  Interpreter: Then she had gone to meet a friend in front of the Merlin pub

PM Mignini: Who is this friend? The friend who was waiting at the Merlin, in front of the Merlin?

Knox: He’s a boy who works at Coffee break it’s an internet café with coffee … Spiros

PM Mignini: A Greek?

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: And then where did you go?

Knox: Together with Spiros and some of his friends,

Interpreter: Now then she had said before that she had met the Greek (change of tape) she had gone to some other pub

PM Mignini: Where?

Interpreter: In the centre, she doesn’t remember

PM Mignini: In which area in the centre?

Knox: In the area of Le Chic and of the Merlin…

Interpreter: Around near the Merlin pub and the Le Chic pub… in that zone there… around there

PM Mignini: She doesn’t know how to point it out?

Knox: I have never been before to the other pubs

Interpreter: She hadn’t gone to visit other pubs before

PM Mignini: Listen, do you know where and with who she spent that night of Halloween, Meredith?

[27]  Interpreter: She’s said that after the fountain she had met Raffaele, after going around a bit with him she had gone to Raffaele’s house

PM Mignini: At what time did you meet Raffaele?

Interpreter: At two

PM Mignini: In the morning and then you returned home with Raffaele. And do you know and with who she had spent that night of the 31st October, Meredith?

Knox: She went out with her English friends

Interpreter: She went out with her English friends

PM Mignini: Did you have, the English friends are you able to give me their names?

Knox: Sophie, Amy I don’t remember all their names but I know that Sophie and Amy were there

Interpreter: Amy, Sophie…

PM Mignini: And where did they go?

Knox: I think they went to the Merlin it’s what she had said

Interpreter: She said that they had gone to the Merlin pub

PM Mignini: Merlin…

Lawyer: Why does she know? Let’s ask her that, excuse me, eh?

Interpreter: Because Meredith had told her so

PM Mignini: That is Meredith had told you that they had gone there because you had asked Meredith to go out with you that night?

Knox: In the afternoon I asked her if she had plans and she had told me that she would have been with her friends at the Merlin pub and I had said to her “maybe we’ll see each other there”… but we hadn’t set a time…

[28] Interpreter: In the afternoon she had… Amanda had asked Meredith if she had some plans for the evening and Meredith had answered that she was going with her friends to the Merlin pub

PM Mignini: Listen, do you have… do you know any Spanish boys or Spanish girls?

Knox: Spanish?

Interpreter: Spanish eh [male gender]?

PM Mignini: Yes, girls as well

Knox: I might know some but usually I don’t ask where they come from

Interpreter: It’s possible but she doesn’t ask where they’re from specifically.

PM Mignini: Listen when you did you find out that Ms Romanelli and Ms Mezzetti would not have been there? Ms Romanelli, Laura and Filomena…

Knox: I discovered it when I had called Filomena on the morning of the second.

Interpreter: On the morning of the second when Amanda had called Filomena, she had found out that she had not been…

PM Mignini: And about Laura, did you know?

Knox: Filomena had told me that Laura was in Rome

Interpreter: Now then that morning of the 2nd of November Filomena had said to Amanda that Laura was in Rome.
(interruption of recording)

PM Mignini: Now then at this point the recording resumes at 11:50 am and I repeat the question, what did you do on the afternoon of the 1st of November and during that night between the 1st and the 2nd? Oh and the morning of the 2nd obviously.

[29]

Knox: When I had woken up in the morning I was at Raffaele’s house, the 1st of November, and I went to my house to have a shower to change myself, I had already spoken to Raffaele and he had said to me that he would have come over to my place, when he would have woken and everything… So what I did was that I studied and then I put away my linens [whites]…

Interpreter: The morning of the 1st of November, so that night she had slept at Raffaele’s house

PM Mignini: The night between the 31st and the 1st?

Interpreter: Yes, in the morning she had woken up at Raffaele’s, after which she’d gone, gone back to her house to have a shower, change her clothes in expectation that Raffaele would meet up with her. In expectation that Raffaele would meet up with her she set herself to studying, to washing her clothes, and to put the clothes away

PM Mignini: And then?

Knox: While I was there in the kitchen studying and while I was in the kitchen Filomena came back home with her boyfriend, Marco, and they had wrapped a present and they got ready very quickly for a party to which they had to go and I had continued to study and I had helped them to wrap the present with Marco and when they’d left I’d continued to study.

Interpreter: She was studying, they’d only returned for a bit the housemate Filomena with her boyfriend who set themselves to wrapping a present that was going to be for a party. And she had helped them, she was studying in the kitchen and she helped get the present ready and then…

PM Mignini: Was Meredith there?

Knox: Meredith was sleeping

PM Mignini: In that moment…

Interpreter: She was sleeping

[30]

PM Mignini: Ah she was sleeping

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: Ah… then go on

Interpreter: Then after the couple, Filomena and her boyfriend, had gone out, and she continued to study.

Knox: While I was studying, Meredith had woken up and I think she went to the bathroom first and then she came to say hello and she sat down to have breakfast. And we had chatted while I was studying…

Interpreter: Then while she was still at studying in the kitchen Meredith woke up, she went to the bathroom first and then into the kitchen

PM Mignini: At what time? … at what time?

Knox: I think around midday

Interpreter: I believe around midday and then Meredith had joined her in the kitchen to have breakfast and they had exchanged chitchat about the night before

PM Mignini: Was Sollecito there as well?

Knox: No, not yet

Interpreter: No, not yet

PM Mignini: There wasn’t… and then? Go on if…

Knox: We had spoken about Halloween she’d given me some advice about young men and went to have a shower and while she was having a shower I had thought about what to prepare for lunch, because I was starting to feel hungry… I pulled out some things for lunch and that is bread and cheese… then Raffaele arrived and while all this was happening Meredith was under the shower or in her room getting dressed. After Raffaele arrived he got some pasta ready, I believe for lunch while we were eating together Meredith had entered and had either put in, or taken out clothes from, the washing machine, she said hello to him and had gone back into her room…

Interpreter: Now then, Meredith was in the kitchen having breakfast with Amanda they chatted a bit after which Meredith had gone to have a shower and get dressed. In the meantime Amanda who was starting to get hungry had thought about what to prepare for lunch had taken out bread and cheese and Raffaele had also arrived who had set himself to cooking some pasta, it seems to her, for lunch. In the meantime Meredith was still either in the shower or getting dressed. And while Meredith had returned, while they were eating lunch, she’d returned to take her clothes from the washing machine.

PM Mignini: She’d eaten with them?

Knox: No, she had just had breakfast

Interpreter: No, she had just had breakfast

PM Mignini: Please go on

Knox: After Raffaele had eaten, I felt like playing the guitar for a while and Raffaele sat himself down to listen to me… and in all this time Meredith had returned, she had dressed and everything she had gone to the door and she had said “Buona giornata” [have a good day] to us. I remained at home with Raffaele playing the guitar and singing a bit and around five I hadn’t looked at the clock but I believe it might have been five we’d decided to return to his house.

Interpreter: Now then, after lunch Amanda and Raffaele set about playing the guitar and in the meantime Meredith had left the house with a greeting to them. It seems to her that they stayed home playing the guitar until around five in the afternoon when they’d gone instead to Raffaele’s house.

PM Mignini: Just a moment, before going on. When you both had saluted Meredith, did Meredith tell you where she was going? And at what time would she be back?

Knox: No

Interpreter: No

PM Mignini: Go on

Knox: At Raffaele’s house we made ourselves comfortable and I sat at the computer to find songs that I wanted to learn to play on the guitar and in the meantime I know that Raffaele had gone to the bathroom, I was at the computer transcribing songs from the Internet it’s difficult to say what happened first, but what happened was that while I was using the computer a friend of Raffaele’s arrived to ask if she could use his car. She was speaking Italian very quickly and so I don’t know what they said to each other. When Raffaele was in the bathroom the doorbell rang and I let this girl in, and Raffaele came out of the bathroom to meet her.

Interpreter: At Raffaele’s house Amanda searched for songs, music on the computer to play on the guitar in the meantime Raffaele had gone to the bathroom. While Raffaele was in the bathroom a friend of Raffaele’s rang the doorbell to whom Amanda had opened the door and afterwards this friend of Raffaele’s had spoken with Raffaele and it seems to her that this friend had asked him if she could borrow his car.

PM Mignini: Yes, before going further. At Raffaele Sollecito’s house in the bathroom, right? In Raffaele Sollecito’s bathroom is there a shower?

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: Have you had showers at Sollecito’s house?

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: Oh, go on yes

Knox: After having used the computer I grabbed, I read Harry Potter in German, I gave him the Harry Potter book while he was in the bathroom, but he didn’t understand it, so after we sat ourselves down and I was reading from it to him and I was translating for him and then let’s think about what else did we do… We watched the film Amelie a message from Patrick arrived and in response to the message I said to him, I wished him a good evening and that I would see him again later when he would be… Patrick told me that I didn’t need to go to work because… he told me that in Italian but I believe the message was “there aren’t many people, there’s no need that you come to work”…

Interpreter: Afterwards since Amanda is studying German and Raffaele also wants to learn Amanda has a Harry Potter book in German that they were reading together, trying to translate it together. Afterwards they had watched the film Amelie.

PM Mignini: At what time?

Knox: I don’t remember the time exactly… sorry.

Interpreter: She doesn’t remember

PM Mignini: Doesn’t she remember, the film?

Interpreter: Amelie it’s called yes, so Patrick had sent a message in Italian but…

PM Mignini: And what did this message say?

Interpreter: That there weren’t many people that there was no need that she come to work

PM Mignini: That is he said exactly this. At what time did you receive it?

Knox: I hadn’t looked at the clock

Interpreter: She hadn’t looked at the clock

PM Mignini: After the film or before?

Knox: I don’t remember

Interpreter: I don’t know

PM Mignini: Did Sollecito see this… did he know about it, or else… did he become aware of this message?

Knox: He hadn’t seen it but when I read it I said, “Wow! I don’t have to go to work!”

Interpreter: He hadn’t seen it although she informed him that she didn’t need to go to work and that she was happy so…

PM Mignini: And then?

Interpreter: And then she had responded to Patrick saying “ci vediamo più tardi” [we’ll meet up later]

PM Mignini: Meaning? How did you answer in text precisely?

Knox: My message in English but I wrote it in Italian, what I was trying to say was “ci rivediamo e buona serata” [see you later and have a good evening]… that is “ci rivediamo e buona serata”…

Interpreter: Now then two things. One thing is that she wrote in Italian and another thing what she wanted to say in English. In English what she was thinking of wanting to say was “ci vediamo dopo buona serata intanto” [see you later have a good evening in the meantime] and instead she had written in Italian “ci vediamo buona serata” [let’s meet up have a good evening]

Lawyer: She had written the same thing that it also means in English. She had translated the same thing, I don’t know if she had said the same thing..

Knox: I’m saying to you in English what I wanted to say but I’ve told you I wrote it in Italian

PM Mignini: Make me understand then, excuse me a moment, he sends a message, an SMS, this message says “there’s only a few people don’t come. Don’t come tonight”

Interpreter: Don’t come to work.

PP Mignini: Don’t come to work. This had never happened before we’ve seen.

Knox: No

Interpreter: No the first time

PM Mignini: So that time, for the first time he calls and says “don’t come”

Knox: Yes it was the first time

Interpreter: Yes it was the first time

PM Mignini: How long after did you reply to him with an SMS? Do you remember?

Knox: I think I replied immediately after I received it

Interpreter: It seems to me I replied immediately, straight after having received it.

PM Mignini: But how did you reply? Try to remember the exact words.

Knox: Okay, I said “ci vediamo” or “ci vediamo più tardi buona serata”

PM Mignini: Più tardi buona serata

Interpreter: It seems to me I’d replied something in the affirmative to his message, saying “Okay, ci vediamo più tardi”

PM Mignini: Ci vediamo più tardi

Lawyer: In Italian, but in English what she said something that she… let her say it clearly in Italian, if you would

Knox: Saying “See you later” is like saying ciao

Interpreter: What she wanted to say was only a salutation ciao

PM Mignini: But in Italian you wrote let’s meet up later. In Italian you wrote it like this, do you remember this?

Knox: In Italian I had written let’s meet up later have a good evening but it means in my language, see you later have a good evening

PM Mignini: Oh, does Lumumba know English?

Knox: No, he’s never spoken to me in it, we speak in Italian

Interpreter: She has never spoken in English to him only in Italian

PM Mignini: Go on

Knox: We had fish for dinner, I remember this, because it was very good and afterwards, we had eaten in the kitchen and then afterwards he started to wash the dishes, and while he was washing some water dripped on the floor. From under the sink, because the pipes had come unscrewed and the water had fallen on the floor.

Interpreter: They had dinner, they ate fish and after the meal Raffaele washed the plates and while he was washing the plates the water had gone onto the ground because the sink was broken, the sink pipes were broken, they had leaked.

PM Mignini: But did it break suddenly?

Knox: It wasn’t exactly broken, it was rather that the pipes had come unscrewed

Interpreter: Yes it was the first time that the pipes had become detached and afterwards Raffaele had readjusted them

PM Mignini: Therefore it happened unexpectedly, this breakage?

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: They had become loose? What happened? What breakage was it? What type of breakage was it?

Knox: Yes it was the first time that it had happened

Interpreter: Yes it was the first time that it had happened

PM Mignini: But what happened? I mean was there a pipe breakage or else the screw let’s say, how do you call it, had come unfastened… is it? … we would need to see it…

Knox: I hadn’t examined them myself but what happened is that it had become detached… it had come loose and I don’t believe that…

Interpreter: The pipe had become detached, it had come loose yes

PM Mignini: The pipe came loose right go on

Knox: So to remove the water we grabbed the rags [canovacci= rags or floor rags] … there was too much water and I went into the storeroom to see if there was a mop [in English in the transcript], but there wasn’t then I came back to the kitchen and I said to him “Don’t worry I have a mop at our house” and so tomorrow morning we can go and get it and we can clean…

Interpreter: So to get rid of the water from the ground they used the towels from the kitchen they weren’t enough, they were looking for a rag [sic ‘straccio’ in Italian in the transcript, but obviously the interpreter means ‘mop’] in Raffaele’s house, in the bathroom there wasn’t any so had said “don’t worry tomorrow morning I’ll bring you one, I’ll bring you a rag from my house”

PM Mignini: But in the meantime he’d turned the tap off, no? … So the water wasn’t running out any more

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: Right go on, continue…

Knox: After this Raffaele was a bit upset that the pipes had got broken, he asked me what I wanted to do and we had thought about going, to go back in the bedroom I was laid out on his bed and he was at the desk preparing the joint.

Interpreter: Now then Raffaele was unhappy about this incident because he was saying that the pipes were new and then to cheer her up he thought about what they could do together and they were thinking about smoking a joint together. They went back to bed and Raffaele manufactured a joint.

PM Mignini: Before going on I wanted a clarification. So you had put down towels right?

Knox: They were tiny and so they had done nothing and in the end I’d thrown them into the sink… yes we had put them on the ground, they had taken up a bit of the water but nothing to speak of… so I had put them in the sink and we’d gone to his bedroom.

Interpreter: They were tiny kitchen towels that had no great effect and which afterwards she had thrown into the sink, these towels

PM Mignini: had Raffaele any newspapers at home?

Knox: I think so

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: Dailies?

Knox: Yes

Interpreter: Yes

PM Mignini: Why didn’t you use the newspaper paper since it absorbs a lot? It’s a question that I put to you

Knox: I didn’t think about it…

Interpreter: They didn’t think about it

PM Mignini: Oh, OK, go on continue to recount this… go on, yes

Knox: While we were smoking we started chatting about what we had done, and after we had chatted we had sex… and after that I believe I had fallen asleep…

Interpreter: Now then after they had smoked the joint they had made love and afterwards she believes she fell asleep.

PM Mignini: So Sollecito what did he do? Had he fallen asleep with you, he hadn’t gone, he didn’t stay awake?

Knox: I fell asleep in his arms

Interpreter: Yes she had fallen asleep in his arms

PM Mignini: Then? Go on. He received… one last thing, were there phone calls that night?

Knox: No, I switched off my mobile phone

Interpreter: No she had switched off her phone. Amanda had switched off her phone.

PM Mignini: You switched off yours and Raffaele also switched off his?

Knox: I don’t know because I don’t check him so… I don’t know if he switched off his or not

Interpreter: Now then she doesn’t know if Raffaele had switched his off but she doesn’t seem to remember him receiving any phone calls

PM Mignini: But why did you switch off your phone?

Knox: To save the battery, usually I keep it on at night if the following morning I have things to do, but the morning after was the day that everyone was going to skip school and we were going to go to Gubbio the day after with Raffaele. So I switched off my phone because I didn’t want that maybe Patrick might call to tell me to go to work. That’s why I switched it off and saved the battery.

Interpreter: To not have the battery discharge

PM Mignini: But you could recharge it

Interpreter: Since she was out of the house she wanted to save the battery because the next day she would have gone to Gubbio with Raffaele and since the day… she leaves it on during the night when the following day she has to go to school, but the following day there was no school and so she switched it off also to not run the risk that Patrick would change his mind and would call her to go to work

PM Mignini: Because there was the risk, that is you weren’t sure that…

Knox: He had told me that I didn’t need to go to work but it was still early and I didn’t know if he might have called back to tell me “Yes, now I need you”…

Interpreter: No, when Patrick had called saying that she didn’t need to work it was still early enough and the situation could still change in the sense that more people could turn up and he couldn’t…

PM Mignini: One thing I wanted to know, the phone in the house rang? In Sollecito’s house?

Knox: I don’t remember I can’t be sure about it…

Interpreter: She doesn’t remember, she doesn’t know

PM Mignini: What’s the cell phone that you have? Which one was the cell phone that you switched off? What’s the brand?

Interpreter: the brand, or the [telephone] company…?

PM Mignini: No the brand, I meant the brand

Knox: It’s a Nokia phone

Interpreter: Nokia

PM Mignini: Nokia, but what’s the battery duration, I mean how long normally does the charge of your cell phone [last]..?

Knox: Let’s see…  I think a day but I don’t know… because what I do is that I switch it off if I don’t use it during the night. But if I need it for example as an alarm clock, I let it stay on, then I go home and I charge it again, I put it on charge…

... I never use it to the point of battery exhaustion. Sometimes I put it on charge, sometimes I don’t.

Interpreter: It seems it lasts 24 hours, and she never lets it run out of battery to the limit

PM Mignini: So there was no risk that it would run out of battery while going to Gubbio?

Interpreter: It normally lasts 24 hours

PM Mignini: What?

Interpreter: The battery lasts 24 hours

PM Mignini: No, I’m asking, what the risk that it would run out of battery be like? I don’t understand

Knox: But why should I waste the battery leaving it on?

Interpreter: She only wanted to feel safe since she didn’t need to keep it on in order to…

PM Mignini: But she usually keeps it on at night

Interpreter: Only when she uses it as an alarm. In the morning

PM Mignini: Well but you’d use the alarm every morning, I use it every morning

Interpreter: But she was not going to school on the next day

PM Mignini: Ah…

Attorney: She said it previously, it was a holiday and I did not put the alarm on

PM Mignini: When you were going to school you said previously. Go on with the description.

Knox: You want to know more about that morning? … When I woke up in the morning, I got up and Raffaele was still in bed, I dressed up and I went to my home, to take care about my things… when I arrived at my home the door was wide open which was strange, so I went in my room, I undressed, I took a shower and when I got out of the shower, I noticed the blood in the bathroom…  There was not much of it but even that I found it strange… but at the same time it’s not that I immediately thought “Oh my God, there was a murder!”

Interpreter: She fell asleep at night and the following day she woke up at Raffaele’s home, while Raffaele remained in bed she went back home

PM Mignini: Let’s stop here for a moment. I just wanted to know this: On November 2 was it holiday at the … [University?]… because the 2nd is not a holiday here

Knox: The teachers said it was not a problem if I stayed home, because it seems like everyone was going to skip that Friday

Interpreter: Yes there was the sequence. Also the teacher said…

PM Mignini: Go on, so she said…

Interpreter: She said students were not expected to go, they were not coming…

PM Mignini: [the teacher] told her so, on the previous day?

Knox: Yes, on Wednesday I think

Interpreter: Yes on Wednesday at school

PM Mignini: Who was the teacher who told you that?

Knox: I don’t know her name but she is the Professor of Culture, I don’t know the day when she said that to me… but it was during that week… while we were talking during the week, one day she said it was a tradition to make a holiday bridge on Friday if Thursday was a holiday, so they can do [holiday] the whole weekend

Interpreter: So the teacher said it’s a classic for the students to make a holiday bridge when there is a holiday Thursday and have a prolonged weekend

PM Mignini: What’s the name of this teacher?

Knox: I’m not good at remembering names..

Interpreter: She doesn’t remember the name

PM Mignini: A woman?

Knox: Yes a woman

Interpreter: A woman

PM Mignini: Ok, go forward. You wake up at what time, at Sollecito’s place?

Knox: More or less at ten

Interpreter: Around ten

PM Mignini: And then?

Knox: Then I went back home, the door was open

Interpreter: Then she went back to her home where she found…

PM Mignini: Why did you go back home?

Interpreter: To take a shower and change her clothes

PM Mignini: Why didn’t you take a shower at Sollecito’s?

Knox: Did you see his shower? … It leaks [drops?] everywhere…  It’s a dreadful shower…  I hate to use it… and moreover all what I need to have a shower like shampoo is at my home…

Interpreter: Because it’s an ugly place, small, there is little space

PM Mignini: But you took the shower other times, but also during the afternoon you had one…

Knox: I prefer to take a shower at my home

Interpreter: She prefers to take a shower at her home, she also has clothes at home… 

Knox: And also all my clothes are at my home…

[Ed note: start of overlap with Post #2]

PM Mignini: So she needed to go home, to take a shower and, let me understand, take a shower and to what?

Interpreter: To change her clothes

PM Mignini: To change your clothes… well and so what [did you]… did you bring anything with you?

Knox: I think I brought some clothes… dirty underwear…

Interpreter: Yes she thinks she brought dirty clothes from Raffaele’s home

PM Mignini: Dirty clothes that is… dirty clothes from previous times? Or since which… since what day were they lasting from?

Knox: I had spent two weeks living a bit at my home and a bit at his home

Interpreter: Because for two weeks she had been living half the time at her home and half the time at his home, and thus she had a bit of…

PM Mignini: What clothes were those ones?

Knox: Maybe underwear

Interpreter: Probably…

Knox: But I don’t remember, maybe it was a t-shirt

PM Mignini: You don’t remember

Interpreter: Dirty clothes…

PM Mignini: Well dirty clothes, I mean a skirt, a pullover…

Interpreter: No rather…

PM Mignini: Underwear garments

Interpreter: Underwear garments

PM Mignini: She doesn’t remember?

Interpreter: She thinks rather pants and vests /undershirts… and t-shirts

PM Mignini: Well, how were you dressed when you went at your house?

Interpreter: From Raffaele’s house to her house?

Knox: I was wearing trousers I remember that and let’s see…  so much time has passed… I know it was trousers

PM Mignini: Yes

Interpreter: She put on some trousers, she remembers it was trousers

PM Mignini: What colour?

Knox: A t-shirt and a sweater

Inte

Posted on 09/30/17 at 12:00 AM by The TJMK Main PostersClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (16)

Tuesday, September 19, 2017

Netflixhoax 20: Longer, Better Interviews With Dr Mignini Show Clearly How Netflix Cherrypicked Him

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters




1 How Netflix Cherrypicked

First please check our previous post Dr Mignini Responds To A Reporter Misrepresenting Him About The Report.

Other British and American reporters have also tried to play “gotcha” with Dr Mignini by cherrypicking his replies when the English version comes out. The exact same trick the Netflix team played on Dr Mignini was played by KOMO TV in Seattle, CNN, CBS, and the Guardian. To all of those he later replied.

Dr Mignini was led to understand that the Netflix production team was a respected Danish group. He was not told that it consisted of several American crackpots notorious over the years for harassing reporters and justice officials around Perugia and online.

Dr Mignini was seated in front of a camera by interviewers who knew no Italian and seemingly knew very little about the case or about the version of Knox Italy saw in 2007 and 2008 before the play-acting cut in. They appeared to want only light simple titillating stuff, aimed at about 12-year-olds.

The team didn’t happen to mention that half his interview would end up on the cutting room floor - or that Amanda Knox would be given more than twice the time, to spin unchallenged a number of long-rebutted lies.

2. Netflix’s Dishonest Takeaway

The takeway of well over 100 reviewers (we will soon be posting quotes from all of them) was that (1) Dr Mignini invented a sex crime and (2) next thing Knox was convicted, based pretty well solely on that.

In the interview below, mirrored by others, Dr Mignini explains how very much more complicated than that it was to narrow down to Knox’s definite involvement. His team took into account dozens of factors and put them all in evidence.

And our interrogation hoax series shows how he handed over control of the investigation almost instantly after Knox’s arrest to Judge Matteini (never mentioned by Netflix) and numerous other judges (never mentioned by Netflix) including Supreme Court judges in 2008 who in fact took a harder line rather than releasing Knox as they could have done.

3. The Long-Form Mignini Interview

This interview came to us almost by accident. It is the full transcript of Drew Griffin of CNN and Dr Mignini. Griffin, who speaks no Italian, later tried to hide almost all of what was on the recording, and instead cherrypicked and disparaged Dr Mignini despite his courtesy in doing the interview.

Skeptical Bystander of Perugia Murder File obtained the recording. Translation was by Clander, Yummi, Jools, Thoughtful, TomM and Catnip.

4’09’’ CNN: There have been many stories about this crime, about what people think happened. What do you think really happened?

4’20’’ Mignini: Well, I am a magistrate for the Public Prosecutor’s Office who found himself ... I was on duty at the time and thus I happened to be dealing with this matter randomly. For me it is a criminal proceeding that I dealt with, and I am currently working on it today at the appeal level.

4’49’’ What happened was that a crime was committed for which we conducted an investigation in the best way considering the situation. And there was a trial which, in the first instance, resulted in conviction with full acknowledgement of the theory of the Public Prosecutor’s Office. I know there have been books, there were also films on the subject, but this is something for which I have limited interest. My job is to be a prosecutor for the Public Prosecutor’s Office who dealt with this case. I am interested in it from this point of view, nothing else.

6’30’’ CNN: But exactly how was the crime like, what you and your assistants, I do not say [missing words: *what happened?] ... but [what] you understood, who are the murderers, and the reason for this murder?

6’46’’ Mignini: I can tell you our impression when I arrived on the scene. I arrived basically, I believe, I think around 2:30 p.m. on Nov. 2, and I found myself facing a crime that obviously looked like - this is the impression I got in the first place and it was subsequently confirmed by the investigations and the proceeding - a murder of a sexual nature, in which there was this girl who was undressed or nearly so, a young woman who was covered with this, with this quilt. And the other thing which struck us, which was of immediate interest, I said this on other occasions and I repeat it because I’ve said it also at the first trial, was the break-in. And it appeared immediately – the climbing, the simulation of climbing, with a stone thrown through the window, through two shutters that were there, that left open quite a narrow space, rather limited room between them – immediately that appeared to us to be a simulation.

8’38’’ So there was this crime of a sexual nature and a simulated burglary. That is, the perpetrators or perpetrator, at that moment we were making a preliminary assessment, was someone who attempted, that appeared to be the situation to us, he had attempted [missing words] So that appeared to be the situation, an investigation of unknown persons; whereas instead the house, the house door was completely intact, there had not been a been a breaking open, and this made us think, then, as the investigations progressed, because as investigations go, by approximation you slowly get closer to it, to the ascertaining of the facts, it was, we thought it was someone who knew the victim and had an interest in orienting the investigation toward strangers.

09’44’’ Then the investigation went on. There were other important issues ... [missing word: *facts?] that have occurred [missing words]; they remained as key aspects of ... of what is called the basis of the charge. Which, by the way, for us is not the side of the accusation; we are an office that also has the task of ascertaining facts in favor of the suspect during the investigation.

10’19’’ What struck us besides the issue of the simulation was a series of endless contradictions, of inconsistencies, in the story of the two young people, the two young people who later became suspects and then defendants. And then, in particular, the calunnia [false accusation], then, what turned out to be such, a false accusation, made by the accused against her employer, a black man, Lumumba, Patrick D. Lumumba.

10’53” Here it is, this is it. Then, the elements of which there is much talk today, the elements which consist of forensic evidence, there was also evidence. There are the fingerprints, the [foot] prints, the phone cell records. These elements are ..., especially the forensics, they arose at a later time. This means, from the beginning what oriented the investigations toward these people, and later toward the black subject, Rudy, Rudy Herman Guede, who ... [missing word?] they were, that of Herman Guede was identified through the forensic material that was found.

The two youths were, let’s say they became objects of…[missing words?] the perpetrators of the murder, based on the findings that emerged at the beginning of the investigation, namely the simulation, the contradictions found especially in Amanda’s story, especially when she tells of having spent some time in the house, having taken a shower, in spite of everything. And then the call, the behavior that they maintained, especially the girl, upon the arrival of the postal police. And then the accusation, which was obviously a false accusation against Lumumba. So all these factors then they have, they led to the formulation of these accusations against them, which were later substantiated by the results of forensic tests, scientific evidence, were made by the scientific police, that is, the scientific police, which is that at the top of the national scientific police, which operates directly under the department of Public Security of the Ministry of the Interior. We also had the local scientific police, but the one which operated was the scientific police placed under the command of Public Safety, thus at the central level.

16’34’’ CNN: Before there was the evidence from the forensic police, did you arrive at your conclusions with respect to Amanda Knox by instinct?

17’00’’ Mignini: The scientific elements were coming in, as I recall, they were coming in gradually. Now, I would not be able to tell you [missing words] ... I think, for example, that the issue of the knife, and then the sample, the genetic profile of the victim on the blade and the genetic profile of the defendant on a spot where the handle of the knife is close to the insertion of the blade, I think that was entered quite later compared to the initial investigation. But in fact the order of detention, ... which I ... which is the act by which, under which the two young people and, at the time, also Lumumba who was later released, were taken to the house of preventive detention, that is in prison. In this detention order, there was no mention of any DNA analysis [indagini genetiche], obviously.

18’08’’ There is, in the detention order and in the hearing before the Judge of the Preliminary Investigation [GIP] on the validity of the detention and then in the first months, the first weeks of investigation, that is our belief, mine and the flying squad, that the behavior of two young people and in particular, this actually is [missing words]... it was a detail that was even more obvious regarding Amanda, [we thought] was such that the two were considered involved in the crime. Thus before that, it was an initial assessment of those elements that we had at the beginning to orient the investigation toward them. Then confirmations came. And there were many elements of corroboration at the end; they were very significant, very numerous. But at the beginning we had these elements, again, in particular the issue of simulation.

20’13’’ CNN: And what was the proof, because from what we understand the scientific evidence does not point to them ... the two of them?

20’25’’ Mignini: Well, then: so now I,  to list all the evidence [elementi] that was found, it would be [missing words] on the other hand they have been mentioned in the First Instance sentence report by the Court of Assize. Mmm, then ...

20’50’’ The issue of the simulation ... The issue of the simulation, in that house just in those days, i.e. 1, 2 November, the second was a Friday, the third was a Saturday, the fourth was a Sunday, on that weekend in 2007 there was only Meredith and Amanda in the house in Via della Pergola. Since the two Italian girls were away from home: Filomena Romanelli was with her boyfriend in another part of town, she was staying there overnight, while Laura Mezzetti was in the province of Viterbo.

21’36’’ So in the house that night there was only Amanda and the victim. Amanda said she was in Sollecito’s house, which is actually a five-minute walk from the house of Meredith. Because of the distance, we must take into account the distance, you shall go to see these places, you see that the distances are very short, very limited. So who might have an interest in simulating intrusion by a stranger? Only a person who might be worried about being implicated in the crime.

There was no sign of forced entry through the front door, so this is an extremely significant element. Then we have again the inconsistencies that can be detected in the statements. There is the fact, then during the investigation the homeless man, the homeless man came in, who very precisely identified the two young people, he said he saw the two basically the night between the 1st and 2nd, a few meters from the house where the crime happened, in which it was committed, presumably at a time compatible with the crime. While instead the two young people stated they had remained all the time at Raffaele’s home. There is another detail which at the beginning of the investigation [was] something that has, let’s say, intensified the elements for us; it was the fact that Raffaele at the beginning had attempted, let’s say he attempted to state that he stayed at home while Amanda had been out and she returned to Raffaele’s house I think at about two a.m.

Then this approach has been kept by Raffaele during the hearing for validation of arrest, and afterwards was abandoned as Sollecito’s defense line became more, let’s say, supportive of Amanda. But at an earlier stage Raffaele stated this position of separation between the two.

Then other elements are given by the fact, were given by the fact that the homeless man saw them on the night of the crime in a location a few steps, a few meters away from the crime and at a time shortly before the murder occurred.

There is a statement of the neighbor lady who lived nearby, who heard a scream at a time compatible with that specified, with what we thought could be the time of death of Meredith, that is between 23.30 and midnight. And this, this lady, heard footsteps, there is a whole description that now I will not repeat because it has been explained ... rather, it was described at length in the first trial, she heard the footsteps of some people who are moving, running, along the clear ground facing the house of the crime, others were running up the stairs, almost simultaneously, running on the metal stairs which are above the garage and basically end up in via Pinturicchio. I do not know if you are familiar with the city of Perugia, but I guess not. So this scream the lady heard, a terrible scream and also another neighbor heard it, at a consistent time, I repeat, and this simultaneous running of subjects on opposite sides, from different, distant areas, basically corroborated the fact that there were multiple murderers.

26’09’’ Rudy himself, in his questioning has, while remaining vague, more or less vague with respect to Sollecito, however later during the various interviews he more or less indicated quite clearly that Amanda was present.
Then [we had] the questioning, then there were questionings that were done. I remember one of them, that of Amanda in prison which was an interrogation that has made me… you asked what elements did I use to let’s say support the charge, saying in quotes the prosecution, there was also an interrogation in prison, Amanda, in inverted commas let’s say the accusation in the presence of the defense attorneys of course, and which confirmed the profound shock in which she always fell every time she had to tell what happened that night.

And then there were the results… well, fingerprints ... footprints, the footprints on the rug of the bare foot stained with blood, an especially important detail which I see many have not talked about but which is extremely important, is the mixed stains of blood in the small bathroom close the scene of crime, those of the defendant and the victim.

31’00’’ CNN: In the room [missing words]

31’05’’ Mignini: But let’s say I may reverse the issue: how do you explain the DNA, the genetic profile of the victim on the knife found in Sollecito’s house, together with the genetic profile of the defendant located at the area of the blade [possibly meaning: handle] where force is applied, not where you cut…

31’40’’ CNN: Are you sure that one was the knife?

31’44’’ Mignini: That it was for us, I can say this: first you have to start from a premise: Amanda and Sollecito knew each other only since October 25. That is, we think, because this detail is very significant with respect to the relevance of this finding, since we [may just] think it was a relationship, usually we don’t think of the fact that actually they had known each other for a week. And thus this knife was never touched in conditions ... I tell you what we found in the investigation, I am talking about what we ascertained during the investigation - this knife was never touched by Meredith under normal circumstances. It was never brought to Meredith’s home, this is what the two Italian housemates say, and so why, [since] Meredith had never been to Sollecito’s house, why was Meredith’s genetic material found on the blade by the forensic police, and the genetic profile of the defendant on the spot of the handle that is where the hand would press not as you apply pressure from top down, but from back to the front, that is in a condition similar to that when you strike a blow, like this. So this…

And I have… during the first trial I tried to show very clearly that this knife, the witness, the inspector I think whose name was Armando Finzi, he’s the one who conducted the search at Sollecito’s and found this knife. And I asked: did you put on your gloves at the time, was it the first pair of gloves you were using, in that search that was the first pair of gloves, he went [there], he started the inspection, he had not touched anything else, he opened the… the cupboard where this knife was. I do not remember if he took away several, but he picked up this knife that was immediately - and thus with the gloves that he was wearing in that moment – it was immediately closed and sealed, was brought to the flying squad, where another police officer, the superintendent, I think, Gubbiotti, using the same technique, put it into a sealed container which was then carried to… was then analyzed. So this was, let’s say because I wanted this to be highlighted and I think the Assize Court says so, I wanted to show that there was no possibility of contamination by the police, by the flying squad, with regard to this item.

35’04’’ Also because, I would like this to be noted, from the perspective of Italian law, evidence of contamination must be given by the person who invokes it. This means: I found the genetic profile, you as defense attorney say ‘there could be contamination’, you must prove it. That is, the burden of proof is reversed: it is you, the one who invokes the contamination, the one who has to give evidence of it. And this evidence was never given and cannot, I think, it cannot be given. That is, the one who claims a fact must prove it, onus probandi incumbit ei qui dicit, non ei qui negat. [Translator’s note: This sentence was spoken in Latin and translates as “the burden of proof is on those who assert something, not on those who deny it”.]

36’50’’ CNN: Was it certain the genetic material was that of Meredith, and not genetic material that might be consistent with that of Meredith?

37’01’’ Mignini: No, no, it was like that. It was ascertained as such by the scientific police.

37 ‘20’’ CNN: So your detectives went into the apartment ...

37’28’’ Mignini: No, the knife was collected, then it was brought to the scientific police, it was sent to the scientific police in Rome.

37’ 40’’ CNN: Yes but your detectives entered the apartment and they selected right this very knife…

37’49’’ Mignini: I believe samples were taken from several, that is, not only that particular knife. I think, if I’m not mistaken. I think more knives were tested; however, one of those was definitely exhibit 36, the famous exhibit 36. And on this exhibit is where [a sample] was recovered from, and here it’s the scientific police that did the evaluation of that evidence and I retain, I digress. About [case] aspects, at the end of the investigation phase I asked, given the complexity of the case, the resonance of the case, I felt it was appropriate to have a colleague join me, a deputy [public prosecutor] like myself. Let me clarify, I’m not the chief prosecutor; I am a deputy prosecutor, since I’ve been presented as the chief prosecutor, but I am not the chief prosecutor. Then I requested the assistance of a colleague, Manuela Comodi, and we divided up the tasks. She has remarkable aptitude for these aspects of a genetic nature.

And so in this regard, I don’t know if you notice it in the first instance trial, my colleague did the questioning regarding the genetic aspects. I instead handled the more generic aspects of the case and aspects of a more investigative nature. This is why I remember all the details of the investigation, because I carried out the investigations of people. But for these aspects of genetics and scientific nature, we rely on the scientific police and we retain that the scientific police acted with utmost professionalism. I can recall, for example, going to the crime scene, I was at the place, and I also had to wear overalls, shoe-covers and a kind of cap, not just once but several times, at the same time when we did the inspections, ... I remember having worn many times, for example, the shoe-covers. And I had to… also because, those who worked on the scene did have their DNA samples taken as well, so there is also my DNA [sample]. Dr. Stefanoni took DNA samples of everyone to rule out in case, there could be DNA discovered belonging to some operator who had nothing to do with this matter.

40’38’’ Therefore, I have the utmost confidence in the scientific police because the top of the scientific police in Italy, especially Dr. Stefanoni who acted with great professionalism and these findings on the biological material were carried out in cross-examination with consultants for the defense team, always. The defense consultants, as I recall, and I was present, as far as I can remember, they had no objections if not in later analysis; they had no objection to anything at all at the time. For example, when the famous bra clasp was discovered, the defense consultants were there, for Sollecito there was a consultant who afterwards was replaced, I don’t remember his name, he was quite good, and I remember that he did not make any objections. Therefore, all these findings were carried out in cross-examination and the other parties had the opportunity to challenge what the scientific police biologist was doing, the scientific police expert in forensic genetics.

42’06’’ So I think. I distinctly remember that, in the first trial, I tried to prove that the knife had been collected with the utmost correctness. And I believe that afterwards the same thing happened in the scientific police laboratory when it was analyzed.

44’16’’ CNN: I still have trouble understanding how you can have a crime so horrendous and so bloody without two of the suspects leaving any trace.

44’30’’ Mignini: Look I should then add, it must be also said, at the time. In the bathroom of the two foreign girls, that is Meredith and Amanda, which is attached, next to the room of the murder, blood material was discovered of Amanda and Meredith, mixed. Why is this material important? It is important because in her own account told, in her own deposition Amanda makes in, I think, in early June of 2009, during the first instance trial, she says that when she left the house on the afternoon of November 1st, those spots were not there. She says so herself. So she returns in the morning, says she went back in the morning and sees those spots of blood. Those spots of blood are mixed Amanda and victim.

Also, in the small bathroom, there is a blood stained footprint, which the scientific police attributed to Raffaele, on the bath mat next to the murder room. On the corridor leading to the murder room, [and] leading to Amanda’s room, there are footprints, I’m not sure now, there are even in Amanda’s room, I think, there are footprints that were attributed to the two youngsters by the scientific police, of feet stained in blood. And, by elements, there is also a print of shoe and that one, was inside the murder room. Elements there are, that is, how to explain the presence of these elements if the two youngsters were not involved in the murder, [and] stayed at home? And another detail: it is a crime, this was established at the time by the Supreme Court, then we can no longer put into question at this point, it is a crime committed by several persons. I have, during the first instance trial, I heard this line of approach, and I also opposed this approach, which extended to holding that Rudy was the only one responsible.

The “only one responsible” is not one person, but [transcription error] they are several persons and Rudy is among them. This is now procedurally beyond dispute.

48’48’’ CNN: He also wants to know if you also found [missing words], that is, Sollecito perhaps, had a few cuts, did you check to see if he had any cuts?

48’56’’ Mignini: The…yes. Well, now: Laura Mazzetti, that is the Italian girl from Viterbo, [said] that it was a scratch, however, she remembers having seen on Amanda’s neck, she told this account and afterwards was also heard [as a person informed], it’s sort of a scratch just few days later, I think it was three or four days, she remembers seeing this scratch on Amanda’s neck that had been also seen, I think, by one of the boys from the Marches region. And in one of the photos taken during the house search by police, I think it shows something. Nevertheless, Laura Mazzetti indicates the presence of a scratch or something like a scratch. That is, she remembers seeing that Amanda had this little injury to the neck.

50’20’’ CNN: None of your investigators noticed it?

50’25’’ Mignini: The investigators did not notice it, because at the time, Amanda kept herself covered, she was, as described by the shopkeeper Quintavalle, covered up. However, Laura Mazzetti saw it and it was also seen, I think if I’m not mistaken or was said, by the young guy from the Marches who was living downstairs.

This girl saw it [the scratch/mark] and she stated this later in the courtroom. Moreover there is even a photo.

51’44’’ CNN: Knox was in contact with the police for several days after the murder. She was interrogated. Was she always wearing something that covered her neck?

52’00’’ Mignini: I think so, to be fair, this was a mark that it was not very visible. Laura Mazzetti said she saw it well. Keep in mind also that we did not focus on it automatically, because it was not like a visually striking mark. She was questioned like Raffaele Sollecito and like all the people who were more or less, that had to be questioned in those days, after the murder, a long series of people were questioned, among which the [girl] friends of Meredith, the English girls she was with the evening of Nov 1 and the night before Oct 31. And, among these people who had been questioned, also several times, Amanda and Sollecito were questioned, Amanda in particular was questioned several times: the evening of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and then on the evening of 5th and the morning, or early hours of the 6th. But look, what I wanted that [??], just for the purposes of explanation, that under Italian law, we must take into account the totality of the findings.

Therefore there is the scientific evidence, there are statements made by people, examination of witnesses, there is the formal interrogation, there’s the conduct of the accused. All of these elements, it is not only the genetic aspect that comes into consideration. The genetic aspect [is], together with many others, must be altogether; it is a whole spectrum of various findings, which should converge towards an affirmation of a reality that is undisputable. This is how it should be, this is important from a judicial point of view. So it is not that the proof consists of the genetic evidence; it is not like that. There are items of proof from witnesses, there is the fact that there couldn’t be only one perpetrator, and this is now indisputable, and one of the positions of the defense of the two suspects always tended to say there was only one murderer who committed the deed, who climbed through in that totally absurd way, [that’s] not credible.

56’10’’ CNN: About Amanda’s interrogation, on the fifth day, what was it is that triggered you, made you begin to feel suspicious, and led you to conduct a more aggressive interrogation?

56’26’’ Mignini: I see you don’t… so, I’ll repeat to you what happened. On the evening of November 5th, the police were going to question Sollecito, and on the evening of the 5th, as I was saying before, the attitude of Sollecito at the beginning was an attitude of, let’s say, different than the one he would assume later, meaning a defense line supportive with Amanda’s; at that moment, he had a different position. That is, on the evening of Nov 5th. Sollecito made a statement saying “I was at home, Amanda wasn’t”. Amanda at that time had followed; she had accompanied Sollecito to the police station and she waited outside [of the room]. As the police heard this version of Sollecito’s, who basically, Sollecito ... with that statement, also this approach by him in practice more or less had become part of the process too, as Sollecito made this statement, the police became suspicious.

That is: why did Sollecito tell us this, and why is he now telling us that Amanda was not home with him? So then they called Amanda, and Amanda was heard by the police as a person not under investigation, thus with no defense attorney, because the person… the witness, the person informed of the facts during the investigation – is not called a witness, he is called a person informed of the facts - she was heard by the police who pointed out to her, they confronted her with this question: why is Raffaele saying something else? Now you say you were with him and Raffaele says you were not there, that he was at home and you were not there? This is the point.

58’44’’ So she did, she was heard in a way, let’s say for long enough, I cannot remember for how long, in the earliest morning hours of November 6, 2007. I was not there when Amanda was interviewed by the police. I was, perhaps I was coming, because I had been called by the director of the flying squad that night. I do not remember what time I arrived at the flying squad, but I think that… I think I got there, maybe I arrived when Amanda’s questioning had already started. But the flying squad is pretty big; I was not in the room where Amanda was being questioned, but rather in the office of the director of the flying squad. We were talking about the investigation and were trying to plan the investigation for the coming days. So now, at some point, they call me, if I remember correctly, they inform me that Amanda had given the name of Lumumba, she had basically confessed that she was at the crime scene in the company of, with Lumumba, whom she had let into the house, that is it. Now I go on, I wanted to explain how I operate. So it’s not me, I did not do the questioning.

Further posts of the CNN interview which then moved on to later events can be read here and here. There is another significant interview here.

As Netflix “forgot” to tell you what actually happened at Knox’s session ending at 1:45 am which Knox lied about see here.

And as Netflix “forgot” to tell you what actually happened at Knox’s session ending at 5:45 am which Knox lied about see here.

Put this long-form interview about the first few days up against what you may have seen on Netflix, and tell us if the impression gained is the same, or like night and day?

Posted on 09/19/17 at 10:59 PM by The TJMK Main PostersClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (14)

Thursday, September 07, 2017

Being Reported: Significant Developments In The Sollecito Crime Family

Posted by Peter Quennell





That photo above was taken in a Montreal court in January of last year. 

Rocco’s son Stefano was being charged with a number of crimes, and Rocco was there to manage and observe. Five months later, Rocco was dead, gunned down by a hitman still not identified, and Stefano was temporarily free on bail but still facing numerous charges and soon to go back inside.

Rocco was believed to have muscled his way to the leadership of the Rizutto mafia clan, then possibly the largest mafia family in the world, not too long after this happened back in 2010.

On November 10, 2010, [crime boss Nicolo] Rizzuto was killed at his residence in the Cartierville borough of Montreal when a single bullet from a sniper’s rifle punched through two layers of glass in the rear patio doors of his Montreal mansion. His death is believed to be the final blow against the Rizzuto crime family.

Nice shooting. But it was not quite the final blow to the Rizutto crime family.  Today Stefano Sollecito and Leonardo Ri‎zzuto, grandson of Nicolo are believed to be the joint heads of the mafia clan.

The relevance to our case becomes apparent if you know that the Dominican Republic is considered by the FBI etc to be the playground of various mafias.

The Dominican Republic is a very useful waypoint for drugs headed to the United States and Canada - and even Italy.  The Rizutto/Sollecito clan pretty well dominate the eastern town there, and they have unsavory gambling interests there. The country has few extradition treaties, so it’s tempting as a mafia retirement abode.

Quite ostentatiously - sending a threatening signal? - Raffaele Sollecito visited there twice in 2013.

First he arrived some months before the Nencini appeal in Florence, and then again right in the middle of that appeal, when it may have appeared to him (rightly) that the outcome would go against Knox and himself.

What was said between Rocco and Raffaele has not yet been leaked to the public. What favor if any did Raffaele ask of Rocco, and how did he make out? A job? Safe retirement? Muscling the Italian courts?

Well, it was observed among other things by those who do observing professionally that Amanda Knox and Sollecito and his lawyer Bongiorno became exceptionally macho upon his return and for the next 12 months

Sollecito was downbeat only briefly twice in 2014, first when he and his Italian girfriend scampered northward before Nencini’s verdict, and second when he was trying and failing to get American girls to marry him. Remember this and also this about the macho press conference in mid 2014?

Mostly the pair were exceptionally macho right through to the Fifth Chambers “mysteriously” being assigned the final appeal, and two judges inexperienced in murder cases mangling the evidence and breaking Italian law in the written judgement which sort-of cleared RS and AK.

That’s some of what is out in broad daylight so far. There is much more under official wraps for now. That both the Hellmann appeal and the Marasca/Bruno appeal were bent seem dead-certs to officialdom.

Meanwhile, back in Montreal, Leonardo Ri‎zzuto and Stefano Sollecito remain locked up awaiting trial. Bail was denied them - no surprise there, the state does need its witnesses.

Here as of a week ago is their trial status.

The last of the leaders accused of the mafia in Montreal, Stefano Sollecito and Leonardo Rizzuto, will be entitled to a mega-trial, which will be specially reserved [for them alone].

The judge Eric Downs has just confirmed that the two men, charged with gangsterism and conspiracy to traffic cocaine, will be judged separately from the 15 other accused in the operation Nest Egg… The dates of this trial will be held before a judge and jury, in Montreal, will be fixed within two weeks.

Stefano Sollecito, whose father Rocco has already led the clan Rizzuto, before his murder by a professional killer… had long sought a trial as early as possible since he is fighting a serious illness.

Note “fighting a serious illness”.  Hmmm. The presumed end of that branch of the family as a fighting force. There is also another development of the maybe-not-good-news variety for Raffaele.

Events described above might have evolved quite differently if Sammy Nicolucci had not been put away a few year ago by the Canadians.

Both Sammy Nicolucci and Rocco Sollecito had once been on a career path to head the Rizzuto crime family. But Sammy was put away in prison, opening a clear way forward for Rocco.

As Rocco was gunned down, while Sammy walks free, maybe Sammy thinks he has the last laugh? Could he have Raffaele Sollecito looking over his shoulder these days, or at least not vacationing in Canada any time soon?

Rocco’s silencing by death was clearly to Raff’s and Amanda’s advantage, even assuming they had no hand in it. It is likely if Rocco had managed to stay alive that the Italians would have figured out a way to nab him.

It’s their experience-based and effective way with the mafias: dont ever talk about it, just do it: keep up a relentless pursuit without ceasing until there are clear grounds to isolate and take down some bad guys. See this latest example and also this one here.

If you think about it, it’s a great pity for our case that Rocco did get gunned down. He got off easy and our case remains messy. Damn you Rocco!

The silencing of Rocco does close off the easiest way forward, of extraditing him to Italy and putting the screws on him. But it does not close off ALL roads forward. Work goes on. Someone will talk.

Stay tuned. It may take a while, but it ain’t yet over.

Posted on 09/07/17 at 01:20 PM by Peter QuennellClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (20)

Tuesday, September 05, 2017

Cynical Vilification Of Public Institutions By Politicians Has Cut In Half Italy’s Growth Prospects

Posted by Peter Quennell



In Meredith’s case, not only are the forces of Italian justice up against the mafia. They are up against much of the elected layer of government.

This article explains how those same groups that have bent Italian justice to give breaks to the mafioso and other corrupt elements - to the advantage of Knox and Sollecito - have done much to damage Italy’s economic prospects, and especially job opportunities for young people.

First, there have been implications for the checks and balances that exist within the Italian political system. Populist parties have repeatedly attacked the work of judges, notably in the case of Silvio Berlusconi. They have also had a sizeable impact on the role of the media in Italian politics. This is true both of Berlusconi’s Forza Italia and the Five Star Movement, who have both posed a threat to the freedom and autonomy of media organisations.

Second, there has been a general oversimplification of political discourse in Italy. The debate about the cost of politics is a good example. Initially introduced by the Northern League and Forza Italia in the 1990s, complaints over the cost of politics have also become one of the most successful topics for Beppe Grillo to mobilise support around. Yet despite the presence of this debate for two decades in Italian politics, the political attention it has received has failed to produce significant savings (as shown, for instance, by several expensive and incomplete attempts to abolish provincial councils). There is cross-party consensus among the main political parties on the need to reduce the number of MPs. This implies a certain reduction of political representation, while the reduction in terms of the cost of politics is rather uncertain.

Third, Italy has experienced the spread of populist themes and frames even among non-populist parties. In the last few years, the success of populist campaigning among citizens has pushed even mainstream parties to react using populist rhetoric, styles and sometimes also populist content of their own. An example would be a much-shared Facebook post produced by Matteo Renzi on migration, which stated that ‘we need to free ourselves from a sense of guilt. We do not have the moral duty to welcome into Italy people who are worse off than ourselves’.

Finally, Italian populism illustrates the so called ‘cultivation theory’. To paraphrase George Gerbner and his colleagues, instead of ‘growing up with television’ we might address the issue of ‘growing up with populism’. Italy is now characterised by general discontent among citizens and strong political disaffection.

 

Read this book by the World Bank and you will see that two things really mattered for the continuing very fast growth in Asia.

    (1) The governments were not vilified or shoved aside. Instead they played very key roles and continue to do so.

    (2) Emphasis was on system transfer and development - from the US to Japan to the Little Dragons to China and India.

So Asia goes one way, while Italy among other “advanced” countries goes another.

For 30 years since the end of the Cold War the US and increasingly some other Europeans have largely ignored lessons (1) and (2) above and headed in a self-destructive direction.

Now they all wonder what happened to half of their growth potential. While Asian countries have growing reserves, the US and Europe have growing revenue gaps and aging populations.

The United States is not as a whole quite where Italy is.

But in certain areas the folks sure love to demonize government and sure hate to pay any taxes - the same areas that large investments tend to steer clear from, and from where the best and the brightest make their exits.

Here is an article in today’s New York Times explaining how cynical, opportunistic distrust of government has made things much worse in the flooded and largely unregulated Houston area.

It has now directly caused anti-government Texans to require many tens of billions from that same government for rebuilding.

This is revenue that will largely come from the far less cynical East and West Coasts, which already transfer several hundred billions annually to the lackadaisical and mistrustful interior.

Enlightened conspiracy-theory-free attitudes in Texas could help all of us and may happen now. May it take a disaster to re-point Italy similarly?

***

The NY Times has another big article on the chemical plants and refineries around Houston and their weak safety systems (actually being made weaker this year) which among other things led to serial explosions last week - the one in the shot here was one of half a dozen.

Interesting to see populations wisening up. Maybe companies too. The largest oil refinery in the US is owned by the Saudis. They were planning to spend billions to expand and modernize it, but after the flood they and other companies might think a move to higher ground could be smart.

Posted on 09/05/17 at 11:25 AM by Peter QuennellClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (4)

Saturday, August 26, 2017

Justice Systems Comparisons #7: Common Law (US Etc) V. Civil (Italian) On Self-Represented Litigants

Posted by Chimera

One Of Many Self-Help Videos Now Springing Up Online

1. The Series Context

Several posts since my previous one drew attention to an estimated 200,000 or more poor Americans wrongly sitting in prison.

They are there because trial outcomes differ widely according to how much those charged can afford to pay or can handle their defense on their own, and there are pressures (political and economic) to keep the partly privatised prisons full to capacity.

Oh, those who have been slamming Italian justice forgot to tell you that?! 

Italian perps remain MUCH better off, but this post explains progress elsewhere now being made.

Here are my previous six posts. I use the Canadian system as the common law example. But as the posts explain, the US and UK systems are pretty close. 

Click here for post: Justice System Comparisons #1: Had Meredith’s Murder Taken Place In Canada 

Click here for post: Justice System Comparisons #2: Canada’s Tough Penalties For Slander, False Accusations, Perjury 

Click here for post: Justice System Comparisons #3: Bail, Extradition, and More Crimes In Canadian Law 

Click here for post: Justice System Comparisons #4: How Canada And Italy Shape Up Against The US 

Click here for post: Justice Systems Comparisons #5: How Appeals Differ in Italy and Common Law Countries 

Click here for post: Justice Systems Comparisons #6: Common Law (US Etc) V. Civil (Italian) On Double Jeopardy

2. Rights And Protections Of Self Represented Litigants

In 2006, the Canadian Judicial Counsel released their STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES ON SELF REPRESENTED LITIGANTS AND ACCUSED PERSONS.  Here is a direct link to that article.

Among some of those well intentioned principles are:

(a) Self-represented persons should not be denied relief on the basis of a minor or easily rectified deficiency in their case.

(b) Judges should ensure that procedural and evidentiary rules are not used to unjustly hinder the legal interests of self-represented persons.

(c) Judges and court administrators should do whatever is possible to provide a fair and impartial process and prevent an unfair disadvantage to self-represented persons.

(d) Judges, the courts and other participants in the justice system have a responsibility to promote access to the justice system for all persons on an equal basis, regardless of representation.

The Alberta Court of Appeal (May 2, 2016) allowed the appeal.

Now, the Supreme Court of Canada has endorsed the document and from this point, all Judges/Justices/JP will be obligated to follow it when one or more parties before them is self-represented.

Pintea v. Johns, 2017 SCC 23 (CanLII)

Pintea v. Johns

Valentin Pintea v. Dale Johns, et al.

In laymen’s terms, the gross imbalance between represented/unrepresented litigants will shrink.

The Courts will now be obligated to go the extra mile to ensure that the proceedings are done fairly, and in the overall interests of justice.  The ruling goes even further than what may be expected.

“Judges have a responsibility to inquire whether self-represented persons are aware of their procedural options, and to direct them to available information if they are not. Depending on the circumstances and nature of the case, judges may explain the relevant law in the case and its implications, before the self-represented person makes critical choices.”

So Canada, and to a degree the United States, is trending towards self representation.

Litigants already represent themselves in small claims court, family court, traffic, landlord/tenant disputes, and occasionally in criminal court.

To be fair though, routine self-representation in criminal court is a long ways off.  However, the pattern seems to be moving away from using lawyers, which many people believe to be expensive and largely ineffectual.

Also noteworthy is that in the Canadian Provinces of Ontario and British Columbia, paralegals are becoming more common as an alternative to lawyers. 

Again, the price involved deters most people from hiring lawyers.  Why pay 10 times as much for the same service?  Why pay for a lawyer when many farm their work out to paralegals? Other Provinces have something similar, as do many U.S. States.

Ontario: How Can a Paralegal Help?

British Columbia Paralegal Assoc

3. A Final Thought

Justice should be available to everyone, not just those who can dig deep for a lawyer.  The options of lower cost legal help, and the new requirements of Judges to ensure fairness, will likely go a long way to seeing this happen.

Posted on 08/26/17 at 10:25 PM by ChimeraClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (3)

Friday, August 18, 2017

Kercher Lawyer Dr Maresca Slams Tin-Eared Knox Over “Inopportune Plans” To Visit Perugia

Posted by Hopeful



Dr Maresca welcoming Meredith’s family to trial court in 2009

1. Today’s Reporting

The Daily Mail headline today 8/18/17 says this:

Murdered Meredith Kercher’s family condemn Amanda Knox over ‘inopportune plans’ to revisit Italian town where the British student was killed

Subheading: Ms. Knox, 30, wants to return so she can overcome the trauma of imprisonment

The Kercher family lawyer, our dear Francesco Maresca, the lion of Perugia who never wastes words, condemns the nutter Knox, the eternal troublemaker that she is.

Knox told People magazine of her evil plans: “The only way that I’m going to come full circle is by physically, literally, coming full circle.”

Knox said, “I know that Perugia is probably the least welcome place for me in the entire world. And that’s scary, but it also means a lot to me, not to be afraid of a place and see Perugia through my family’s eyes.” (can you believe it, she uses her family as an excuse to return to the scene of the crime, unrivalled ingrate)

“My family lived in Perugia for years to support me and they made relationships. I made a relationship with the priest at the prison, and those things still matter to me.” (what gall, has she been to see a priest in Seattle since 2015?)

Francesco Maresca the Kercher family lawyer said that Ms. Knox is NOT WELCOME in Perugia. Amen to that.

Maresca told The Telegraph:  “I believe Amanda Knox’s choice to return is totally inopportune because the death of Meredith was very painful for Perugia and people there feel they have never had a satisfactory response from the Italian justice system.”

Maresca said, “That is why Knox should think about her life without continuing to return to this sad affair from which she has been the only one to profit, both in terms of fame and money.”

2. My Commentary

What Insolence and Unbridled Triumphalism of Evil

The criminal always returns to the scene of the crime. Why? because he has so much invested in it of himself and his moment of power.

Knox is a moth to a flame, she can never learn.

The valiant Attorney Maresca condemns her motives and tells her in gentler words than mine to “GET A LIFE” and to not parade her sorry self through the streets she tormented and flout the Perugians who she ripped off of so much money to investigate her crime.

Perugia had to pay judges and police and lab techs and a myriad of costs, thousands and millions$ of euro to give that young imposter and troublemaker and promiscuous idiot her courtrooms and to house her and feed her in Capanne prison only then to be made the brunt of street riots and shouting mobs at doors of courthouse after verdicts were announced.

More importantly Perugia suffered the heartless loss of lovely Meredith in their formerly happy village. They suffered the jaundiced eye of the American PR steamroller trying to find fault with their sincere and earnest investigation. Perugia had endless patience with the animal known as Knox whose father and loudmouth mother paraded in and out of their decent streets while paying PR firms to paint Knox a misunderstood Madonna instead of the kicking goat they had raised.

Perugia got the awful reputation of the beautiful Meredith’s murder and the seamy underbelly of drug crime that Knox the dopehead brought to light.

Then the Sollecito family rose up to condemn the Perugian police and justice officials as country clowns, and after all the Perugians’ costly hard work to give Meredith peace and a just outcome to punish those who destroyed her, the American PR hydrogen bomb blasted over them like an evil Goliath before David put him down. I hope she meets a David in Perugia, the arrogant twerp.

I hope Knox gets more than she bargains for, much much more and worse if she sashays her shameless self once again in the town that she used as a platform to show her tail, and as Maresca says, to profit from all the fallout of her own evil, her ill gotten fame and some money with it. She still owes Lumumba, pay him if you walk by the crumbled Le Chic on your drunken journey with your foolish compatriot Robinson, a blind man if there ever were one.

She adds insult to injury and proves to the world she is an absolute moron yet a cunning and deceitful enemy who revels in the triumph of her will over others, her daring over what is right.

Maresca tells the beast to ‘GET A LIFE’ and stop cruelly dancing at the scene of the crime.

She was given mercy, not justice. Now she lies about the motive for her visit to Perugia, shielding herself by suggesting her family’s friends and the priest there mean so very much to her. Right. Has she been to mass twice since her release? Has she donated to Seattle Prep? Has she donated to the Catholic Church? let me guess…but now the tenuous relationship with the Priest of Capanne is the ruse she uses to excuse her return to Perugia to further slap them in the face.

Liar liar, don’t trust a word she says.

Posted on 08/18/17 at 03:16 PM by HopefulClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (25)

Wednesday, August 16, 2017

Netflixhoax 19(c) - Yet More On A Genuine, Huge Justice Problem In The US Dishonest Netflix Ignored

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters

Netflix enabled Knox to sustain her myth of how awful Italian prison life was for her.

First, do notice that Netflix ignored that Knox was in prison for three of her four years quite validly for a felony conviction: her attempt (sustained over several weeks) to try to frame Patrick for Meredith’s murder.

Even now, she still owes Patrick damages of around $100,000 irrevocably confirmed by the Supreme Court. Netflix ignored that also.

Second, do notice that Netflix ignored that that Knox quite provably made up a lot about her prison stay in Capanne and how she was actually treated.

In this post challenging all those claims, we observed that Knox did not have a single witness confirming her accounts.

In fact both the US Embassy which monitored her and the Italian MP Rocco Girlanda who “monitored” her confirmed her treatment was kindly, and her lawyers confirmed that she never ever asked that a complaint be filed. 

And third, not only is no Italian prison the hellhole that Netflix watchers were led to believe. Though there has been temporary overcrowding due to immigrant crime, they are in general among the most humane prisons anywhere on the planet.

That post 18 months ago drew upon a New York Times report. Today the New York Times posts an editorial which shows the gap in humanity between Italian and American prisons is actually deliberately worsening. 

Another contrast in Italy’s favor, ignored of course by Netflix.

Criminal justice officials across the country are struggling to break the recidivism cycle in which prisoners are released only to land right back behind bars. These prisoners are among the most poorly educated people in the country, and that fact holds the key to a solution. Decades of research has shown that inmates who participate in prison education programs — even if they fail to earn degrees — are far more likely to stay out of prison once they are freed.

That prison education programs are highly cost effective is confirmed by a 2013 RAND Corporation study that covered 30 years of prison education research. Among other things, the study found that every dollar spent on prison education translated into savings of $4 to $5 on imprisonment costs down the line.

Other studies suggest that prisons with education programs have fewer violent incidents, making it easier for officials to keep order, and that the children of people who complete college are more likely to do so themselves, disrupting the typical pattern of poverty and incarceration.

Findings like these have persuaded corrections officials in both Democratic and Republican states to embrace education as a cost-effective way of cutting recidivism. But Republican legislators in New York — which spends about $60,000 per inmate per year — remain mired in know-nothingism and argue that spending public money on inmates insults taxpayers. They have steadfastly resisted Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s common-sense proposal for making a modest investment in prison education programs that have already proved highly successful on a small scale in New York’s prisons.

The Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus Vance Jr., stepped into the void left by the Legislature when he agreed l to pay for Governor Cuomo’s prison education plan with more than $7 million in criminal forfeiture money secured from banks. Lauding what he described as a public safety measure, Mr. Vance said, “It makes no sense to send someone to prison with no pathway for them to succeed.”

The goal of the program is to expand the number of inmates taking college courses to about 3,500 across much of the system from 1,000. The curriculum will be broad, covering science, math, philosophy, the social sciences and art. Among the schools that will participate are Cornell University, New York University, Mercy College and Bard College, which has run a highly regarded program since 2001. The recidivism rate is 4 percent for inmates who participate in the program and a mere 2 percent for those who earn degrees in prison, compared with about 40 percent for the New York State prison system as a whole.

Prison education programs were largely dismantled during the “tough on crime” 1990s, when Congress stripped inmates of the right to get the federal Pell grants that were used to pay tuition. The decision bankrupted many prison education programs across the country and left private donors and foundations to foot the bill for those that survived.

Despite limited and unreliable funding, these programs have more than proved their value. New York lawmakers who continue to block funding for them are putting ideology ahead of the public interest.

Posted on 08/16/17 at 11:58 AM by The TJMK Main PostersClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (1)

Friday, August 11, 2017

Netflixhoax 19(b) - More On A Genuine, Huge Justice Problem In The US Dishonest Netflix Ignored

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



Is the US actually worse than North Korea of all places? In one respect yes.

Our first post a couple of weeks ago on false incarcerations concluded this way: 

The American prison population is proportionally six times the Italian prison population (why did Netflix omit that?). Mental illness among that population is rife, and few inmates have above average IQs.

Election-driven prosecutors plea-bargaining with threats may have wrongly put many of them there. Maybe 10 per cent.

That is over 200,000 Americans in the wrong place. Funny how Netflix (and the FOA fanatics) forgot to tell us about that.

“Over 200,000” could in fact be a considerable UNDER estimate. An estimated 177,624 innocent Americans pleaded guilty in one year (2013) alone.

Here is The New York Times on this subject this past Tuesday.

By Marc Morje Howard

The American criminal justice system is exceptional, in the worst way possible: It combines exceptionally coercive plea bargaining, exceptionally long sentences, exceptionally brutal prison conditions and exceptionally difficult obstacles to societal re-entry.

This punitiveness makes us stand out as uniquely inhumane in comparison with other industrialized countries…. There’s widespread agreement that current practices are unsustainable.

The United States is home to 5 percent of the world’s population, yet has 25 percent of the world’s prisoners. The grim reality of American justice is that there are 2.3 million people behind bars, five million on parole or probation, 20 million with felony convictions and over 70 million with a criminal record.

Though mafia-tool Netflix ignored them all in its crazed rush to defame the Italian system, every day in the US new reports on this world-beating iniquity are being televised or published.

Why does it happen? In large part because THERE IS PROFIT IN IT. Profits for private prisons and bail-sharks. 

The video at top is a trailer for a new documentary just being released: A Deal With The Devil Devil’ Takes On Unjust Bail System

By Susie Madrak

A plea deal is an arrangement to resolve a case without going to trial. This is an option most often taken by those who cannot afford bail and want to go home instead of wait days, months, even years locked up in jail. An estimated 177,624 innocent Americans pleaded guilty in 2013 alone. Does this sound like a just system to you?

The money bail system is broken: private companies achieve exorbitant profits by scavenging off of communities (primarily of color) living in poverty. Low-income Americans are sitting in jails for days, months, and even years for the most minor of infractions simply because they can’t afford to pay high bond amounts. The reality is that the majority of people in jails – over 70% - are there for one simple reason: their income status. This is both morally and legally wrong.

And from now until August 21, 2017, Brave New Films will be campaigning to #EndMoneyBail this summer in the state of California.

Premiere events around the state are scheduled in key legislative districts, with audiences ranging from Bay Area activists and advocates to Los Angeles poets and politicians. Social media launches will coincide each week, with new videos from Brave New Films and other partners in the California Bail Coalition. People who can’t attend premiere events and screenings can host their own in-home events with all of our films before they’re released publicly and everybody should call their Assembly members demanding they #EndMoneyBail this summer.

Posted on 08/11/17 at 12:21 PM by The TJMK Main PostersClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (19)

Sunday, August 06, 2017

Meredith’s Perugia #36: Popular Beaches In Italy’s Deep South She Will Never See

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters

Posted on 08/06/17 at 02:20 PM by The TJMK Main PostersClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (4)

Saturday, July 29, 2017

Yet More American Lawyers Get Duped By Knox: Now Los Angeles’s Westside Bar Association

Posted by Hopeful



Duped? WBA founder and Beverley Hills lawyer Daniel Forouzan



The previous instance of this - in front of the Kentucky Bar Association - occurred only one month ago.

We shot Knox’s anticipated false claims down very extensively.

There may have been an effort to have this one fly under the radar - there was no advance media notice that we could see, only this Facebook notice which may soon scroll (or be deleted) away.

This new instance is reported by Ann Schmidt in the Daily Mail today 7/29/17. Headline: ‘Prison changed me forever’: Amanda Knox speaks about how the murder trial and four years in prison defined her

Knox spoke Thursday in Los Angeles to the Westside Bar Association, about her “two wrongful convictions” for the 2007 murder of her British roommate, Meredith Kercher, before she was acquitted. She spoke about the pain she went through.

Knox: “I went into prison as not yet a woman and I came out an adult woman, and that period defined me, ” she told KTLA Thursday.

In her appearance the Seattle native was also promoting her memoir and the Netflix documentary about her trial. “I realized the courtroom was actually a battleground for storytelling where the most compelling story and not necessarily the most truthful wins, ” she said.

Zohreen Adamjee of Fox 11 reported her saying,

Amanda Knox, sharing her story of how two wrongful convictions for the murder of her British roommate Meredith Kercher in Italy have changed her.

“I realized the courtroom was actually a battleground for storytelling. Where the most compelling story and not necessarily the most truthful wins,” said Knox.

In a rare L.A. appearance, Knox confronted the image the world has painted of her - addressing a room full of lawyers who fight for the wrongly convicted.

“The truth doesn’t fit in a headline or a tweet or a fairytale format,

At one point, she says prosecutors lied, telling her she tested positive for AIDS, making her make a list of every person she had ever slept with.”

“The unfortunate thing about this case is that the prosecution decided before the evidence came in, that I had to be guilty,” she said.

“Everyone in my family suffered, and the worst thing of all—they didn’t feel like they could share that with me, because I was in trouble.”

She told the L.A. law panel that she wants to use her experience to help the wrongly convicted and the Innocence Project. From the Daily Mail:

“I have to tell my story so that the echo of it can reach people.”

“I just want to show that it’s not this distant, difficult to understand thing. It’s a human thing that can happen to anyone at anytime. No one is safe, but we can understand it.”

The article is accompanied by a photo of Curt Knox wearing a black leather jacket inside the courtroom in 2009; a selfie of Knox and new beau Chris Robinson wearing matching gray felt hats during their recent trip to the Black Forest in a quaint European tourist town, I think.

There’s a stock photo of Rudy being escorted by four blue beret wearing Italian policemen in dark navy blue uniforms.

The Daily Mail comments are vitriolic, with only a few fans rooting for Knox.

“Guilty as H…”

“I get really bad vibes from this woman.”

“I am still not sure about her. I suspect she was involved but I’m not clear how.”

“no, committing murder changed her forever.”

The current photo of her assuming it was taken at the Los Angeles Westside Bar Association speech, was grainy and small.

It appeared she had teased her hair into a more sophisticate upswept style for the event, seemed to wear a white collared blouse, was hard to tell from bad tiny photo or maybe just my laptop distortion.

My main reaction to the blah blah blah Foxy usual speech, is that she is so wrong to condemn the prosecution for what amounts to criminal bias against her before evidence came in.

She’s a branded liar as the duped lawyers could very easily have found out. Click on the link at the top for our disparagement.

Posted on 07/29/17 at 04:25 PM by HopefulClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (19)

Wednesday, July 26, 2017

Where Should You Have Invested This Year? The US Or Italy?

Posted by Peter Quennell





Where should you have put your nestegg at the start of this year for maximum gains?

Sorry to those who picked the US (and Trumponomics).

(1) The chart above shows a bundle of Italian stocks (EWI) against a bundle of US stocks (DOW).

As of today US stocks have gone up around 10 percent - but Italian stocks (green curve) have gone up 12 percent above that.

(2) The chart below shows the dollar against the Euro (Italy’s currency).

As of today, the Euro is about 10 percent up on the dollar for the year.

So you would have been much better off in Italy. It wins hands down - it has gained overall about 20 percent compared to the US.

The overall value of the US - stocks and currency combined - is actually under water.


Posted on 07/26/17 at 12:52 PM by Peter QuennellClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (3)

Friday, July 21, 2017

Netflixhoax 19 - Omitted The Vital Context Of A Genuine, Huge Justice Problem In The US

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters


1. Series Overview

The 18 past posts can be read here. In the light of the Netflix report’s nomination for a major award we resume. Full speed ahead.

2. Italian Justice: What Netflix Left Out

In the United States outrage is, well, all the rage… A clear Netflix intent was to horrify and outrage viewers about the Italian justice system itself.

Read the numerous reviews and thousands of comments that imply the system is dangerous and corrupt. Including the very common “I would never send my kid to college there” and “I will never risk traveling there” and “we should boycott Italian goods”. 

Show it as it really is - an extremely fair system from the perps’ point of view that allows ZERO wrongful convictions at the end of the day - and the whole Netflix thesis falls apart.

In Post 6 we described the almost unique carefulness of the Italian system.

How prosecutors can explain their case only in court. How the system allows perps two automatic appeals. How appeals often feature new juries - which never get to hear the full prosecution case.

How the same defense teams get to argue in court all the way up to the Supreme Court while the trial prosecution gets to present its full case just the once.

How the REAL justice system requires that many judgments should be written out at costly length. How prison time is almost never served for sentences under three years.

How most of the prisons are very nice and all perps receive mental treatment if prescribed, and taught a trade so they dont have to commit new crimes to pay their way when out.

The plea-bargain possibility does not exist in the uniquely open and transparent Italian system at all. No furtive shortcuts. No extreme pressure on suspected perps.

Judges, prosectors and especially police must go the extra mile, often over many years, to ever finally win a case.

3. American Justice: What Netflix Left Out

Netflix left out A LOT. See the numerous for-comparison posts here.

Sadly judges and lawyers in the American system can be among the eagerly gullible about both the Italian system and their own.

But there ARE American judges and lawyers who FULLY understand the Italian system and wish some of that could be applied in the US.

In the video at top Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz is quoted as saying this.

“We treat poor people and minority people much worse in the United States by our criminal justice system than they do in Italy, so we really have no standing to tell other countries that their system is unfair.

And based on [the evidence against Knox], in America, if she were not an attractive young woman — if she were an ordinary person — charged on the basis of this evidence, she would be convicted and would be serving life imprisonment, or even worse, the death penalty in the United States.”

In the United States pervasive plea-bargaining is making juries obsolete.

Trial by jury has become so rare in modern American criminal jurisprudence that the chance of being convicted at trial is little more than one in one hundred.

That doesn’t mean that people are not getting convicted. They are—in record number. America’s prisons are literally filled to capacity.

In today’s criminal justice system, convictions come by agreement. The tradition of being tried by one’s peers, established centuries ago and affirmed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has all but disappeared.

The plea bargain has made jury trials obsolete.

The GOOD aspect is that it can get convictions fast. That is the BAD aspect too.

Very few cases end in acquittal - vastly fewer than in Italy. Tough sentences and even the death penalty are often used as a threat.

“We now have an incredible concentration of power in the hands of prosecutors,” said Richard E. Myers II, a former assistant United States attorney who is now an associate professor of law at the University of North Carolina. He said that so much influence now resides with prosecutors that “in the wrong hands, the criminal justice system can be held hostage.

In effect judges and juries are being sidelined and defense lawyers are faced with strong odds.

A case in Pennsylvania has suddenly put such plea-bargaining in the national news - not because the accused perp didnt do it, but actually because the threat of death penalty was said to have been too lightly used.

In so swiftly wrapping up the case, which transfixed the Philadelphia region, the district attorney of Bucks County, Matthew D. Weintraub, faced questions about whether he had made the right call in taking the most severe punishment for horrible crimes off the table.

Experts in death penalty law said the agreement was especially notable for its speed. But the father of one of the young men found dead said on Monday that family members of all of the victims supported it.

There was no judicial review. Oh and he was mentally deranged.

The American prison population is proportionally six times the Italian prison population (why did Netflix omit that?). Mental illness among that population is rife, and few inmates have above average IQs.

Election-driven prosecutors plea-bargaining with threats may have wrongly put many of them there. Maybe 10 per cent.

That is over 200,000 Americans in the wrong place. Funny how Netflix forgot to tell us about that.

Posted on 07/21/17 at 10:00 PM by The TJMK Main PostersClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in Hoaxers - main mediaThe Netflix hoax
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (4)

Thursday, July 13, 2017

Justice Systems Comparisons #6: Common Law (US Etc) V. Civil (Italian) On Double Jeopardy

Posted by Chimera



Palazzo Giustizia above in Reggio Calabria, below in Naples

1. The Series Context

You’d think there’d be lots of comparisons at national level between the two great justice systems of the world. But really there are not.

The dishonest Knox and Sollecito PR often uses disparities between the Italian and US/UK systems to confuse, and to try to make the excellent Italian system look bad. 

The common-law lawyers from the US and UK who post here on Italy sometimes say they have to study quite a bit to get things straight. UK lawyer James Raper’s excellent book translates some of the key concepts that can be confused as he did here.

These are my previous five posts. I use the Canadian system as the common law example. But as the posts explain, the US and UK systems are pretty close. 

Click here for post:  Justice System Comparisons #1: Had Meredith’s Murder Taken Place In Canada 

Click here for post:  Justice System Comparisons #2: Canada’s Tough Penalties For Slander, False Accusations, Perjury 

Click here for post:  Justice System Comparisons #3: Bail, Extradition, and More Crimes In Canadian Law 

Click here for post:  Justice System Comparisons #4: How Canada And Italy Shape Up Against The USJustice System Comparisons #4: How Canada And Italy Shape Up Against The US 

Click here for post:  Justice Systems Comparisons #5: How Appeals Differ in Italy and Common Law Countries 

2. Double Jeopardy

Much angry noise has been made about the October 2011 “acquittal” of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito by the Hellmann appeal court in the murder of Meredith Kercher.  The claim was been made that an acquittal at trial means that under American law, it would be “double jeopardy” and hence, illegal, under American law.

While the “appellate trial” differs considerably from appeals in Common Law countries, it is still an appeal.  Portions of the case can be reopened, but the Trial Court’s original findings are the starting point.  It is not meant to be a “new trial”, nor to re-try the case.

“If” an Appeals Court releases a defendant, it is not double jeopardy, as it is not a Trial Court.  They do not try the case, but rather examine it for errors.  Further if a 1st level appeal releases someone, the prosecution can still seek a higher level of appeal.

Read Harvard Law School’s Alan Dershowitz here.

3. Legal Outcomes 2007-09

  • November 6, 2007—AK and RS were charged for rape and murder of MK, alongside PL, whom Knox has accused as the actual killer

  • November 9, 2007—AK/RS faced Judge Claudia Matteini, to see if they could be released conditionally (their 1st Court hearing), and to get a brief assessment of the Prosecution case.  While FoAK crow about there being no bail in Italy, this hearing seems eerily similar to a bail hearing.

  • November 30, 2007—AK/RS challenged Judge Matteini’s decisions (their 2nd Court hearing), and Judge Massimo Ricciarelli presided over a 3 Judge panel which confirmed the detention, but with Rudy Guede as the 3rd person, as opposed to PL.

  • April 1, 2008—AK/RS tried to get released again (their 3rd Court hearing on the matter), and the 5 Judge Cassation panel headed by Judge Torquato Gemelli denied the request, and even the lesser request of house arrest

  • September/October 2008—Pretrial (and Guede’s short form trial) presided over by Judge Paolo Micheli.  Judge Micheli convicted RG, and sent AK/RS to trial.

  • December 2009—AK and RS were convicted at trial by the Court of Judge Giancarlo Massei.


4. Legal Outcomes 2010-15

In 2010 AK/RS then chose to APPEAL those convictions and filed such an appeal.

  • October 2011—AK/RS were “acquitted” of murder by the Appellate Court headed by Hellmann and Zanetti, though the Calunnia conviction was upheld.

The Prosecution then filed a SECONDARY APPEAL to the Court of Cassation

  • March 2013—AK/RS had their “acquittal” by H/Z annulled, while the calunnia conviction was upheld, with aggravating factors added back on.

AK/RS chose to file ANOTHER APPEAL of the 2009 Trial Conviction, this time it went to Florence.  Not a new trial, but another appeal.  Knox didn’t show up.

  • January 2014—AK/RS had their 2009 conviction “confirmed” by the Court of Judge Nencini, with a small sentence increase for AK.

AK/RS then filed a SECONDARY APPEAL to the Court of Cassation.  The 5th Chambers took the case.

  • March 2015—AK/RS had their convictions thrown out by the panel of Bruno/Marasca.  However, the report released in September 2015 didn’t actually say they were innocent.  in fact, the report placed AK at the crime scene, and RS probably so.  The Court found both had lied repeatedly.


5. These Damning Posts Relate

Click here for post:  The Knox Interrogation Hoax #13: The First Two Opportunities Knox Flunked: Matteini & Ricciarelli

Click here for post:  Tape ‘puts Knox at Meredith murder scene’

Click here for post:  The Knox Interrogation Hoax #14: The Third Opportunity Knox Flunked: The Mignini Interview

Click here for post:  The Knox Interrogation Hoax #15: Dr Mignini’s Account Of Formal Warning Session Ending 5:45 AM

Click here for post:  The Knox Interrogation Hoax #16: The Fourth Opportunity Knox Flunked: The Supreme Court

Click here for post:  The Knox Interrogation Hoax #18: The Final Pre-Trial Opportunities Which Knox Flunked

6. Two Constitutions Compared

(A) U.S. Constitution, 5th Amendment

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


(B) Canada Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 11(h)

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right…. (h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again;....

Notes: Both the U.S and Canadian Justice systems prohibit a person from being punished twice for the same offence.  The main distinction is the word “finally” in the Canadian system.  In the American system, an acquittal is the end of the matter, barring some obscene act, such as bribing a judge.  Is the Canadian system, an acquittal “may” be appealed in extremely limited cases, such as gross misconduct, or clearly inappropriate handling by the Trial Court.

7. Standard for Review

(A) U.S. Appeals

Click here for post:  Definitions: legal concepts for appeal

Matters of Fact—May be challenged if the they are reviewed in a clearly erroneous manner

Matters of Law—Must be considered “de novo” as if there was no finding before

Matters of Discretion—Judges are given wide discretion and it is usually accepted, unless there are clear errors, or the conclusion is illogical


(B) Canadian Appeals

The standard is set by Housen v. Nikolaisen

Click here for post:  Housen v. Nikolaisen Supreme Court Judgment

Factual Findings—These are typically “given deference”, unless the Appellant can show “overriding, palpable error”.

Legal Findings—The Standard is whether the law was “correctly” applied.

In layman’s terms, Appeals Courts “defer” to the Trial Court on the fact findings.  They assume that the Trial Court is in a better position to see and to examine the case.  They will not interfere unless there is a clear, and provable error that effected the outcome.  Surprisingly, it is a much higher standard than challenging the law.

Notes: In both US and Canadian appeals, the Courts tend to accept factual findings unless there is very clearly an error.  Both also tend to view potential legal matters as needing to be consistently applied.  Both Courts also tend to accept the Trial Court’s discretionary decisions unless something is obviously off.  Although the language used varies, the standards quite similar.

8. Cases of “Double Jeopardy”

(A) “Double Jeopardy” U.S.A.

Harry Aleman

This involved a man who was “acquitted” in a murder case.  However, it was later found that the trial judge, Frank Wilson had been bribed to the tune of $10,000, and that the trial had been rigged.  Prosecutors appealed, successfully, that since the case had been pre-arranged, the defendant had never been in jeopardy, and hence there was no “double jeopardy”.  Eventually this was confirmed by the US Supreme Court.

Click here for post:  Wikipedia: Harry Aleman

Click here for post:  Aleman v Cook County

Click here for post:  Man Faces 2d Trial on Murder Charge

Click here for post:  Exception To Double Jeopardy


(B) CANADA

Most of the cases which involved an acquittal being appealed were cases of sexual assault where the Trial Judge grossly mishandled the manner

Here is a particularly harsh appeal review:

Click here for post:  Reasons for judgment:  underage sexual attacker

Some media reports on the topic

Click here for post:  Crown appealing sex assault acquittal of taxi driver

Click here for post:  Judge asked complainant why she couldn’t just keep knees together

Click here for post:  Chief judge launches review of Edmonton judge

Click here for post:  Third Alberta judge faces review

Click here for post:  4 Alberta judges under scrutiny

Note: To a degree, this is comparing apples and oranges.  The US case of Harry Aleman was a case where a defendant literally “bought” a murder acquittal for a mere $10,000.  The Canadian cases listed were ones where the Trial Judge was grossly incompetent, and either unable or unwilling to handle a sexual assault case properly.  However, in both sets of circumstances, justice is not served at the trial court level, so it has to be “redone”.

Note: Also, in the cases of mistrials, re-trials of defendants are often permitted, depending on the circumstances.

9. How This Compares to Italy

(Some additional input from knowledgeable people appreciated)

1. The trial (the one and only trial), took place throughout 2009—the Massei Court—and it was to try the facts, and to hear testimony.

2. The 1st level appeal, an appellate trial (requested by AK/RS) was to determine if any major errors had been committed that would have changed the outcome.  And, unlike in the Common Law, the Defense could reopen portions of the case.

3. The 2nd level appeal—to the Court of Cassation—is to determine if there were any serious legal errors, or if the Lower Court rulings were based on illogical or contradictory thoughts.  It is not to retry the case, or rehear the evidence.

4. The “Appellate Trial” doesn’t exist in the Common Law systems, rather there is a clear distinction between “trial” and “appeal”.  Italy allows this step in a benefit to Defendants which would not otherwise be available.

5. Another benefit for Italian Defendants: those 2 appeals are available upon request.  Under the Canadian/US laws, defendants can immediately file notice of appeal on the 1st instance, though it can be dismissed before the hearing.  For 2nd level appeals, leave is required (“leave” is legalese for “permission”), which is difficult to get.

6. Acquittals in Italian Courts can be overturned if it was based on clear errors in law, or illogical conclusions, just as Canadian cases can.  That is what happened with the Hellmann ruling.

7. Acquittals in Italian Courts can be overturned if there was clear misconduct or illegal action which altered the outcome.

10. Footnote

The Italian appeal standard seems to be closer to the Canadian model.  The American system (so far) requires blatant criminal behaviour, not just incompetence.


Posted on 07/13/17 at 02:22 PM by ChimeraClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (9)

Wednesday, July 05, 2017

Why The Italian Court System Is Very Unlikely To Do Any Favors For Sollecito & Knox Ever Again

Posted by Peter Quennell




1. Context

By any standards the ruling by the Supreme Court’s Fifth Chambers in 2015 springing RS and AK was a confusing bit of legal work.

The statement from the Bench in March was unquivocal but the written report six months later was a lot less so.

We have taken it apart in numerous posts, for example here and here. Also here and here and here.

The other day we corrected the Kentucky Bar Association when, in promoting a talk by Knox, they stated that Knox was “definitively acquitted”.

No she wasn’t.

Read here. The Fifth Chambers was assigned the case through quite open defense manipulation. It does not normally handle murder cases, and neither the lead judge nor the writer of the sentencing report had previously handled murder cases. Their reasoning was torturous, evidence was cherry-picked, and it seems certain any experienced and trained murder-case judges would have found for guilt here.

Read here  Knox was in fact found to have been at the scene of the crime, and with blood on her hands. The Supreme Court’s Fifth Chambers in fact handed down the weakest possible “not guilty” sentence, not guilty due to “insufficient evidence” (though see below; most of it they ignored, and the trial prosecution was not even at the Supreme Court) which allows an appeal if the prosecution or victim’s family wish to take up that option.

So the 2015 report was not THAT confusing, and really only gave RS and AK half a break.

2. New Development

So why is the Italian Court System unlikely to do any favors for Sollecito & Knox ever again?

In a nutshell: too many lies. In fact it is a crime in Italy to lie about a court outcome. Judgements are only ever issued in non-editable photocopies so they cannot be monkeyed with.

Knox and Sollecito and their foolish lawyers and apologists have been very publicly lying about the true outcome for two years. They have mangled a translation, cherrypicked repeatedly, and ignored half of the truth.  They have made numerous claims like “definitively acquitted” which the report itself does not support.

This lying on a grand scale is believed to have finally touched a real nerve in the Italian courts. Just way too many lies.  Already the defamations by Sollecito in his book had been ruled against by the Florence court, and some negative outcome seems to be in the works.

Now we see Sollecito’s appeal seeking major damages for having been locked up so very sharply shot down.

Any past mafia influence seems to have waned. And it looks like the incessant very public lying by Sollecito and Knox and their lawyers and apologists will cost them in future in court.

Amanda Knox’s numerous defamations and toxic PR are expected to cost her big soon too. Wise move? Mislead no more.

Posted on 07/05/17 at 11:16 AM by Peter QuennellClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (3)

Monday, July 03, 2017

Here’s Something Important That Factors Into Our Interest In Cool-Headed Rational Communities.

Posted by Peter Quennell

Simple walking is rather startlingly proving to have health benefits beyond the obvious, and also major community benefits.

The main new finding for important health benefits is that the balancing required in walking adds neuron capacity to the hippocampus - a hybrid brain gland which also handles key components of memory, diminishment of which is behind memory loss and dementia.

Now there is also a new finding for the positive effects on community building and by extension better environmental and economic-growth prospects, as for both teamwork is vital.

The anti-twitter… !!

Cruising the US one can see in large areas decaying towns and failing communities. In places stark poverty. Often little mingling, and other than the local Walmart, no very enticing walking, either for locals or to entice any visitors.

Get walks going, guys? 

Already there’s begun a big push in the US to open up many more trails for walking. New York city, one of the world’s most walkable, is still adding or enhancing walks like the elevated Highline Park and the paths around the edge of Manhattan.

Trails hundreds even thousands of miles long are being created - by way of the Hudson River and the Erie Canal one can already walk or bicycle from NYC to Toronto or vice versa (think about it Ergon!).

The economic effect all along the way of these trails is becoming obvious.

Italy probably remains a very smart and creative country not least because places like Rome and Florence and Perugia become more walkable even as they become less drivable.

Posted on 07/03/17 at 09:38 AM by Peter QuennellClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (2)

Thursday, June 29, 2017

Sollecito Loses Supreme Court Appeal Against Florence Court Ruling Refusing $0.55M Damages Claim

Posted by Peter Quennell



Our previous posts on this can be seen here and here and here.

UK reporter Krissy Allen of Blasting News kindly summarises the Italian reporting.

Here are some excerpts. Emphasis is added to key sentences confirming a rebuttal of Knox claiming “vindication” in the post just below and in those earlier posts.

Raffaele Sollecito has today been denied any compensation for the four years he spent in prison, one year on remand, and three years until the final Supreme Court Appeal decision in March 2015.

The problem is, although acquitted, it was on the grounds of ‘insufficient evidence’ and not a straightforward exoneration.

After having to wait six months for the written reasons, in Sept 2015, Sollecito then had the way clear to put in a claim for compensation, which Italian law allows for wrongful imprisonment

However the statute that allows compensation for wrongful imprisonment specifically excludes defendants who lie to the police, described as ‘gross misconduct’.

In other words, the Florence Appeal Court in January this year dismissed Sollecito’s claim for this reason.

It deemed that Sollecito had committed ‘willful misconduct’ or ‘at the very least, gravely negligent or imprudent.’

It found it ‘implausible’ that he could not account for the movements of his then-girlfriend, Amanda Knox. It states that both he and Amanda Knox lied many times and that it was an ‘indisputable fact of absolute certainty’ that Knox was at the murder scene ‘when the young Meredith Kercher was murdered’.

Sollecito through his lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno immediately appealed to the Supreme Court, citing the fact of Rudy Guede’s shoeprint being mistaken for his. However, this was never the point of law for which Sollecito was refused his demand for the maximum €517,000 compensation….

It means the written reasons of the Florence Court of 10 Feb 2017, stands. It is damning and scathing of the pair’s behaviour throughout the investigation.

In effect, it blocks any compensation claim Amanda Knox might have had her eye on from Italy….

Sollecito’s lawyer, Bongiorno has made a statement that he now plans to take it to the European Court of Human Rights. This would not be an appeal as the ECHR has no jurisdiction to overturn the verdict. Rather, it can make an award should it decide there was unfairness in the procedure.

The average award of the ECHR is circa €3,500 - a far cry from the €517K Sollecito was demanding.

Also in La Republica the increasingly hapless Sollecito claims that he is near broke and he is unable to find a job because of the cloud hanging over him.

Maybe we’ll see yet another burst of anger against Knox for dropping him in this. It may actually gain him some sympathy, though it is hard to see that paying any bills.

In his ongoing Florence book trial he is going to have to admit publicly that he lied and defamed - defamed both numerous people and Italy and its justice system - the felony crimes of diffamazione and vilipendio.

Either that or end up with a huge award against him, maybe leaving him deeply in debt. 

Posted on 06/29/17 at 09:38 AM by Peter QuennellClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (11)

Friday, June 23, 2017

Dear Kentucky Bar Association: Amanda Knox Was NOT Definitively Acquitted By Italy’s Supreme Court

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



Kentucky Bar Assoc President Sullivan and President-Elect Garmer


Dear Kentucky Lawyers:

Amanda Knox is scheduled to address your conference late in the afternoon Friday. She is guaranteed to mislead you.

If your Association’s due diligence process had examined the mountain of hard facts, it is doubtful Knox would ever have been invited. Your online notice of today’s talk by Knox at your conference itself suggests a lack of due diligence. It wrongly reads as follows

On Friday 23 June the programming will be packed with fun and interesting sessions.. Topping off Friday’s schedule will be the featured presentation; AMANDA KNOX will share her story. She is the American exchange student who spent almost four years in an Italian prison, following her conviction for the 2007 murder of Meredith Kercher, a fellow exchange student who shared her apartment. In 2015, Knox was definitively acquitted.

No she wasn’t.

Read here. The Fifth Chambers was assigned the case through quite open defense manipulation. It does not normally handle murder cases, and neither the lead judge nor the writer of the sentencing report had previously handled murder cases. Their reasoning was torturous, evidence was cherry-picked, and it seems certain any experienced and trained murder-case judges would have found for guilt here.

Read here  Knox was in fact found to have been at the scene of the crime, and with blood on her hands. The Supreme Court’s Fifth Chambers in fact handed down the weakest possible “not guilty” sentence, not guilty due to “insufficient evidence” (though see below; most of it they ignored, and the trial prosecution was not even at the Supreme Court) which allows an appeal if the prosecution or victim’s family wish to take up that option.

Read here. Knox was definitively found guilty of calunnia (criminal defamation) against her boss, Patrick Lumumba. The Supreme Court in her final appeal confirmed that she falsely accused Patrick Lumumba, a black man, of murder. She served three years in prison, and is a convicted felon for life. (To date she has refused to pay compensation of about $100,000, placing her in contempt of the Supreme Court. So much for Knox “helping” the wrongfully imprisoned.)

Read here. That book by Knox - in an expanded but unrevised 2nd edition - is one of the most dishonest ever written. It contains an estimated 400-plus provable lies and up to 100 possible defamations. See this example. For those Knox still faces multiple possibilities of prosecution.

Read here. Also read here. The evidence against Knox and her co-defendant Sollecito was in fact massive, and when correctly seen as a whole (as only the 2009 trial jury saw, not the several appeal juries) absolutely damning. Read also here. Thereafter the gaming of the system began, starting with the defense procuring ANOTHER judge not qualified for murder trials (Judge Hellmann, now edged into early retirement) for their first (2011) appeal. 

Read here. If true to form Knox will again try to claim to your audience that police interrogators forced a false confession out of her. Again untrue. She was not interrogated on that night or any other night. In fact she was only ever interrogated twice, BOTH TIMES at her own request by Dr Mignini, in December 2007 and July 2009. She was given SIX court opportunities to get herself off before the 2009 trial - and she failed all of them.

Read here. The supremely fair Italian justice system comes out pretty well against other systems including the American system. Italy’s rate of incarceration is 1/6 that of the United States, and among Italians the system polls very positively.

There’s much more if your members are inclined to set up a task force. For the protection from fraud of bar associations everywhere, we would welcome that.

Posted on 06/23/17 at 12:00 AM by The TJMK Main PostersClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (14)

Sunday, May 28, 2017

Meredith’s Perugia #36: Aerial Perugia With High Definition Drone Photography

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



Posted on 05/28/17 at 10:17 AM by The TJMK Main PostersClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (20)

Monday, May 22, 2017

See Taormina In Sicily, Host Town For The G7 Summit This Next Weekend

Posted by Peter Quennell

This was of course the G8 group prior to Mr Putin being disinvited. Sorry about that Vlad. Mr Trump is being welcomed, sort of, though security is intense and satires in the media ever moreso. Sorry about that Don. Mr Obama is also in Italy, cycling around somewhere further north, with what seems like zero security detail.

Posted on 05/22/17 at 04:54 PM by Peter QuennellClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (5)

Saturday, May 13, 2017

One Special Kind Of Journalism On the Grand Scale Italy Uniquely Inspires

Posted by Peter Quennell

MILANO from Davide on Vimeo.



If you keep a watchful eye on reporting on Italy, every few weeks you’ll see a report like this.

Jay Nordlinger went to Italy as a student - specifically to Milan - and just revisited it. He once again found a LOT to like.

There are many beautiful things in Milan, of course. Many beautiful works of art. But the city itself is a beautiful thing: a work of art. In my music criticism — concerning both compositions and performances — I often say, “Beauty isn’t everything. But it’s not nothing either.” The same is true of cities, I think. Beauty is not the be-all, end-all. But a little beauty … can make a nice difference. I recall what Ed Koch said about cities: Paris, the most beautiful. London, the most interesting. New York — his own — the most exciting, or dynamic.

The Milanese have style. For heaven’s sake, they’re Italian: The Italians have style. There is often a casual formality about them. And, among the older people, a certain courtliness. Can they be drama queens? Well, they wouldn’t want to betray their nationality, would they? Many of the women look and act as though they consider themselves to be works of art — and they are. Men in suits and ties, riding motor scooters, are a sight. I hear a dog not barking: I see just about no one wearing short sleeves, on a warm day.

Mirabile dictu, the window in my hotel room opens. How civilized. Unlike in America. Hang on, I will soon find out this is a mistake. The window is not supposed to open. Someone locks it. And I prevail on someone else to reopen it. Ah, civilization again. (I have promised not to jump out of this window.) (Much to the disappointment of my severest critics.)

Out my window, and all around the city, you hear the squeal of trams. It is a kind of music in Milan. Milanese risotto is a famous dish, yellow in color. I’m not sure what it is, exactly. But, when it’s good, it’ll bring tears to your eyes (not because it’s spicy). When I was a student, I practically lived on stracciatella — not the soup, but the ice-cream flavor (which, in short, is their chocolate chip). It hasn’t gotten any worse …

Posted on 05/13/17 at 07:49 PM by Peter QuennellClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (3)

Thursday, April 27, 2017

Multiple Attackers and the Compatibility of the Double DNA Knife (Exhibit 36)

Posted by James Raper

Our YouTube whiz DelPergola’s video of November 2010

Ed note: This evidence area is enormously compelling - but also emotionally difficult. It is why initially we did not publish our translation of the Micheli Report. And why a quarter of the trial was behind closed doors with the media excluded. That well-meaning decision has bedeviled the case ever since, because only the jury and others in court then - including the white-faced and tongue-tied accused pair - were exposed to the full power of the prosecution testimony.

Material from some of my previous posts on TJMK (link at bottom here) was incorporated into my Justice on Trial book. From Chapter 15, this is the second of several posts setting out further material.

Before looking at the forensic evidence, which is the final theme I identified earlier, it will be helpful to take into account the wounds suffered by Meredith, and whether these suggest anything as to the dynamics of the murder, and whether any of them were compatible with the knife recovered from Sollecito’s kitchen, Exhibit 36, called the Double DNA knife because the DNA of Meredith was found on the blade and the DNA of Knox on the handle.

As mentioned earlier the autopsy was carried out by Dr Lalli.

It was observed that there were no significant injuries to the chest, abdomen or lower limbs.

The significant elements in the examination were described as follows :

A fine pattern of petechiae on the internal eyelid conjunctive.

The presence of tiny areas of contusion at the level of the nose, localised around the nostrils and at the limen nasi [threshold of the nose].

Inside the mucous membranes of the lips, there were injuries compatible with a traumatic action localised in the inner surface of the lower lip and the inner surface of the upper lip, reaching up to the gum ridge.

Also found on the lower side of the jaw were some bruising injuries, and in the posterior region of the cheek as well, in proximity to the ear.

Three bruising injuries were present on the level of the lower edge of the right jaw with a roughly round shape. In the region under the jaw an area with a deep abrasion was observed, localised in the lower region of the middle part at the left of the jaw.

Once the neck had been cleaned it was possible to observe wounds that Dr Lalli attributed to the action of the point of a cutting instrument.

The main wound was located in the left lateral region of the neck. A knife would be compatible provided it had one cutting edge only which was not serrated. The wound was 8 cms in length and 8 cms deep. The width could not be measured because the edges had separated due to the elasticity of the tissues both in relation to the region and to the position of the head, which could have modified the width. The wound had a small “tail” at the posterior end. The wound penetrated into the interior structure of the neck in a slightly oblique direction, upwards and also to the right.

Underneath this large wound, another wound was visible, rather small and superficial, with not particularly clear edges, “becoming increasingly superficial until they disappeared”, in a reddish area of abrasions. The knife had penetrated both Meredith’s larynx and the cartilage of the epiglottis, and had broken her hyoid bone. A consequence of that damage is that Meredith would be unable to vocalise, let alone scream.

There was also a wound in the right lateral region of the neck, also attributed to a pointed cutting instrument. This was 4 cms deep and 1.5 cms wide (or long). It had not caused significant structural damage.

The presence of two relatively slight areas of bruising, with scarce colouring and barely noticeable, were detected in the region of the elbows.

On Meredith’s hands were small wounds showing a very slight defensive response. A small, very slight patch of colour was noticed on the “anterior inner surface of the left thigh”. Another bruise was noticed on the anterior surface, in the middle third of the right leg.

The results of the toxicological analyses revealed the absence of psychotropic drugs and a blood alcohol level of 0.43 grams per litre.

Tests of histological preparations of fragments of the organs taken during the autopsy were also performed. They revealed the presence of “pools of blood” in the lungs.

The cause of death was attributed to asphixiation and loss of blood, the former being caused by the latter.

There was nothing in the pathology which confirmed that Meredith had been raped, though we should recall that Guede’s DNA was found on the vaginal swab, though not of a spermatic nature. For Massei this was confirmation that she had been subjected to a sexual assault.


—————————————


There was argument in court as to whether Exhibit 36 was compatible with the main wound. There was no dispute amongst the experts that it could not have been responsible for the wound on the right. The knife had an overall length of 31 cms and the length of the blade from the point to the handle was 17.5 cms. The width of the blade, 4cms from the point, exceeded the width of the right hand wound. The wound on the right was more akin to a pocket knife, or perhaps a flick-knife.

I shall look at the arguments advanced by the defence as to why the knife would not be compatible in a moment, but before that there is a simple logical point as to incompatibility based on measurements.

A knife would only be incompatible if the length of the wound was greater than the length of the blade of the knife, or if the width of the wound was less than the width of the blade. Exhibit 36 was therefore a priori compatible.

On this basis I would also have to concede that a pocket or flick-knife is not a priori incompatible with the main wound, unless (though we would not know) the length of it‘s blade did not exceed 8 cms.

It should however be recalled that the width of the left side wound was also 8 cms. That is over 5 times the width of the wound on the other side of the neck. The width of the blade on Exhibit 36, 8 cms from it’s tip - and being approximately 3.5 cms wide- was over twice the width of the blade on the “pocket knife”. This fact, and the robustness of the larger weapon, particularly with regard to the observed butchering at the base of the left-sided cut, makes Exhibit 36 a far more likely candidate, in my submission, than a “pocket knife“, and that’s without taking into account Meredith’s DNA on the blade.

We can also enter into a numbers game as regards the experts (8 of them) who opined on compatibility. Massei tells us that Dr Liviero concluded “definite compatibility“, Dr Lalli and Professors Bacci and Norelli “compatibility” whilst “non- incompatibility” came from the 3 GIP experts nominated at a preliminary hearing. The latter were Professors Aprile, Cingolani and Ronchi.

As far as I am concerned “non-incompatability” is not hard to understand. It simply means compatible.

Professors Introna, Torre, and Dr Patumi, for the defence, opined that Exhibit 36 could be ruled out. Their argument was twofold. First, the length of the blade was incompatible with the depth of the wound had the knife truly been used with homicidal intent. Indeed, if it had been thrust in up to the hilt then the point would have exited on the other side of the neck. Secondly, they said that the smaller wound or the abrasions beneath the main wound, mentioned earlier, were in fact caused by the hilt of a knife striking the surface of the neck. Obviously if that were so then the main wound was not caused by Exhibit 36.

Their argument does not consider, because we do not know, what may have been the actual dynamics of the knife strike. We cannot know what was the cause of the underlying wound or the reddish area of abrasions. As to that wound it may have been the result of the knife edge being run across the surface of the skin and the abrasions may have had a different cause in the prior struggle for which there is ample evidence. Hence their argument seems very weak. 

We cannot leave the topic without considering that there may have been more than two knives involved. This possibility arises from the evidence of Professor Vinci, for the defence. He considered blood stains that were on the bed sheet in Meredith’s room. These stains very much resembled the outline of a knife, or knives, laid to rest on the bed sheet.

It was Professor Vinci’s contention that the bloody outlines (a dual outline from the same knife he said) was left by a knife with a blade 11.3 cms long, or a knife with a blade 9.6 cms long with a congruent blooded section of handle 1.7 cms long (9.6 + 1.7 = 11.3), and having a blade width of 1.3 to 1.4 cms.

Taking these measurements as read they may seem incompatible with a pocket knife (such as Sollecito had a proclivity to carry) and they certainly are as regards Exhibit 36. It follows, he argued, that one has to infer the presence of a third knife in any hypothesis and if a pocket knife and Exhibit 36 are already accounted for by Knox and Sollecito then a reasonable inference is that the third knife would have to be Guede’s. Professor Vinci’s blade is not incompatible a priori with either of the two wounds.

The problem, and without going into detail on the matter, is that Professor Vinci’s contention and measurements are somewhat speculative depending on what one thinks one sees in the stains. It is rather like reading tea leaves. One could just as well superimpose Exhibit 36 over the stains and conclude that it was responsible for them.

Massei only briefly commented about the bloody outlines on the bed sheet. He opined that the blood stains were certainly “suggestive” but insufficient to establish any clear outlines from which reliable measurements could be established. Clearly then he did not accord any reliability to Professor Vinci’s measurements.


—————————————————-


We can now turn to the issue of whether Meredith’s injuries tell us anything about whether her attacker was a “lone wolf” or not.

Massei believed that Meredith’s injuries lay at the heart of the matter. It seemed inconceivable to him that she would first be stabbed twice and that she would then be strangled. The amount of blood, being very slippery, would make maintaining pressure on her throat difficult. So Meredith was forcibly restrained and throttled first. The hypothesis of a single attacker requires that he continually modify his actions, first by exercising a strong restraining pressure on her, producing significant bruising, and then for some reason switching to life threatening actions with a knife, thereby changing the very nature of the attack from that of subjugation to that of intimidation with a deadly weapon, and finally to extreme violence, striking with the knife to one side of the neck and then to the other side of the neck.

Massei described the first knife blow, landing on the right side of her neck, as being halted by the jawbone, preventing it from going any deeper than the 4 cms penetration. The court considered that this was an action to force Meredith to submit to actions against her will. The same hypothesis could also, of course, in view of the injuries to the jaw, apply as to the lack of penetration with Exhibit 36 on the other side

What surprised Massei about Meredith’s wounds was that in spite of all the changes in approach during the attack she somehow remained in the same vulnerable position, leaving her neck exposed to attack.

Massei paid particular attention to the paucity and lack of what can be regarded as defensive wounds on her hands by comparison with the number, distribution and diversity of the impressive wounds to her face and neck. He found this disproportion to be significant, particularly with regard to what was known about Meredith’s physicality and personality.

Meredith was slim and strong, possessing a physicality that would have allowed her to move around with agility. She liked sports, and practiced boxing and karate. In fact she had a medium belt in karate. She would, had she been able to, have fought with all her strength. How then would a single attacker have been able to change hands with a knife to strike to both sides of her neck, let alone switch from one knife to another? He would have had to release his grip on the victim to do that, unless she had wriggled free and changed position, in which case he would have to subdue her all over again, but this time, if not before, she would be ready.

Since the attack was also sexual in nature, at least initially, how could a single attacker have removed the clothes she was wearing (a sweater, jeans, knickers and shoes) and inflicted the sexual violence revealed by the vaginal swab, without, again releasing his grip? It might be suggested, as the defence did, that Meredith was already undressed when the attack began, but for this to be the case one of three possible alternative hypotheses has to be accepted.

The first is that Guede was already in the flat, uninvited, and un-noticed by Meredith, which can only mean that the break -in was genuine but un-noticed by her. The second is that Guede was there by invitation and that their relationship had proceeded by agreement to the contemplation of sexual intercourse when Meredith suddenly changed her mind, unleashing a violent reaction from Guede. The third is that, having been invited in Meredith then thought that he had left, although he had not.

Having looked at the staging we can surely rule out the first hypothesis. As to the second, it does not fit with what is known about Meredith’s personality and the relationship she had been developing with Giacomo. As to the third it is difficult to imagine that in a small flat Meredith would not have checked before securing the front door and preparing for bed.

Massei found it was highly unlikely that one person could have caused all the resulting bruises and wounds by doing the above, including cutting off and bending the hooks on the bra clasp. The actions on the bra clasp alone would necessitate someone standing behind her and using a knife to cut the straps, requiring the attention of both hands from her attacker, during which time Meredith would have had the opportunity to apply some self-defence. It has to be conceded though that this could have happened when she was concussed, though there is no persuasive physical evidence of a concussive blow, or during or after she had been mortally wounded.

Massei concluded that there was little evidence of defensive manoeuvers on Meredith’s part, which to him meant that several attackers were present, each with a distribution of tasks and roles: either holding her and preventing her from making any significant defensive reaction, or actually performing the violent actions. He concluded that the rest of the body of evidence, both circumstantial and forensic, came in full support of such a scenario. He concluded that two separate knives had been used and that one was from Sollecito‘s bedsit.

Although, at the trial, the defence had attempted to explain a scenario whereby a single attacker might have been responsible for the injuries, that there had been multiple attackers was not a scenario with which any court, other than the first appeal court presided over by Hellmann, demurred.

 

Posted on 04/27/17 at 12:58 PM by James RaperClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (17)

Friday, April 21, 2017

The Suspicious Behaviour And Evidence Contradicting the Mutual Alibis Of RS And AK

Posted by James Raper





Material from some of my previous posts on TJMK was incorporated into my Justice on Trial. From Chapter 11, this is the first of several posts setting out further material.

Suspicious behaviour is not proof of guilt but it is an addition to the mix and, if there is enough of it, it can be weighty. I have already mentioned in Chapter 6 reservations as to the motive for Knox’x E-mail in view of certain things that did not make much sense.

Now we can consider what else arises from the testimony of witnesses, from what Knox and Sollecito had to say for themselves in their own words, and from the evidence concerning the phone records and computer analyses.

I have included the Court Exhibit log of calls made and received on the mobile phones for Knox and Sollecito, for the days the 1st and 2nd November 2007, in Appendix C. I did consider whether I should have done this given the telephone numbers referred to. However it is now eight years since the murder and I think it very unlikely that these numbers have not since been changed. In addition, Knox herself has had for some time, and may still have, a similar log for her mobile, covering the period from the beginning of October until a few days after Meredith’s death, on her website.

The relevant behaviour to be covered is from the day before the discovery of the murder up to the time of their arrest and we will discuss how this reflects upon their mutual alibi. As to that alibi we have in evidence Knox’s Memorial but not Sollecito’s statement to the police.

We also have the testimony of Antonio Curatolo and Marco Quintavalle.

Curatolo was a tramp who says that he saw Knox and Sollecito in the square at Piazza Grimana after 9.30 pm on the 1st November, having, as it appeared to him, an argument. They were at the end of the square from which the gates leading to the cottage could be seen.

Quintaville was the owner of a store who said that he saw Knox there at 7.45 am on the morning of the 2nd November.

Both were amongst witnesses unearthed by an enterprising local reporter, Antioco Fois, who stole a march on the police’s own investigation.

I will look more closely at their evidence in the next Chapter.

Knox and Sollecito would certainly have an alibi up until 8.40 pm on the 1st November, and later as it happens. That is because a witness, Jovana Popovic, knocked on Sollecito’s door at that time and spoke to Knox.

We need, however, to backtrack a bit. Popovic had knocked at Sollecito’s door between 5.30 and 5.45 pm. She wanted to ask Sollecito for a favour. Would he be kind enough to drive her to the train station in his Audi to collect some luggage that would arrive for her there later that night? Knox answered the door and invited her in and she spoke to Sollecito. He agreed he would do that.

Sollecito then started to play a film, Amelie, on his computer at 6.27 pm, which he says he and Knox watched. It would appear (See Chapter 30) that Knox then went out (whether with or without Sollecito is not clear) and that before returning to Sollecito’s flat, she (at 8.18 pm) received the text from Lumumba saying that she did not have to go to work that evening. She replied by text at 8.35 - “Sure. See you later. Have a good evening”.

Sollecito‘s varying versions, be it in his statements to the police, was (in the first version) that after leaving the cottage, he and Knox returned to his flat between 8.30 and 9 pm to eat, watch the movie and smoke some pot. That version then changed, of course, during his interview with the police on the 5th November, when he told them that before he got home Knox had left him to go to go and see friends at Le Chic and did not return until 1 am.

Popovic returned to Sollecito’s flat at 8.40 because she had been told that the luggage was not in fact being sent that evening. Knox, whom she described as being in a very good mood, told her that she would pass the message to Raffaele.

From this point on, of course, both Knox and Sollecito had an evening free to themselves.

At 8.42 pm Sollecito received a call from his father on his mobile. That this call was within 7 minutes of Knox’s text to Lumumba, and that there was no further activity on their mobiles until the following morning, is what had sparked the interest of the police and had resulted in Sollecito being called to the Questura on the 5th.

As mentioned Curatolo claimed to have first seen Knox and Sollecito in Piazza Grimana shortly after 9.30 pm. However that was contradicted by Knox’s trial testimony as to when she and Sollecito had eaten a meal at his flat.

From Knox’s trial testimony on the 12th June 2009 -

GCM:  Can you say what time this was?

AK:  umm, around, umm, we ate around 9.30 or 10, and then after we had eaten, and he was washing the dishes, well, as I said, I don’t look at the clock much, but it was around 10. And…he…umm…well, he was washing the dishes and, umm, the water was coming out and he was very bummed, displeased, he told me he had just had that thing repaired. He was annoyed that           it had broken again. So…umm

LG:  Yes, so you talked a bit. Then what did you do?

AK:  Then we smoked a joint together……we made love…..then we fell asleep.


The next day, on the 13th , on cross-examination by Mignini, Knox testified -

GM:  So, I wanted to know something else. At what time did the water leak?

AK:  After dinner, I don’t know what time it was.

GM:  Towards 21, 21.30?

AK:  21, that’s 9? No, it was much later than that.

GM:  A bit later? How much?

AK:  We had dinner around……10.30, so that must have happened a bit later than that. Maybe around 11 [slow voice as if thinking it out]


The alibi also now covers the prosecution’s first indication of the likely time of death at around 11 pm, but which was then moved to around 11.30 pm during the prosecution summing up at the trial.

Unfortunately Sollecito’s father himself torpedoed this dodge by telling the court that when he phoned his son at 8.42 pm Sollecito had told him that there had been a water leak while he was washing the dishes. Taking into account Knox’s testimony that they had eaten before the dish washing, this places the meal and dish washing before that call.

Sollecito told the police that at about 11 pm he had received a call from his father on his land line. Not only is that not confirmed by his father but there is no log of such a call. There were no landline calls at all for the relevant period of an alibi.

There is no log of a call to his mobile at that time either though his father had sent a text message then but which Sollecito did not receive until 6. 03 am the following morning. We know that he had received it at that time because that is the time at which it is logged in the phone records. Sollecito had just turned his phone on and clearly the phone had been off when the text message was sent.

There is no record of any phone activity for either of them from after the 8.42 pm call until, in Sollecito’s case, receipt of that text message at 6.03 am, and in Knox’s case her call to Meredith’s English phone at 12.07 pm the next day.

A word about this here because, as mentioned, Knox released her phone records on her web site. In her case it has to be said that this is not so unusual. Up until the 30th October there is no regular pattern of late or early morning phone activity.

Sollecito is different as his father was in the habit of calling at all hours just to find out what his son was doing. This is backed up by his phone records.

In the case of Knox she said that her phone had been switched off so as not to be disturbed and to save the battery.

——————————————————

We can now consider Sollecito’s computer, a “MacBook - PRO” - model Apple Laptop. This had been seized by the police on the 6th November and was then handed over to the Postal Police on the 13th November. They cloned the hard disk which is standard practice.

Massei -

“Of the 124 files (or “reports”) with “last accessed” in the referenced time period (from 18:00 on 1/11/07 to 08:00 on 2/11/07) only two were “human interaction”; the remaining 122 reports were actions carried out automatically by the Mac OS X operating system installed on the Apple MacBook PRO.

In particular the evidenced human interaction occurred at :

21:10:32 [ 9.10 pm] on the 1/11/07
and at
05:32:09 [ 5.32 am ] on the 2/11/07

Furthermore at 18:27:15 [6.27 pm]  on the 1/11/07, there was human interaction via the “VLC” application, software used to play a multimedia file for a film “Il Favolso Mondo Di Amelie.avi”, already downloaded onto Sollecito’s computer laptop via P2P (peer to peer) some days earlier.”


There is thus no record of any human interaction with Sollecito’s computer from 9.10 pm on the 1st November until 5.32 am the next morning, when music was played on the computer for half an hour.

There was computer evidence for the defence at the trial and further attempts were made to try and force an alibi from his computer later on appeal. I think it would be appropriate, and convenient, to include a discussion of all this here. 

At first Sollecito had maintained that he had been sending e-mails and surfing the web but that account was quickly demolished. However, a defence expert called Antonio D’Ambrosio did give very clear testimony at the trial. He was generous enough to acknowledge that the investigations carried out by the postal police were accurate, and well interpreted, but he said he had been able to uncover a bit more information about the computer because he was not limited by forensic protocols (and could therefore reveal information not visible to the Encase software used by the police) when he examined a copy of the cloned disk. This information was an interaction with the Apple website at 00.58 on the 2/11/07 which he did believe was a human interaction.

Unfortunately, whether there was or was not a human interaction with the computer at that time, does not provide Sollecito with an alibi.

D’Ambrosio also said that he noticed an interaction at 9.26 pm on the 1/11/07 but was unable to be certain whether a human interaction had occurred or whether a pre-requested download of a film, Naruto, had commenced.

The first defence expert report was in fact one prepared by Angelucci, in March 2008, at the request of Knox’s lawyer, Dalla Vedova. It does not appear to have been submitted in evidence but the salient point from this was that the data from both Sollecito’s Asus computer (he said he had another which was broken) and Meredith’s computer, was recovered.

Then there was the D’Ambrosio report followed at the first appeal by another report from Professor Alfredo Milani. In his book Sollecito mentions Milani as one of his professors at the college at which he was studying computer science. Milani credits D’Ambrosio with a lot of the content but his report was gratuitously offensive as regards the work of the postal police and he said that they had made “grave methodological errors” which had resulted in the concealment of information and which led him to conclude that it could not be excluded that there had been an overwriting of the time data was stored.

Firstly he spends much time outlining the Mac OS, in every release, and tells us that because the postal police used an “analogous but not identical” MacBook a tiny difference in the release number in the operating system renders their analysis unreliable. This is impossible to accept for two reasons - firstly, that the OS employed resided on the cloned disk from Sollecito’s own MacBook, but more importantly the precise OS release would not affect in any way the reading of the log files.

Secondly, he unwisely reminds us of inodes (log files). These files are regularly archived, in compressed form, and the archive is not over written. The archive is not very easy for an ordinary user to search but it is certainly not beyond the capabilities of “an expert computer consultant”.

He also unwisely provides a play list of the music which Sollecito had been playing when he opened his ITunes app: at 5.32 am in the morning.






The Report was in evidence but it is unlikely that the Court had before it an analysis of the music. The music app featured, amongst others, songs by the Seattle based punk rock band Nirvana, but more interestingly the app opens with the head banging introductory music (entitled “Stealing Fat”) to “The Fight Club” cult movie: with it’s own rendition of the iconic stabbing sound from the Hitchcock movie “Psycho” and introducing a background wailing sound. An interesting choice of music at 5.32 am in the morning and within hours of Meredith‘s brutal murder. There is clear evidence of manual interaction as some tracks are paused and then clicked through to the next.

One track on the app was not given any play time. This was “Polly” by Nirvanna based on the true story of the abduction, torture and rape of a 14 year old girl. The culprit is still serving time in jail.

Knox and Sollecito claimed that neither woke until Knox rose at 10.30 am. Not only are the two of them trapped by a blatant lie but if one’s choice of music is a reflection of mood, or to facilitate a change of mood, then their choice of music (and some of the lyrics, such as “I killed you, I’m not gonna crack”) is disturbing.

In the event the defence reports seem to have done little to impress the appeal judges. Perhaps Sollecito knew that they never would. In his prison diary on the 11th November 2007 he wrote -

“I have been very anxious and nervous in the last few days, but to see my father who tells me “do not worry, we will get you out”, makes me feel better. My real concerns are now two:  the first one derives from the fact that if that night Amanda remained with me all night long, we could have (and this is a very remote possibility) made love all evening and night only stopping to eat…. It would be a real problem because there would be no connections from my computer to servers in those hours.”


———————————————-

Knox falsely claims in her book that having had her shower at the cottage she called her mother on her way back to Sollecito’s apartment (a 5 minute journey) as she was beginning to have concerns as to what she had seen at the cottage. She writes that her mother tells her to raise her concerns with Raffaele and the other flatmates and Knox says that she then immediately called Filomena Romanelli. Romanelli tells her to get hold of Meredith by phone which she tries to do by calling Meredith’s English phone first, then her Italian one.

(a) How does this correlate to the contents of her e-mail of the 4th Nov?

(b) How does this correlate to Knox’s phone records?

(a) There is no mention of a call to her mother at all in the e-mail. This from her e-mail -

“….and I returned to Raffaele’s place. After we had used the mop to clean up the kitchen I told Raffaele about what I had seen in the house over breakfast. The strange blood in the bathroom, the door wide open, the shit in the toilet. He suggested I call one of my roommates, so I called Filomena………..
Filomena seemed really worried so I told her I’d call Meredith and then call her back. I called both of Meredith’s phones the English one first and last and the Italian one in between. The first time I called the English phone it rang and then sounded as if there was disturbance, but no one answered. I then called the Italian phone and it just kept ringing, no answer. I called the English phone again and this time an English voice told me the phone was out of service.”


(b) the phone records are as follows -

02/11/2007


Ist call @  12.07.12 (to Meredith’s English phone)  - 16 seconds

2nd call @  12.08.44 (to Romanelli)                  - 68 seconds

3rd call   @  12.11.02 (to Meredith’s Italian phone)  - 3 seconds

4th call   @  12.11.54 (to Meredith’s English phone) - 4 seconds

          (The 5th, 6th and 7th calls are by Romanelli)

8th call @  12..47.23 (first call to her mother)      - 88 seconds


© the discrepancies are as follows -

1. The accounts in the book and the e-mail differ materially but at least the phone records enable us to establish facts. The first call to her mother was not just after leaving the cottage but 40 minutes after the call to Romanelli, and the call to Romanelli had been placed (on the basis of the e-mail) after she had returned to Raffaele’s place and after they had used the mop and had breakfast. If we add on 20 minutes for that activity then we can say that she called her mother at least an hour after she had left the cottage.

2.  The first call to Meredith’s English phone (and it rang for an appreciable time - 16 seconds) was placed before the call to Romanelli, and not after as Knox would have it in her e-mail and in her book. A minute before, but Knox did not mention this to Romanelli, as confirmed by the e-mail and Romanelli’s testimony.
         
3.  The call to the Italian phone did not just keep ringing (See 5 below). The connection was for 3 seconds and this was followed by a connection to the English phone for 4 seconds.

4.  The English phone was not switched off, nor (as Knox has claimed -see email) out of service. Mrs Lana’s daughter had found it. She said that she would not have done so but for it ringing (the 12.07 call for 16 seconds?). She picked it up and took it into the house where it rang again (the 12.11 call - 4 seconds?). A name appeared on the screen as it rang : “Amanda”.

5.  The 3 and 4 second calls are highly suspicious. The Italian phone was already in the possession of the postal police. Because of it’s discovery before the English phone the postal police had been dispatched to the cottage at about midday. According to Massei it’s answering service was activated, accounting for the log. Clearly Knox did not even bother to leave a message for Meredith as it would take longer than 3 seconds just to listen to the answering service. This is not the behaviour of someone genuinely concerned about another. By contrast Romanelli had called Knox three times, spending no less than half a minute on each call, and on the last one being informed by Knox that her room had been burgled and ransacked.

Observations -

In her e-mail, and repeated in her trial testimony, Knox says that she woke up around 10.30 am, grabbed a few things and walked the 5 minutes back to the cottage. If the first call to her mother (at 12.47) was about an hour after she left the cottage (see before) then she left the cottage at about 11.47 am, which means that she spent over an hour there. Either that or she spent much more than 20 minutes at Raffaele’s place before calling Romanelli. One might think that the latter would be more likely as it is difficult to conceive that she spent over an hour at the cottage just showering and blow drying her hair, is it not? She did not (Knox’s testimony) have the heating on when she was there. If that were the case then one has to wonder why she dallied, without any concern for her flatmates, in an empty and cold cottage, the front door to which she had found open.

Either way there is a period of up to about an hour and a half between when she might have tried to contact Meredith (if she believed she was there, by knocking on or trying her bedroom door or by calling her phone) and her calling Romanelli, effectively to raise the alarm.

That we are right to be incredulous about this is borne out by the false claim in Knox‘s book. That false claim is significant and can only be because Knox is acutely aware that the phone records show that her original story does not stack up.

That it is incredible is even belatedly acknowledged by Sollecito’s feeble but revealing attempt to distance himself from Knox in a CNN interview on the 28 Feb 2014. “Certainly I asked her questions” he said. “Why did you take a shower? Why did you spend so much time there?”

That she makes that false claim and has constantly stonewalled and/or misplaced the 16 second call to Meredith’s English phone is indicative of a guilty knowledge. Her guilty knowledge with respect to the 16 second call was that it was made to ascertain whether or not the phones had been located before she called Romanelli, and hence for her it was not (incredulous though this is without such explanation) a pertinent fact for her to bring up with Romanelli. More than that though she also sidestepped the specific question put to her by Romanelli -

Massei -

“Amanda called Romanelli, to whom she started to detail what she had noticed in the house without, however, telling her a single word about the unanswered call made to Meredith despite the question expressly put to her by Romanelli.”


As to the 12.47 call to her mother (4.47 am Seattle time and prior to the discovery of Meredith‘s body) Knox not only did not mention that in her e-mail but in taped conversation with her mother and in her trial testimony she steadfastly declined to recall that it had occurred. Ostensibly the call would have been, of course, to report the break in. So what would be the problem with that? However she clearly did not want, or could not be trusted, to discuss her motive for the call and what had transpired in conversation with her mother (and stepfather) before the discovery of Meredith’s body.

Not only was the timing of the 12.47 call inconvenient to her mother but I found it interesting to note from Knox’s phone records (covering 2nd Oct - 3rd November) that mother and daughter do not appear to have called or texted each other once by phone up until that 12.47 call. It would appear then that in so far as they remained in direct communication with each other for that period it must have been by e-mail or Skype. Indeed Knox has referred to such communication being via internet café. One can therefore imagine that her mother was very surprised to receive that call. It is also very difficult to accept that Knox could not recall a phone call she was not in the habit of making.

Until Knox published her book the only information that was available about the 12.47 call (apart from the phone log which showed that it lasted 88 seconds) came from her mother (who reported that her daughter was concerned about the break in) and her stepfather Chris Mellas. Mellas says that he interrupted the conversation between mother and daughter to tell Amanda to get out of the cottage. In her book Knox tells us (her memory now having returned) that he yelled at her but that she was “spooked” enough without that. But what had really happened to spook her? Readers will already know where I am coming from, and may think I am pushing at bit hard here, but I believe that the call to her mother was both a comfort and a rehearsal call, not simply because there had been a burglary, but because she knew a set of events was about to unfold on Romanelli’s arrival at the cottage. Would her explanation about having been there earlier for a shower be credible? Would Romanelli and subsequently the police, detect anything suspicious? The fact that her mother and stepfather already had the jitters was not a good omen.

The testimony of Edda Mellas was as follows –

“Yes, in the first call she said that she knew that it was really early in the morning but she had called because she felt that someone had been in the house. She had spent the night at Raffaele’s and she had returned to take a shower at her house, and the main door was open. That had seemed strange to her, but the door had a strange lock and sometimes the door didn’t close properly, and when she entered the house everything seemed to be in place. Then she went to take the shower, and when she came out of the shower she noticed that there was a bit of blood but she thought that perhaps someone was having their period and had not cleaned up properly after themselves. She then went to her room and dressed and then went into the other bathroom to blow dry her hair and realized that someone had not flushed the toilet., and she thought it was strange because usually the girls flushed. Then she had to go to meet Raffaele, and she told him of these strange things in the house. Thern she tried to call one of the others who lived with them to find out something,, and had the number of another Italian roommate that was in the town, the others were there no longer and she tried to call Meredith several times but there was no response, They returned to the house, and she showed Raffaele what she had found and they realized that there was a broken window, Then at this point they began to knock on Meredith’s door trying to wake her up and when there was no answer they tried to enter her room.”

This is a lot of information to cram in to an 88 second phone call when surely Knox’s mother must have been feeling confused, concerned, and with questions of her own. At what point did Chris interrupt and yell at her to get out of the house? Edda’s testimony is very much a reprise of Knox’s e-mail. How could Knox not have remembered such a detail packed conversation, a prelude to her e-mail, and triggered by, on the face of it, a burglary?

Knox’s phone records also correct a previous misapprehension of mine. I had regarded it as rather unlikely that Knox would have tried to contact Meredith first on her English phone rather than the Italian phone which she knew Meredith had and used for local calls. However the records show that it was not at all unusual for Knox to call Meredith’s English phone. In fact she did this most of the time. But also, if the purpose of the first call to Meredith (after midday on the 2nd) was to check as to whether or not the phones had been located by anyone, then calling Meredith’s English, rather than her Italian, phone would make sense, because of course Knox would know that was the phone by which Meredith and her parents remained in frequent contact with each other, and that the parents would surely have raised the alarm had the phone been discovered and a call by Meredith’s parents been answered by some diligent but confused citizen in Italian. This, of course, could have happened and the alarm could have been raised by Meredith’s parents well prior to Meredith’s phone being called by Knox the first time, but such an eventuality would not have been a matter of concern to Knox in the event that she had not been to the cottage earlier.

At the cottage, and prior to the above call, Sollecito received a call from his father at 12.40 am. Do we know what they discussed? It would in any event have been after the discovery of Romanelli’s broken window and (allegedly) Sollecito’s (rather feeble) attempt to break down Meredith’s door. Did the responsible adult advise his son to do the obvious and call the police? One would think so, but then why was there a 10 minute delay before he called his sister in the Carabinieri at 12.50 am? Indeed, why call his sister at all? Why substitute the formality of calling the police to report a break in with a personal call? They are not the same thing - clearly, as immediately afterwards he did call the 112 emergency services to report the break in. Romanelli had also urged Knox to call the police when she called at 12.35.The 16 minute delay from that call might be accounted for by the unexpected arrival of the postal police and if this was the case then it was before Sollecito called the 112 emergency services.

The issue of whether Sollecito was lying when he told the postal police that he had already called 112 is an interesting one. It would take up too much time and space to discuss in detail here. See Chapter 13. Suffice to say that the prosecution set out to demonstrate that the postal police had arrived before the call and the defence set out to demonstrate the contrary.

Neither Knox nor Sollecito saw into Meredith’s room when the door was broken down and her body discovered on the floor under a quilt. Yet in the immediate aftermath it is as if they have wanted others to believe that it was they who discovered her body and in the bragging about this there have been disclosures, not only as to what they should not have been aware but also suggestive of disturbed personalities. This behaviour was remarkable for all the wrong reasons.

(a)  The police were suspicious about the fact that Knox had alluded to Meredith having had her throat cut at the Questura, but we now know from Luca Altieri‘s testimony that Knox and Sollecito had heard about this directly from him during the car ride to the police station.. However her bizarre and grotesque allusion in the early moments of the investigation to the body being found stuffed into the closet (wardrobe) is not just factually incorrect (it was lying to the side of the closet) but bears a striking correlation to later forensic findings based on blood splatter in front of and on the closet door, that Meredith had been thrust up against the closet after having been stabbed in the throat.

(b)  The behaviour of Knox and Sollecito at the police station is documented in the testimony of Meredith’s English girlfriends and of the police. Whilst it is true that people react to grief in different ways it is difficult to ascribe grief or a reaction to shock to some of Knox’s behaviour. Emotionally she was cold towards Meredith’s friends and occasionally went out of her way to upset them with barbed and callous remarks. The fact that Knox was not observed to cry and wanted to talk about what had happened is not of itself indicative of anything but remarks like “What the fuck do you think, she bled to death” (Knox acknowledged a similar comment to this in her tv interview with Diane Sawyer - See Chapter 27) and her kissing and canoodling with Raffaele (including them making smacking noises with their lips when they blew kisses to each other) in front of the others was not normal. Rather chilling in retrospect was a scene between the pair of them when Knox found the word “minaccia” (in english - threat) amusing and made a play of it with Sollecito in front of witnesses.

© Grief is in any event reserved for friends and relations, or people one much admires. The evidence is that the initial short friendship between the two had cooled to the extent that Meredith was studiously, if politely, avoiding being around Knox. For the narcissistic and attention seeking american girl this would have been difficult to ignore and may well have offended her.

(d)  The next day Sollecito was willingly collared by a reporter from the Sunday Mirror and told her about the horror of finding the body.

“Yes I knew her. I found her body.”

“It is something I never hope to see again,” he said. “There was blood everywhere and I couldn’t take it all in.”

“My girlfriend was her flatmate and she was crying and screaming, ‘How could anyone do this?’”

Sollecito went on the tell the reporter (with reference to the night of the murder) that -

“It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to a party with one of my friends. The next day, around lunchtime, Amanda went back to their apartment to have a shower.”


This was not in evidence which is as well because about the only thing that is true here is that he knew Meredith.

Posted on 04/21/17 at 12:09 AM by James RaperClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (9)

Monday, April 10, 2017

Open Letter To The American Psychology Law Society Re False Claims By Kassin & Knox

Posted by Ergon



Knox and Kassin at the American Psychology Law Society Conference 2017


Dear APLS

Serial misrepresenter of the Knox “interrogation” Saul Kassin has made yet another false claim, once again to a large audience - yours.

This time it was to your American Psychology Law Society Conference in Seattle, Washington, March 16th-18th, and it suggests he simply cannot count.

First, some prior context to this rebuttal: SIX prior posts correcting numerous other Kassin “mistakes” and EIGHTEEN prior posts on the Knox interrogation hoax.

It is very important to understand that as the defenses conceded in court under the strict Italian legal definition of “interrogation” Knox was really only ever interrogated twice.

Both times this was by Dr Mignini (Dec 2007 and June 2009) and both times it was at Knox’s own request.

All of her other discussions with investigators early in November 2007 were merely “verbale di sommarie informazioni” or written-up discussion with a person with possible useful information. Notes exist in the record of all these discussions - none remotely coercive - and they were summarised by prosecution witnesses at trial.

See my quote below of the defense lawyers in Italian, where they use the correct Italian legal term. These written-up discussions with Knox carry precisely the same status as the “verbale di sommarie informazioni” with Sophie Purton and numerous others in the records of the case.

Accordingly I use “interrogation” a couple of times in quotes below in rebutting Kassin’s wrong claims.

Amanda Knox and Saul Kassin at the American Psychology Law Society Conference March 2017

Kassin: “Knox was questioned for over 50 hours but none was recorded”.

Kassin: “I’ve never seen a case more steeped in misinformation than Amanda Knox’s”.

So, where did the magical 50 hrs interrogation in 5 days that ‘inevitably lead to false confessions’ first appear?

Professor Kassin will not say, or provide background information to the crowded rooms of trainee law psychologists to which he and Amanda Knox have been repeating this claim.

So, here’s some vital background Kassin seems to have missed which spirals in to the truth.

Injustice in Perugia

Steve Moore: “In the five days after the murder of Meredith Kercher, Amanda Knox was interrogated by detectives for 43 hours.

CBS News-48 Hrs

Amanda’s focus was the appeal - and she soon had a world-renown ally.

“This case horrifies me. I’d like to say it shocks me. But I’ve seen others like it,” said psychologist and professor Saul Kassin, an expert on police interrogations.

On his own initiative, Kassin filed a report with the Italian (appeals) court on Amanda’s behalf. It outlines some of the psychological reasons why Amanda could have confessed to a murder she did not commit.

“Amanda Knox, like everybody, has a breaking point. She reached her breaking point,” he explained. “Eight or 10 or 12 police officials in a tag team-manner come in and interrogate her… Their goal is a confession and they’re not leaving that room without it.”

Er no, there’s no record of Kassin’s report in the Hellmann court files, and Amanda Knox never released it either. But Judge Hellmann ruled she should have known Patrick Lumumba was innocent and upheld her 3 year conviction for criminal defamation (calunnia) anyway.

American Psychologist/Innocence Project

From “Why Confessions Trump Innocence” by Saul M. Kassin, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, April 2012

Armed with a prejudgment of Knox’s guilt, several police officials interrogated the girl on and off for four days. Her final interrogation started on November 5 at 10 p.m. and lasted until November 6 at 6 a.m., during which time she was alone, without an attorney, tag-teamed by a dozen police, and did not break for food or sleep.

CNN Transcripts

CNN May 8, 2011

CURT KNOX, FATHER: Between the time that they actually found Meredith and when Amanda was arrested, there was roughly a 90-hour timeframe. And I’m ball parking the numbers there. During that time, Amanda was in the police station for questioning for—I believe it was 52 hours.

Now we’re getting a little closer to the truth. Knox was at the station for maybe 52 hours, but actually wasn’t ‘interrogated’ for that long. Then going back to when those figures first came out:

King 5 News

Amanda Knox’s family says confession coerced

By LINDA BYRON / KING 5 News

Posted on November 13, 2009 at 12:16 PM

She was just flat scared to be alone,” Curt said. “So she went down to the police station with him and they were split into two rooms and then they started going at them.

With physical and mental abuse for 14 hours. No food, water, no official interpreter.”

Prosecutors say Amanda’s accounts swung wildly: She wasn’t at the cottage the night of the murder. She was there, but drunk in another room.

But her parents say she was coerced by police.

“(They said) you know, you’re never going to see your family again,” Curt said. “You’re going to jail for 30 years. You need to come up with something for us, you’re a liar. Come up with something for us. Envision something; throw something out there.”

Della Vedova/Ghirga appeal to Hellmann

There’s a summary of a defense analysis of the discussions here - note the “verbale di sommarie informazioni” which is NOT the Italian for “interrogation”.

(p.12) Amanda Knox è stata sottoposta ad esame ed attività investigative e tra il 2 e il 6 novembre 2007, fino al momento del fermo, ha fornito sommarie informazioni e risposto a domande della A.G. come segue:
l 2 novembre 2007, ore 15.30 VENERDI’: totale ore …………..
12,00
Verbale di sommarie informazioni della Knox, senza indicazione della chiusura.
Testimoni fino alle 3.00 am del 3 novembre 2007
l 3 novembre 2007, ore 14.45 SABATO totale ore ………………
8,00
Verbale di sommarie informazioni della Knox, senza indicazione della chiusura.
Testimoni indicano fino alle 22,00.
l 4 novembre 2007, ore 14.45 DOMENICA: totale ore ………….
12,00
Verbale di sommarie informazioni della Knox, ed accesso alla villetta di Via
della Pergola dalle ore 14.45 alle ore 21. Telefonata di Amanda alla zia dice 5 ore
di interrogatorio in questura
l 5/6 novembre 2007, ore 01.45 LUNEDI’/MARTEDI’: totale ore ……..
5,00
Verbale di sommarie informazioni della Knox inizio alle ore 22.00 del 5
novembre 2009.
l 6 novembre 2007, ore 05.45 MARTEDI’: totale ore ……………….
3,45
Verbale di “spontanee dichiarazioni” della Knox con successivo breve
memoriale. Dalle ore 1,45 alle 5,45 e memoriale alle ore 14,00.

In 5 giorni la Knox è stata sentita per un totale di circa 53,45 h.

Except, here above I count a total of 40.45 hrs, hmm, not all of which was spent being “interrogated”.

She was in the waiting room with the others, as confirmed by her own phone records, e-mails home, texts, etc. Not to forget headstands, cartwheels, yoga poses and general faffing around with Sollecito.

The defense realized their math was off so they included an additional 13.0 hrs. to the time of her memoriale though they counted their own figures twice, Lol. (see attachment below).

Keep in mind her attorneys never argued the time was unreasonable, only that the accusation should not be considered for the calunnia charge.

Their summary was only to show how long she had been ‘present for examination’ in that time she was at the Questura till her arrest. And even then, their figures were wrong..

From Rita Ficarra’s Testimony

Knox was let go by the evening of the first day so the 12 hours interrogation figure is incorrect. She also had an official interpreter by 12:30, was fed and allowed to rest in between, wasn’t slapped, and there were only two detectives present.

Twitter user Soletrader4U analyzed her phone records and case files and came up with a more realistic figure of 17.45 hrs of actual “interrogation”.

Given that to be the case, I invite Professor Kassin to correct his figures and explain how, according to his research, Amanda Knox could have produced a “False Confession” over the span of 17.45 hours of “interrogation” over 5 days?



Thursday, March 30, 2017

Italian Police Again Work Hard On A Murder Where Victim And Main Suspect (Her Husband) Are Foreign

Posted by Peter Quennell



This case is getting a lot of coverage in Italy, Ireland and the UK.

Mrs Belling and her family boarded a cruise ship February 9 at the cruise port west of Rome, and seem to have been in Italy itself for only a few hours. Several days later, after a scene with her husband, she disappeared off the ship.

This wasn’t reported, and the family continued their meals in the dining room.

Then the German-born husband was arrested before he could return to Ireland. He remains locked up in Rome and can be held for a year to check if there is a case against him. 

Now a body in a suitcase has washed up. A “suitcase murder” in her case now seems to be ruled out though as Barbie Nadeau explains.

The short-lived label “suitcase murder” notion has resonated in the New York area. The reason being that an attractive and successful local woman, Melanie McGuire, who had her share of fans during trial, was found guilty of chopping up her husband, essentially for being a bore, and stuffing his remains in suitcases.

They then washed up in Chesapeake Bay about 1/2 a day south. She was found guilty and despite a strenuous defense and an appeal she is inside for life without parole. There are a number of long-form reports on YouTube, and this is perhaps the most-watched.

Posted on 03/30/17 at 11:48 PM by Peter QuennellClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (13)

Saturday, March 18, 2017

Running On A Mudslide, The Seemingly Freaked Sollecito Team Tries Again Not To Be Overwhelmed

Posted by Peter Quennell





Sollecito just lost big in a way we are asked not to post about just yet. Italian media has made no mention of it.

This request, rare from the open Italian system, has been made a few times before in this case, to try to block corruption and dishonest PR before they can get up to speed.

Meanwhile, it is safe to assume that a great unraveling of the huge body of lies must be freaking the Sollecito and Knox team’s minds.  A new development that the Italian media IS reporting suggests this is so.

By way of context, Guede is now out on parole but has some time still to serve, including three years awarded by the Florence court for possession of stolen property, a notebook computer taken by two persons still unknown from a law-firm in Perugia, late in 2007.

(There is zero hard evidence that Guede ever did any break-and-entering, ever, and he has never been charged or convicted of that.)

His Rome team has filed a Supreme Court appeal against the Florence court’s decision not to grant him a retrial for grounds based on the 2015 Supreme Court outcome of the Sollecito and Knox appeal which said in part (1) Guede did not act alone and (2) Knox and Sollecito were both there.

And his interview broadcast nationally by RAI could be followed up by a book damning to RS and AK. 

Okay. Now the Italian news service ANSA reports this.

“Once he has finished his full term in prison, Rudy Guede must be expelled from Italy” the lawyer Luca Maori, one of the defenders of Raffaele Sollecito, has asked.

The Ivorian these days is in Perugia, at the home of his former elementary school teacher where he is taking advantage of a possible reversal of the condemned’s sentenced to 16 years’ imprisonment, which he is serving for the murder of Meredith Kercher.

Sollecito was finally acquitted for the same crime.    “I will ask the police headquarters in Perugia - said Maori - to take steps to undertake the removal procedures of Guede, who is not an Italian citizen, who is now finishing serving his sentence (in prison in Viterbo - Ed.)

Many foreigners are expelled from our country for far less serious offenses to murder for which the Ivorian was sentenced” he said.

Any such expulsion order, considered unlikely, would be put on hold while Guede appeals - and presumably does maximum harm.

Posted on 03/18/17 at 12:01 PM by Peter QuennellClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (17)

Saturday, March 11, 2017

Meredith’s Perugia #36: Versions Of The 24-Hour Happy-Song By Students Happy To Be There

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters

Posted on 03/11/17 at 09:45 PM by The TJMK Main PostersClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (5)

Tuesday, March 07, 2017

Florence Court Report Now In English: Why Sollecito Gets Zero Compensation For “False Imprisonment”

Posted by Peter Quennell



Highrise Florence courts are just visible at left background


Please download here the English translation by unpaid volunteers on PMF dot Org of the adamant Florence judgement against Sollecito for State compensation.

Important context posts by KrissyG here and by James Raper here with more to follow.

Posted on 03/07/17 at 03:10 PM by Peter QuennellClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (0)

Sunday, March 05, 2017

Exposing Peter Gill #2: Nailing His “Proven Miscarriage Of Justice” False Claim

Posted by The Machine





This article is the second in a series of posts about Peter Gill. The first can be read here.

I want to expose some of the claims Gill noisily made only a year ago in an academic paper The Meredith Kercher case for Forensic Science Genetics: Analysis and Implications of the Miscarriages of Justice of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito to see whether they stand up to the light of day.

Peter Gill claims the case is a PROVEN miscarriage of justice with regard to their convictions for Meredith’s murder:

“The case discussed here relates to the proven miscarriage of justice of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito in relation to the accusation of murder of Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy on the 1st November, 2007” (Peter Gill, FSI Genetics Report).

Anyone who is unfamiliar with the case might assume after reading Gill’s comments that there must be some exculpatory evidence will supports his claim e.g. verified alibis or CCTV footage that proves Amanda Knox and Sollecito were not at the cottage at the time of the murder.

However, Peter Gill never substantiates this claim. The reason why he can’t substantiate this claim? There is in fact NO exculpatory evidence at all.

Those unfamiliar might also assume that the other pieces of evidence against Knox and Sollecito have been completely discredited. However, Peter Gill chooses to completely ignore this evidence and its stark significance.

“This paper is necessarily restricted to the interpretation of the DNA evidence—without it the original convictions probably would not have occurred.”

How does Peter Gill KNOW the original convictions probably wouldn’t have occurred?

He seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that DNA evidence is mandatory in a murder trial order to secure a conviction.

However, DNA evidence isn’t a required element in any common law jurisdiction. All the pieces of evidence in a murder trial have to be considered. They also have to be considered wholly - not separately.

If firm DNA proof is there good. If it isnt, that is not a fail. The Italian Supreme Court criticised Appeal Judge Hellmann for adopting a piecemeal, atomistic approach to the evidence, and assessing each piece of evidence in isolation to the other pieces of evidence.

“The Hellmann Court of Appeal did not assess the pieces of circumstantial evidence in a comprehensive fashion; it did not evaluate them in a global and unified dimension, but managed to fragment them by evaluating each one in isolation, in an erroneous legal‐logical analysis, with the goal of criticizing their individual qualitative significance, whereas if the Hellmann Court of appeal had followed the interpretative rule of this Court of legitimacy, each piece of circumstantial evidence would have been integrated with the others, determining an unequivocal clarification of each of the established facts, so as to reach the logical proof of the responsibility of the accused.” (Judge Chieffi’s Supreme Court report, page 25).

But Gill makes the exact same mistake as Hellmann in adopting a piecemeal approach to the evidence against Knox and Sollecito. Unlike Hellmann, however, he ONLY considers the DNA evidence.

British killers Levi Bellfield and Robin Garbutt were both convicted of murder on far less evidence than Knox and Sollecito and without the prosecution presenting any DNA evidence at their trials.

Nobody batted an eyelid. Presumably because these two killers didn’t hire PR firms and they weren’t young women in their 20s.

By restricting his comments to the DNA evidence, Peter Gill conveniently doesn’t have to address and let alone refute the other pieces of evidence that led mutiple judges - including three separate panels of Supreme Court judges - to believe Knox and Sollecito were involved in Meredith’s murder.

One of the key reasons why Knox and Sollecito were convicted of murder is they repeatedly told the police a pack of lies. They gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they were doing on the night of the murder. Neither Knox nor Sollecito have verified alibis despite three attempts each.

All the other people who were questioned as part of the police investigation into Meredith’s murder had one credible alibi that could be verified. Innocent people don’t give multiple conflicting alibis and lie repeatedly to the police. It should be noted that Knox and Sollecito lied before and after their questioning on 5 November 2007, so their lies can’t be attributed to police coercion.

Amanda Knox initially claimed she was at Sollecito’s apartment on the evening of the murder and that she was there when she received the text message from Diya Lumumba at 8:18pm. However, Judge Massei and Judge Nencini both pointed out in their reports that her mobile phone records showed that this wasn’t true.

On 5 November 2007, Sollecito admitted in his signed witness statement that he had lied to the police.

“In my former statement I told you a load of rubbish because I believed Amanda’s version of what happened and did not think about the inconsistencies.”

Sollecito withdrew his alibi for Knox and claimed she wasn’t at his apartment.

“At 9pm I went home alone and Amanda said that she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends. We said goodbye. I went home, I rolled myself a spliff and made some dinner, but I don’t remember what I ate. At around eleven my father phoned me on the house phone. I remember Amanda wasn’t back yet. I surfed on the Internet for a couple of hours after my father’s phone call, and I stopped only when Amanda came back, about one in the morning, I think.

Once Knox was informed Sollecito was no longer providing her with an alibi, she repeatedly admitted that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed in two witness statements and in her handwritten note to the police.

Knox was given another opportunity to tell the police the whole truth, but she chose to deliberately and repeatedly lie to the police by again and again accusing Diya Lumumba of murder.

“Amanda Marie Knox accused Patrick Lumumba of the murder at 1:45 am on 6 November 2007.”

“Amanda Marie Knox repeated the allegations before the magistrate, allegations which she never retracted in all the following days.” (The Nencini report, page 114).

Amanda Knox reiterated her false allegation against Diya Lumumba on 6 November 2007 when under no pressure.

“[Amanda] herself, furthermore, in the statement of 6 November 2007 (admitted into evidence ex. articles 234 and 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code and which was mentioned above) wrote, among other things, the following:

“I stand by my [accusatory] statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrick…in these flashbacks that I’m having, I see Patrick as the murderer…”

This statement was that specified in the notes of 6 November 2007, at 20:00, by Police Chief Inspector Rita Ficarra, and was drawn up following the notification of the detention measure, by Amanda Knox, who “requested blank papers in order to produce a written statement to hand over” to the same Ficarra. (Massei report, page 389).

The Italian Supreme Court categorically stated that it’s a judicial fact Amanda Knox was present at the cottage when Meredith was killed because she repeatedly admitted she was there and she knew specific details about the crime.

“Given this, we now note, with respect to Amanda Knox, that her presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proven fact in the trial, in accord with her own admissions, also contained in the memoriale with her signature, in the part where she tells that, as she was in the kitchen, while the young English woman had retired inside the room of same Ms. Kercher together with another person for a sexual intercourse, she heard a harrowing scream from her friend, so piercing and unbearable that she let herself down squatting on the floor, covering her ears tight with her hands in order not to hear more of it.

About this, the judgment of reliability expressed by the lower [a quo] judge [Nencini, ed.] with reference to this part of the suspect’s narrative, [and] about the plausible implication from the fact herself was the first person mentioning for the first time [46] a possible sexual motive for the murder, at the time when the detectives still did not have the results from the cadaver examination, nor the autopsy report, nor the witnesses’ information, which was collected only subsequently, about the victim’s terrible scream and about the time when it was heard (witnesses Nara Capezzali, Antonella Monacchia and others), is certainly to be subscribed to.”

We make reference in particular to those declarations that the current appellant [Knox] produced on 11. 6. 2007 (p.96) inside the State Police headquarters. On the other hand, in the slanderous declarations against Lumumba, which earned her a conviction, the status of which is now protected as final judgement [giudicato], [they] had themselves exactly that premise in the narrative, that is: the presence of the young American woman inside the house in via della Pergola, a circumstance which nobody at that time – except obviously the other people present inside the house – could have known (quote p. 96). (The Bruno and Marasca, Supreme Court report).

Not only does Peter Gill completely ignore Knox and Sollecito’s numerous lies and multiple false alibis as if they are somehow unimportant and irrelevant, he also completely ignores the fact that Amanda Knox knew specific details about the crime.

Judge Nencini pointed out in his report that Knox made statements to the police that contained specific references to events that the investigation ascertained actually happened on 1 and 2 November 2007 and that nobody other than a participant in those tragic events could have known about. She knew that Meredith had been sexually assaulted and had screamed loudly and she placed herself near the basketball ball in Piazza Grimana which was corroborated by another witness.

Umbria Prosecutor General Galati pointed out in his appeal that Amanda Knox told Meredith’s British friends that Meredith “was covered by a quilt, that a foot was sticking out, that they had cut her throat and that there was blood everywhere” (The Galati-Costagliola appeal, page 65).

Galati concluded that Amanda Knox knew these specifc details because she was in Meredith’s room at the time of the murder.

“Amanda has described the spot where Meredith was effectively murdered (in front of the wardrobe) and she has described the state of the body and of the room and the injury to the throat, in speaking with Meredith’s co-nationals, although, at the moment when the door to Meredith’s room was kicked in, neither she nor Sollecito, for certain, were able to look inside.

According to her, neither she nor Sollecito went into that room that morning before the arrival of the police because it was locked. Yet she knew everything. She knew because she was in that room at the time of the murder and when Meredith was left in the conditions in which she was discovered.” (The Galati-Costagliola appeal, pages 66-67).

I anticipate that Peter Gill might try to handwave away the lies by attributing them to police coercion or brutality on 5 November 2007. Amanda Knox claimed she was slapped twice by a police officer. However, the witnesses who were present when Knox was questioned, including her interpreter, all testified under oath at the trial in 2009 that she wasn’t hit.

Furthermore, Amanda Knox’s lies can’t be attributed to police brutality and coercion because she lied repeatedly BEFORE she was questioned on 5 November 2007.

  • Her account of the morning of 2 November 2007 is fictitious. She lied about sleeping until around 10:00am on 2 November 2007. (The Nencini report, page 158).

  • She lied to Filomena about where she was later that morning. (The Nencini report, page 174).

  • She pretended she hadn’t just called Meredith seconds earlier when she spoke to Filomena. (The Massei report, page 387).

  • She lied to her friends in an e-mail on 4 November 2007 by claiming she had called Filomena first. (The Nencini report, page 169).

  • She lied to the postal police by claiming Meredith always locked her door (The Massei report, page 179).

Florence Judge Martuscelli has just comprehensively detailed Raffaele Sollecito’s numerous lies and false alibis in his report - which explained why Sollecito was denied compensation from the State.

“The contradictions and inconsistencies between the various reconstructions which Sollecito offered about the movements of himself and his girlfriend during the late evening of 1 November 2007, and the succeeding night are clear, and we don’t need to underline them.

At first he said he and Knox went to his house shortly after 17:30, after a short walk around the town, and that he remained at home with her for the rest of the evening and night. A few days later he described this story as a “sacco di cazzate”, recounted by him only because the girl had persuaded him to confirm her account, whereas the truth was that he had gone to his home alone at 20:30-21:00, and had remained at home alone until Knox returned, about 01:00, and she remained and slept with him.

Two days later, questioned by the GIP, he said that this story of 5 November 2007 was untrue, and that really Knox had gone to his house with him at 20:00-20:30, they ate together, and then he certainly had remained at his computer until midnight, though it was possible that the girl had gone out, even though he didn’t remember well either if she went out or if she had later returned, excusing his lack of recall either because he had smoked cannabis that evening, or alternatively because every evening at that time was much like all the other evenings.

Such contradictions and inconsistencies render some of his earlier statements obviously incredible, because he himself has declared that they contain lies, besides which, after having purposely retracted his statements of 5 November 2007, which completely overturned his earlier statements, he didn’t return to his original story but came up with something different in which he reaffirmed the fact that he had first introduced on 5 November 2007 that Knox hadn’t spent the whole evening with him, “without however being certain about this, but confusing it in a tale of vague recollections emphasising this vagueness in the course of questioning aimed at clarifying his inconsistent statements.

Additionally his claims [5 ->] to be unable to remember those hours was criticised by various judges regarding the cautionary measures, who highlighted the strangeness of a “wavering” memory, which showed that he recalled very well various details of the evening but claimed to have completely forgotten other details of equal or greater importance. For example, the GIP in the interrogation of 8 November 2007 receiving the vague replies of Sollecito, when asked about his earlier declarations said “Sometimes you seem to remember very clearly, but at other times, when you are challenged, you say you don’t remember. I exhort you to be accurate, because you must understand that with all of these contradictions…your situation is not good.”

At the Court of Review, the order made on 30 November 2007 notes that in the spontaneous declaration given by Sollecito to that court that he had lingered on the fact that he had been at the computer the whole evening “adding new details about what he had done on the computer, details which obviously contrast with the complete mental blank which must have been his mind due to drug taking, at least unless we reach the conclusion hypothesising a particular pathology, the loss of memory secundum eventum.” [after the event]

The poor memory of what he was doing on the evening and night of 1 November 2007 seems barely credible because if it is possible that he spent all of his evenings in the same way, certainly he had never before lived through a day like 2 November 2007. To discover in the morning of 2 November 2007 that in his girlfriend’s house a murder had occurred, and that it was one of her flatmates who had been killed should have, logically, prompted the young man to have a precise memory of where Knox had passed the time during which all of this had presumably happened, at the very least to be thankful for the circumstances which had kept her away from the house, and thus would have been bound to encourage a precise recall of whether she was at home with him all evening or had been absent during that critical period.

“However all of the versions offered by Sollecito are untrue not only because they are contradictory, but also because many of them have been substantially disproved. For example, the witness Popovic disproves that Sollecito returned to his home alone at around 20:00/:30, although this is what he claimed in his last account which he never withdrew. This witness testified that she visited Sollecito’s house twice on the evening of 1 November 2007, at about 18:00 and at about 20:40, and that on both occasions saw Knox there, from which it seems certain that both of the young people were at Sollecito’s house together at least up until the time of the later visit. In addition, examination of his computer showed that it was in use, to watch a film, and showed “signs of human interaction, between the hours of 18:27 and 21:10.

It is also disproved that the young man was working at his computer on the evening of 1 November 2007 until 23:00/24:00. The analysis of his computer shows that between 21:10 and 05:32 there was no human interaction, though the machine remained switched on, downloading films in an automated manner (although Sollecito’s expert witness D’Ambrosio claims that a short animated film was viewed between 21:26 and 21:46).

The claim that the two slept all night, from 24:00 or 01:00 until 10:00 is also disproved; one of them (there was nobody else in the house) at 05:32 had turned on the computer, and listened to music for half an hour, and at about 06:00 someone had turned on Sollecito’s cell phone which was then able to receive a goodnight message from his father sent at 23:14 and which had not been received earlier because the phone was turned off.

Finally, it was disproved that Sollecito had received a phone call from his father at about 23:00 on 1 November 2007: the phone logs show that he received no calls on either the fixed or mobile line after about 20:40, [6 ->] and indeed his father explained that having established from this call that his son was with his girlfriend, getting ready to spend the evening together, he avoided telephoning again in order not to disturb them.”

The significance of Knox’s and Sollecito’s numerous lies to the police and others seems to be completely lost on Peter Gill.

Bear in mind that Robin Garbutt was found guilty of murdering his wife because he lied to the police, changed a key part of evidence and was caught out by technology.

There was no murder weapon, no DNA or forensic evidence, no logical motive, no witnesses and no confession. There has been no big media maelstrom concerning Robin Garbutt’s conviction for murder. It seems middle-aged white knights are only interested in rescuing damsels in distress and trying to profit from Amanda Knox’s infamy.

There is no plausible innocent explanation for Knox and Sollecito’s multiple false alibis and numerous lies. Amanda Knox’s high-profile supporters in the media seem to be completely oblivious to them.

The filmmakers responsible for the Netflix documentary Amanda Knox also completely ignored her lies with the exception of her false and malicious allegation against Diya Lumumba.

They ignored the fact Amanda Knox didn’t retract her accusation the whole time he was in prison even though she knew he was innocent. Time and time again Amanda Knox’s advocates in the media brush inconvenient facts that show her in a bad light under the carpet.

Peter Gill has never publicly mentioned Amanda Knox’s false and malicious accusation of Diya Lumumba or the fact she is a convicted felon for life, presumably because it undermines his narrative that she is an innocent victim. Amanda Knox’s definitive slander conviction for repeatedly accusing an innocent man of murder completely shatters this PR myth - a myth that Gill has unethically tried to peddle in the media.

Judge Micheli, who presided over Rudy Guede’s fast-track trial and sent Knox and Sollecito to trial, said lying repeatedly to the police will always be considered to be a serious indication of guilt. Judge Massei and Judge Nencini both attached considerable significance to Knox and Sollecito’s numerous lies in their respective reports.

Judge Micheli, Judge Massei and Judge Nencini are all experienced trial judges. Even Judges Bruno and Marasca didn’t attempt to understate their significance and stated that Knox and Sollecito were covering for Guede. That makes Knox and Sollecito at the very least accessories after the fact and guilty of perverting the course of justice.

Only a gullible simpleton would unquestioningly believe anything Knox and Sollecito say given the fact they are self-confessed and compulsive liars. It’s completely illogical for anyone to trust them - and yet Peter Gill does.

He may be a highly-qualified DNA expert, but he doesn’t seem to have an ounce of common sense. It should be self-evident even to a half-wit that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito lied repeatedly because they were trying to cover up their involvement in Meredith’s murder.

Posted on 03/05/17 at 08:08 PM by The MachineClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in Hoaxers - main perpetratorsPeter Gill
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (11)

Friday, March 03, 2017

How Too Often Nobody Tunes In On A Faulty System Before It Spectacularly Goes Wrong

Posted by Peter Quennell


How Ignored Systems Become Mean

Well-intentioned Italy is for sure the ONE country in the world where our case could still be playing out after nearly 10 years.

Why? Well, it is the ONE country that mandates two automatic levels of appeal (why?) with the first appeal before a new jury (why?) and the original trial prosecution absent at both levels of appeal (why?).

Outside of the courtrooms, judges and prosecutors are forbidden from even mildly explaining themselves (why?).

And judges are all required to write these enormous reports, the original purpose of which was to ensure justice is SEEN to be done - but which can set 10 million Sherlocks on the loose, intent on making law enforcement look fools.

Not such wonderful aspects of a system with intentions for the best. These negative aspects (among others) eat up time and resources, and they create living hells for the families of victims - the Kerchers have tens of thousands of Italian families of victims for sad company.

Do you know of this dramatic book and film?

It did not look like racial scaremongering at the time though looking back it does now.

What had happened is that a huge leap forward by the Japanese economy in the 80s in large part by adopting industrial systems created in the US made Americans realise Japanese enterprises were eating their lunch while their own legacy systems decayed.

The positive outcome of that big scare was widespread adoption of this mass system upgrade in the US.

Partly because of that the American economy in the 90s really roared - and the huge Silicon Valley systems generator came alive.

And The Best-Picture Envelope Please

If you watched the Best Picture mix-up at the last few minutes of the Oscars the other night you will know HOW LONG it took for corrective action to cut in.

Two and a half thank-you speeches by the wrong team had already come and gone. 

You may already have heard that the Academy will never use those two accountants again.

Scapegoats? Maybe not. The main reason was not that one of them (the man) messed up - it was that when the wrong announcement was made both of them froze. They had to be forced out onto the stage!

THATS an odd system mishap for sure.

And why was the presenter (Warren Beatty) puzzled at what he saw on the card? The card itself was a mess. This terrific article on typography gone wrong explains how.

The accountants’ system for creating and handing out the right cards had obviously not been gamed for flaws.

But the Academy also was at fault, for not checking all of their systems out. They know now that their systems need a little love, too.

Posted on 03/03/17 at 04:15 PM by Peter QuennellClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (9)

Tuesday, February 21, 2017

Exposing Peter Gill: An Opportunistic Expert Never At Trial and Never At Either Rome Police Lab

Posted by The Machine



Peter Gill seen indoctrinating non-expert viewers on Italian TV


Follow the money trail…

So many of Amanda Knox’s high-profile supporters such as Frank Sforza, Candace Dempsey, Doug Preston, Bruce Fischer, Nina Burleigh and Steve Moore have something in common - they have cynically tried to make a profit from Meredith’s tragic murder.

Now we turn our big guns on tendentious DNA expert and Johnny-come-lately Dr Peter Gill.  When Gill tried to cast doubt on the bra clasp and knife evidence with copious innuendo in the media early in 2014, it was a fairly safe bet that a book would follow suit.

Predictably, Gill’s book Misleading DNA Evidence: Reasons for Miscarriages of Justice was published later that year in June.

This first in a series of posts about Gill draws on some excellent previous posts - please do read in particular Fly By Night and Olleosnep, Machiavelli and KrissyG.

In this article I will explain the weak basis for his claims about the Meredith Kercher case and examine them to see whether he did real research.

Any hopes that Peter Gill did meticulously research the Meredith Kercher case before writing his book are almost immediately dashed. He embarrassingly refers to Meredith as “Meridith”. Is it too much to expect him to be able to spell the victim’s name correctly, especially when he is putting himself forward as an expert on the case and using his DNA credentials to bolster his credibilty?

In three specific places in his book, he refers to the case as a “miscarriage of justice” even though at the time Knox and Sollecito were still appealing their convictions for murder and sexual assault back in 2009. The appeal judge Judge Nencini then also found them guilty of murder and sexual assault in Florence in 2013.

Peter Gill was never in a position where he could conclude there had been a miscarriage of justice. Unlike the judges and lay judges, he hadn’t attended any of the court hearings in Perugia or Florence, he doesnt speak any Italian, and he has never been to the two labs that processed the DNA in Rome. 

Upstanding forensic scientists limit their comments solely to their specific area of expertise, and they allow the courts to ultimately decide whether defendants are guilty or not guilty - and not act as partisan advocates. That’s certainly the stance Peter Gill took when replying to an e-mail to TJMK poster Swansea Jack on 28 June 2014.

Thanks for your email.

I cant control how people interpret my comments.  I am not getting involved in a debate that specifically addresses the ulitmate issue of innocence/guilt of individuals since that is the purpose of the court.  I can only comment on the probative value of the DNA evidence. I dont know definitively how the DNA was transferred - I simply make a list of all of the possibilities. I dont comment on the non-DNA evidence.

Regards, Peter

It was dishonest of Peter Gill to claim he wasn’t getting involved in a debate that specifically addressed the ultimate issue of innocence or guilt when he had already done that by categorically stating the convictions of Knox and Sollecito were a “miscarriage of justice” in his book.

It wasn’t the first time Peter Gill had blown backwards and forwards on an important topic and made contradictory comments. Here is judicial criticism of some of his comments during his testimony at the Omagh bomb trial.

Dr Peter Gill, an exponent of the Low Copy Number DNA technique, conceded some of the results presented in the bomb trial were “valueless”.

Mr Justice Weir warned Dr Gill about “blowing backwards and forwards” on “an important topic”.

The judge said it was “very unhelpful” to give apparently contradictory evidence. Sean Hoey denies 58 charges, including 29 murders in Omagh in 1998.

Mr Hoey is a 37-year-old electrician from Molly Road, Jonesborough in County Armagh.

Low Copy Number DNA - a technique whereby DNA profiles can be obtained from samples containing only a few cells - is an important part of the prosecution case.

Dr Gill had been asked to comment on claims that control samples tested at the same time as parts of a device in Lisburn had come up positive for Mr Hoey’s DNA type.

That finding, said defence QC Orlando Pownall, should have meant that the tests were run again. The fact that they weren’t meant the results were invalid, he claimed.

“I think it invalidates the result,” Dr Gill agreed.

Dr Gill was also challenged over what appeared to be conflicting evidence on the reliability of Low Copy Number DNA testing.

Mr Pownall was questioning him about the amounts of DNA below which results could be relied on.

Giving evidence, Dr Gill said at a certain DNA level information taken from the results could be “informative”.

But Mr Pownall pointed out that in papers Dr Gill had written on the subject he had said that at that level the results were “uninformative”.

Mr Justice Weir intervened to say it “seems rather an important topic on which to be blowing backwards and forwards on.

In July 2016, Peter Gill wrote an academic paper about the Meredith Kercher case for Forensic Science Genetics: Analysis and implications of the miscarriages of justice of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. He made the following false claims:

“The final judgement exonerated the defendants” and “Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were exonerated in March 2015”.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito weren’t exonerated in March 2015 - they were merely acquitted with the weakest language available under Italian law.

There is a significant difference here. They were acquitted under paragraph 2 of article 530, which is merely an insufficient evidence acquittal. Had they been acquitted under paragraph one of article 530, then that would have been a definitive acquittal or exoneration.

Judge Bruno and Judge Marasca, the Supreme Court judges who acquitted them, said it was likely they would have convicted Knox and Sollecito of Meredith Kercher’s murder if the police hadn’t made claimed errors in their investigation:

“If it were not for the weak investigation and if the investigation had not been affected by guilty omissions, the court would, in all likelihood, be allowed right now to outline a framework, if not on absolute certainty at least of tranquil reliability, in view of the guilt Knox and Sollecito for killing the British student Meredith Kercher in Perugia on Nov. 1, 2007.”

Bruno and Marasca stated Meredith had been killed by Rudy Guede and others. They also said it’s certain that Amanda Knox was at the cottage when Meredith was killed and she washed Meredith’s blood off in the small bathroom. Furthermore, they said Sollecito was probably there. It’s not difficult to work out who the others are. Bruno and Marasca didn’t exonerate Knox and Sollecito - they clearly implicated them in Meredith’s murder. 

I don’t know whether Peter Gill knows about Bruno and Marasca’s comments. If he doesn’t know about them, it was remiss of him not to read the whole report and refer to these comments in his academic paper. If he does know about them, he’s guilty of deliberately misleading the forensic community as well as the general public.

Is it just a coincidence that filmmakers responsible for the Netflix documentary Amanda Knox also cherrypicked comments made by Bruno and Marasca which were favourable to Knox and Sollecito, but completely ignored all their comments which were not?

Amanda Knox’s advocates in the media have always brushed inconvenient facts under the carpet. Their intention has always been to persuade the public that she’s innocent - not inform them and let them make up their own minds. Anyone who deliberately hides information that shows Knox and Sollecito in a bad light doesn’t care about Meredith or truth and justice.

More to come.

Posted on 02/21/17 at 10:15 PM by The MachineClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in Hoaxers - main perpetratorsPeter Gill
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (38)

Monday, February 13, 2017

Sollecito Thinks He Can Win Again At The Supreme Court? Think Twice, Eyes Much Sharper Now

Posted by James Raper




1. Sollecito’s Tough Road Ahead

He who comes to court for compensation must come with clean hands.

Dr Maresca’s comment quoted below is relevant and fully justified. It is not to be overlooked that in addition to the lies and suspicious behaviour we have a “definitive” (joke) judgement that also says that Knox and probably Sollecito were present in the cottage at the time of the murder.

Even if Sollecito was not then he had good cause to believe that Knox was, yet before and after his police statement he did everything he could to obfuscate the fact and mislead investigators and prosecutors, all the while trying to dig himself out of a hole.

That adds up to a number of additional criminal offences he has committed but for which he has escaped sanction.  In addition who can doubt that at the very least he had a part in, or knowledge of, the burglary staging (not criticized by the 5th Chambers), and the subsequent removal of blood traces (the evidence for which which the 5th Chamber basically ignored).

‘Doubts Remain about Sollecito’s Acquittal by Maresca’

(ANSA) - PERUGIA, Feb. 12 - The lawyer Francesco Maresca, who represents the family of Meredith Kercher, commented on the decision of the Tuscan capital judges to reject the claim for unjust detention by the young man from Puglia.

“The Court of Appeal of Florence confirms the uncertainty related to the acquittal of Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox will remain in the history of Italian justice for all the unresolved doubts that it leaves”.

According to the lawyer “It confirms the statements and behavior of the young pair as a justification for custody and reminds us of the fact that the Supreme Court has placed them still in the house of the crime, so it really does seem that this absolution was to be refused at all costs.”


2. Knox & Sollecito Actions In The Week Prior To Arrest:

This is a repeat of my post of almost exactly three years ago which reveals an incriminating behavior pattern for sure.

A very strong case for guilt has been made at trial and endorsed at the first-level appeal…

The focus of this post… is upon the described behaviours of Knox and Sollecito, from the very beginning for a full week.

How The Behavior Speaks To Guilt

The early pointer of the staged break-in aside this behaviour gave investigators an insight into the pair’s possible involvement back on Day One: Behavioral pointers have continued on a par with corroborated developments in the case.

It has even continued, incredibly, since their release from prison. For me it is the thread that runs through this case having as much to do with the overall picture of culpability as the other elements .

This behaviour - to include what they have to say for themselves - is a catalogue of the inappropriate, of the implausible, of inconsistencies and contradictions, of evasions and obfuscations, to be gleaned from the accounts of Knox and Sollecito themselves and highlighted in the accounts of other witnesses. It is also to be gleaned from phone and computer records.

Taken together it is a formidable body of evidence which goes to character and culpability. It cannot be attributed to a railroading job, the machinations of a corrupt and evil prosecutor or character assassination by the media. It is also implausible if not impossible to explain it as being due to naivety, confusion or some quirkiness of character.

It amounts to the pair of them concocting stories, telling lies and misleading investigators and the general public.

Physical Evidence Array Is Already Substantial

There are numerous items of evidence which are building blocks in the prosecution case and with which we are all familiar.

    1. The staged break-in via Filomena’s window with pointers to this outside, on the windows and shutters, and throughout the bedroom.

    2. The evident partial clean up proved by footprint trails with footprints missing and what was behind the locked door.

    3. Amanda Knox’s lamp on the floor behind Meredith’s locked door which she only conceded was her own at trial, under pressure.

    4. Knox’s dried and congealed blood on the tap in the small bathroom that Amanda Knox and Meredith shared.

    5. The bloody footprint on the mat in that bathroom definitively attributed to Sollecito rather than Guede

    6.  The mixed DNA of Knox and Meredith Kercher found in blood in the basin, the bidet and on the box of Q tips in that bathroom

    7. Two luminol enhanced mixed traces containing DNA belonging to Knox and Meredith Kercher, one in the corridor and the other in Filomena’s room

    8. Two luminol enhanced footprints of Knox in the corridor and one of Sollecito immediately outside Meredith’s room.

    9. The knife taken from Sollecito’s apartment with Meredith Kercher’s DNA on the blade and Knox’s DNA on the handle and on the blade

    10. Meredith Kercher’s bra clasp with Sollecito’s DNA on a hook and contamination possibilities definitively ruled out.
Behaviors In The First Week Of November 2007

I don’t want to make this an unduly long post. Accordingly I am going to concentrate on the period up to that famous police interrogation analysed just below. As to that critical period I will be selective but it should be enough.


The Lady With The Mop?

The story (in Knox’s e-mail) that she had visited the cottage to collect a mop, have a shower and get a change of clothing, earlier on the morning of the 2nd November, but did not notice that Filomena’s window had been broken and her room trashed is just that - a made up story. It is entirely implausible and the account unreliable for a number of reasons including-
 

    (a) it is hard to believe that she did not notice the hard to miss fact that the shutters to Filomena’s window were (as they were found) open - this would have alerted her to the likelihood that Filomena was back home which she would, of course, have checked out of curiosity if nothing else given that she found no one home.

    (b) her claim that Filomena’s door was shut is contradicted by Sollecito who wrote (prison diary) that when he later entered the cottage with Knox   Filomena’s door was wide open.

    (c) it is hard to believe that she took a shower without noticing until after her shower (as she claimed) that there was blood on the bathroom mat, including a bloody footprint. In fact she didn’t even claim to notice that it was a footprint despite the fact that it was obviously so.

    (d) it is hard to believe that having found the front door wide open and having found blood, and having opted for a shower and to blow dry her hair, she never got round to checking for any sign of Meredith’s presence. Any one else would have tried her door to check whether or not she was home.

    (e) from her appearance at the cottage that morning it is hard to believe that she took a shower at all (let alone blow dried her hair) and the cops remarked that she reeked of body odour.

    (f)  less problematic but nevertheless still somewhat surprising is that as she is drying her hair she makes a fuss over shit (left by Guede) in the toilet,  describes herself as being “uncomfortable” about it but does not flush it away before grabbing the mop and leaving.



The Two Stayed At Home?

The story that Knox and Sollecito had spent the previous night (the night of Meredith’s murder) indoors, critically from 9 pm onwards, that both had slept and that Knox had been the first to rise at about 10.30 am the next morning is implausible and uncorroborated, not only because this alibi is directly contradicted by the testimony of Curatolo and Quintavalle, and Sollecito’s statement to the police that Knox had gone out and not returned until about 1 am, but also in view of the following facts.

    (a) Curatolo claimed to have first seen the Knox and Sollecito in Piazza Grimana shortly after 9.30 pm but Knox claimed in her trial testimony that she and Raffaele had cooked and eaten a meal between 9.30 and 10 pm.
    GCM:  Can you say what time this was?

    AK:  umm, around, umm, we ate around 9.30 or 10, and then after we had eaten, and he was washing the dishes, well, as I said, I don’t look at the clock much, but it was around 10. And…he…umm…well, he was washing the dishes and, umm, the water was coming out and he was very bummed,  displeased, he told me he had just had that thing repaired. He was annoyed that it had broken again. So…umm

    LG:  Yes, so you talked a bit. Then what did you do?

    AK:  Then we smoked a joint together……we made love…..then we fell asleep.

    Unfortunately Sollecito’s father himself torpedoed this dodge by telling the court that when he phoned his son at 8.42 pm Sollecito had told him that there had been a water leak while he was washing the dishes. Taking into account Knox’s testimony that they had eaten before the dish washing, this places the meal and dish washing before that call.

    (b) Sollecito told the police that at about 11 pm he had received a call from his father on his land line. Not only is that not confirmed by his father but there is no log of such a call.

    (c) There is no log of a call to his mobile at that time either though his father had sent a text message at that time but which Sollecito did not receive until 6. 03 am the following morning. We know that he had received it at that time because that is the time at which it is logged in the phone records.  Sollecito had just turned his phone on and clearly the phone had been off when the text message was sent.

    (d) There is no record of any phone activity for either of them from after the 8.42 pm call to, in Sollecito’s case, receipt of that text message at 6.03 am,  and in Knox’s case her call to Meredith’s English phone at 12.07 pm the next day.

    A further word about this Point (d) here as Knox has released her phone records on her web site. In her case it has to be said that this is not so unusual. Up until the 30th October there is no regular pattern of late or early morning phone activity.

    It is interesting to note, however, that as of the 30th October there is a spate of texts and calls between her and a young Greek known to us as Spiros.  Communication between them had in fact been going on since the beginning of October but there are 5 texts in the afternoon of the 30th, two telephone calls in the afternoon and a call at 11.38 pm on Halloween.

    In the early hours of the following morning there are a couple of calls between the two. In fact we know that the two met up together for Halloween as Knox was at a loose end.  Meredith had shrugged her off and Raffaele was attending a friend’s graduation dinner out of town.

    Sollecito is different as his father was in the habit of calling at all hours just to find out what his son was doing and, as we know, he had called late only to find that his son’s phone was switched off.

    In the case of Knox she admitted in any event that her phone had been switched off, “to save the battery”.

    (e) There is no record of any activity on Sollecito’s computer after 9.15 pm and until 5.32 am the following morning when music was played for half an hour.  This contradicts the claim that Sollecito had smoked pot and interacted with his computer until midnight and that they had both slept until late the following morning.

    (f) The fact that the next morning, outside the cottage, both Knox and Sollecito looked utterly exhausted. This belies the alibi that they had spent a quiet night indoors and had only risen late that morning.

The Fake Call To Knox’s Mum in Seattle?

Knox falsely claims in her book that having had her shower she called her mother on her way back to Sollecito’s apartment as she was beginning to have concerns as to what she had seen at the cottage. Her mother tells her to raise her concerns with Raffaele and the other flatmates and Knox says that she then immediately called Filomena. Filomena tells her to get hold of Meredith by phone which she tries to do by calling Meredith’s English phone first, then her Italian one.

    (a) How does this correlate to the contents of her e-mail of the 11/04/07?

    (b) How does this correlate to Knox’s phone records?

    (c) There is no mention of a call to her mother at all in the e-mail. This from her e-mail -
    “….and I returned to Raffaele’s place. After we had used the mop to clean up the kitchen I told Raffaele about what I had seen in the house over breakfast.  The strange blood in the bathroom, the door wide open, the shit in the toilet.  He suggested I call one of my roommates, so I called Filomena………..
    Filomena seemed really worried so I told her I’d call Meredith and then call her back. I called both of Meredith’s phones the English one first and last and the Italian one in between. The first time I called the English phone it rang and then sounded as if there was disturbance, but no one answered. I then called the Italian phone and it just kept ringing, no answer. I called the English phone again and this time an English voice told me the phone was out of service.”

    (d) the phone records are as follows for 2 November 2007:

    Ist call of the day @  12.07.12 (to Meredith’s English phone)  - 16 seconds

    2nd call   @  12.08.44 (to Filomena)  -  68 seconds

    3rd call   @ 12.11.02 (to Meredith’s Italian phone)  -  3 seconds

    4th call @ 12.11.54 (to Meredith’s English phone)  - 4 seconds

    8th call   @  12..47.23 (first call to her mother) - 88 seconds

    (e) The discrepancies are numerous, see these examples:

    1. The first call to her mother was not just after leaving the cottage but 40 minutes after the call to Filomena, and the call to Filomena had been placed after she had returned to Raffaele’s place and after they had used the mop and had breakfast. In fact, say about an hour after she left the cottage.

    2.  The first call to Meredith’s English phone was placed before the call to Filomena, and not after as Knox would have it in her e-mail. A minute before,  but Knox did not mention this to Filomena, as confirmed by the e-mail and Filomena’s testimony.

    3. The first call to Meredith’s English phone disappears entirely in Knox’s book.

    4.  The call to the Italian phone did not just keep ringing. The connection was for 3 seconds and this was followed by a connection to the English phone for 4 seconds.

    5.  The English phone was not switched off or out of service. Mrs Lana’s daughter had found it. She said that she would not have done so but for it ringing (the 12.07 call for 16 seconds?). She picked it up and took it into the house where it rang again (the 12.11 call - 4 seconds?). A name appeared on the screen as it rang : “Amanda”.

    6.  The 3 and 4 second calls are highly suspicious. The Italian phone was undoubtedly in the possession of the postal police. According to Massei it’s answering service was activated, accounting for the log. Clearly Knox did not even bother to leave a message for Meredith as it would take longer than 3 seconds just to listen to the answering service. This is not the behaviour of someone genuinely concerned about another.

My Observations:

1.  In her e-mail, and repeated in her trial testimony, Knox says that she woke up around 10.30 am, grabbed a few things and walked the 5 minutes back to the cottage. If the first call to her mother was about an hour after she left the cottage (see before), then she left the cottage at about 11.47 am, which means that she spent over an hour there. Either that or she spent more (a lot more)  than 20 minutes at Raffaele’s place before calling Filomena. The latter would be more likely as it is difficult to conceive that she spent over an hour at the cottage. She didn’t have the heating on when she was there. Either way there is a period of about an hour and a half between when she might have tried to contact Meredith or raise the alarm and actually doing so.

2.  That we are right to be incredulous about this is borne out by the false claim in Knox‘s book. That false claim is significant and can only be because Knox is aware of the problem and feels she needs to add some support to her implausible story of the mop/shower visit and to conceal the real reasons for the inactivity and delay connected with it.

3. That it is incredible is even belatedly acknowledged by Sollecito’s feeble but revealing attempt to distance himself from Knox in a CNN interview on the 28 Feb this year. “Certainly I asked her questions” he said. “Why did you take a shower? Why did you spend so much time there?”

4.  That she makes that false claim and has constantly stonewalled and/or misplaced the 16 second call to Meredith’s English phone is indicative of her guilty knowledge. Her guilty knowledge with respect to the 16 second call was that it was made to ascertain whether or not the phones had been located before she called Filomena, and hence for her it was not (incredulous though this is without such explanation) a pertinent fact for her to bring up with Filomena.


The Real Call To Knox’s Mum In Seattle?

As to the 12.47 call to her mother itself (4.47 am Seattle time and prior to the discovery of Meredith‘s body) Knox not only did not mention that in her e-mail but in her trial testimony she steadfastly declined to recall that it had occurred.

She clearly did not want, or could not be trusted, to discuss why the call had occurred and what had transpired in conversation with her mother before the discovery of Meredith’s body.

Not only was the timing of the 12.47 call inconvenient to her mother but I found it interesting to note from Knox’s phone records (covering 2nd Oct - 3rd November) that mother and daughter do not appear to have called or texted each other once up until that 12.47 call.

It would appear then that in so far as they remained in direct communication with each other for that period it must have been by e-mail. One can therefore imagine that her mother was very surprised to receive that call.

It is also very difficult to accept that Knox could not recall a phone call she was not in the habit of making. (On the other hand the same records show that it was not at all unusual for Knox and Meredith to communicate with other on Meredith’s English phone.)


Sollecito’s Call From His Dad?

At the cottage, and prior to the above call, Sollecito received a call from his father at 12.40 am. Do we know what they discussed? It would in any event have been after the discovery of Filomena’s broken window and (allegedly) Sollecito’s (rather feeble) attempt to beak down Meredith’s door.

Did the responsible adult advise his son to do the obvious and call the police? One would think so, but then why was there a 10 minute delay before he called his sister in the Carabinieri at 12.50 am? Indeed, why call his sister at all? Filomena had also urged Knox to call the police when she called at 12.35.The delay might be explained by the unexpected arrival of the postal police and if this was the case then it was before Sollecito called the 112 emergency services.


The Claims Of Finding Meredith’s Body?

Neither Knox nor Sollecito saw into Meredith’s room when the door was broken down and her body discovered on the floor under a quilt. Yet in the immediate aftermath it is as if they have wanted others to believe that it was they who discovered her body and in the bragging about this there have been disclosures, not only as to what they should not have been aware but also suggestive of disturbed personalities. This behaviour was remarkable for all the wrong reasons.

    (a)  Luca Altieri‘s testimony makes it clear that Knox and Sollecito had heard about Meredith‘s cut throat directly from him during the car ride to the police station.

    However her bizarre and grotesque allusion in the early moments of the investigation to the body being found stuffed into the closet (wardrobe) is not just factually incorrect (it was lying to the side of the closet) but bears correlation to the later forensic findings based on blood splatter in front of and on the closet door, that Meredith had been thrust up against the closet after having been stabbed in the throat.

    (b)  The behaviour of Knox and Sollecito at the police station is documented in the testimony of Meredith’s English girlfriends and of the police. Whilst it is true that people react to grief in different ways it is difficult to ascribe grief to Knox’s behaviour. Emotionally she was cold towards Meredith’s friends and occasionally went out of her way to upset them with barbed and callous remarks.

    The fact that Knox was not observed to cry and wanted to talk about what had happened is not of itself indicative of anything but remarks like “What the fuck do you think, she bled to death” and her kissing and canoodling with Raffaele (including them making smacking noises with their lips when they blew kisses to each other) in front of the others was not normal.

    Rather chilling in retrospect was a scene between the pair of them when Knox found the word “minaccia” ( in english - threat) amusing and made a play of it with Sollecito in front of witnesses.

    (c) Grief is in any event reserved for friends and relations, or people one much admires. The evidence is that the initial short friendship between the two had cooled to the extent that Meredith was studiously, if politely, avoiding being around Knox. For the narcissistic and attention seeking american girl this would have been difficult to ignore and may well have offended her.

    (d)  The next day Sollecito was willingly collared by a reporter from the Sunday Mirror and told her about the horror of finding the body.
    “Yes I knew her. I found her body.”

    “It is something I never hope to see again,” he said. “There was blood everywhere and I couldn’t take it all in.”

    “My girlfriend was her flatmate and she was crying and screaming, ‘How could anyone do this?’”

    Sollecito went on to tell the reporter that “It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends. The next day, around lunchtime, Amanda went back to their apartment to have a shower.”

About the only thing that is true here is that he knew Meredith.

Posted on 02/13/17 at 11:08 PM by James RaperClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (17)

Tuesday, February 07, 2017

Sollecito Compensation Decision Overdue Since Last Friday; Fifth Chambers Ruling May Be His Problem

Posted by KrissyG




Key Background

Sollecito, represented by his attorneys throughout the process, Avvocato Giulia Bongiorno and Luca Maori, is currently claiming compensation for ‘wrongful imprisonment’.

This claim now before a Florence court is in respect of the four years he served of a sentence of 25 years handed down for the Aggravated Murder of Meredith Kercher, 1 Nov 2007.

The conviction was controversially overturned by the final Italian Supreme Court in March 2015, and its Motivational Report published – some three months late – in September 2015.

It was only then Sollecito was able to commence compensation proceedings, as the Italian Penal Code provides for this, given its long-winded legal process whereby defendants accused of serious crimes (i.e., one with a sentence of over three years custody) can be held on remand whilst awaiting trial.  In theory, this should only be for up to one year.

The Florence panel of three women judges indicated over a week ago that their decision could be expected by last Friday. Why the further delay?  Well, a major reason could be that, far from finding Sollecito “innocent”, the Marasca-Bruno Supreme Court ruling in fact did him few favors and the judges may be having a hard time grappling with that.

They will also know of Dr Mignini’s explosive contention that two articles of the judicial code were flouted and the case should have been referred back down to the appeal court (the same Florence court!) if there were evidence problems.

Issues with Marasca/Bruno ruling

The Marasca/Bruno verdict is considered controversial because Sollecito and his co-defendant, Amanda Knox had been found guilty at the first instance trial court (merits), which was upheld on appeal.

It is unusual for the Supreme Court to have not remitted the case back to the Appeal (second instance) court as the Penal Code – as is standard in the UK and the USA – does not allow the Supreme Court to assess facts found at trial.

The correct procedure is to send the disputed evidence back to the court which in the opinion of the Supreme court erred.  Marasca did not rule a Section 530,1 ‘Not Guilty’ acquittal, but a Section 530, 2 ‘Not Guilty’ ‘insufficient evidence’, which some say is similar to Scottish Law, ‘Not Proven’.  However, the wording used, proscioglimento indicates a pre-trial ‘charges dropped’, rather than ‘acquittal’ (assoluzione).

Sollecito and Knox made several applications against being held in custody whilst awaiting trial and were turned down at every stage, including appeals and an application for ‘house arrest’ in lieu.

The prosecution opposed the application on the grounds of the seriousness of the crime, and in Knox’ case, the standard ground that she might flee the country, as a foreigner to Italy.  In addition, the prosecution had used special preventative powers to isolate the defendants (Knox, Sollecito and Guede) to prevent tampering with witnesses, a power which had been added to the Penal Code to assist in the fight against mafia gangs who did intimidate witnesses, often through their lawyers.

Therefore the law allowed the prosecutors to deny the defendants an attorney until just before their remand hearings.

Sollecito’s challenges

However, the award of compensation for having (a) been held in remand, and (b) serving a sentence until such time the conviction was overturned, is not automatic.  The applicant has to show that they are factually ‘not guilty’, i.e., cannot possibly have committed the crime, perhaps because the ‘real perpetrator’ has come to light, or ‘new evidence’ presented.

Neither of these scenarios apply in Sollecito’s case.  Whilst a defendant is allowed to ‘lie’ and indeed, does not need to swear an oath in testifying, this only holds true if they are guilty.  Marasca did not find Sollecito or Knox, ‘Not Gulty’ as per Article 530,1, the common or garden ‘Not Guilty’ verdict.

Further, Sollecito refused to testify at his own trial, and made various misrepresentations and lies to the police.  He argues in current tv and radio show rounds – for example, in the recent Victoria Derbyshire BBC morning show – that as he was a ‘collector of knives’ and had always carried a knife around since age thirteen, ‘To carve on tables and trees’, he explains, and thus argues, the police should not have viewed this with suspicion when he attended the questura carrying one in the days after the murder.

Sollecito’s other difficulty is that Marasca, whilst criticising the investigation as ‘flawed’, and this being the main reason for acquittal, it nonetheless cuts Sollecito little slack.

How Marasca-Bruno Cut Sollecito Little Slack

From the Marasca Supreme Court Motivational Report, Sept 2015 (boldface added):

It remains anyway strong the suspicion that he [Sollecito] was actually in the Via della Pergola house the night of the murder, in a moment that, however, it was impossible to determine. On the other hand, since the presence of Ms. Knox inside the house is sure, it is hardly credible that he was not with her.

And even following one of the versions released by the woman, that is the one in accord to which, returning home in the morning of November 2. after a night spent at her boyfriend’s place, she reports of having immediately noticed that something strange had happened (open door, blood traces everywhere); or even the other one, that she reports in her memorial, in accord to which she was present in the house at the time of the murder, but in a different room, not the one in which the violent aggression on Ms. Kercher was being committed, it is very strange that she did not call her boyfriend, since there is no record about a phone call from her, based on the phone records within the file.

Even more if we consider that having being in Italy for a short time, she would be presumably uninformed about what to do in such emergency cases, therefore the first and maybe only person whom she could ask for help would have been her boyfriend himself, who lived only a few hundred meters away from her house.

Not doing this signifies Sollecito was with her, unaffected, obviously, the procedural relevance of his mere presence in that house, in the absence of certain proof of his causal contribution to the murderous action.

The defensive argument extending the computer interaction up to the visualization of a cartoon, downloaded from the internet, in a time that they claim compatible with the time of death of Ms. Kercher, is certainly not sufficient to dispel such strong suspicions. In fact, even following the reconstruction claimed by the defence and even if we assume as certain that the interaction was by Mr. Sollecito himself and that he watched the whole clip, still the time of ending of his computer activity wouldn’t be incompatible with his subsequent presence in Ms. Kercher’s house, given the short distance between the two houses, walkable in about ten [sic] minutes.

An element of strong suspicion, also, derives from his confirmation, during spontaneous declarations, the alibi presented by Ms. Knox about the presence of both inside the house of the current appellant the night of the murder, a theory that is denied by the statements of Curatolo, who declared of having witnessed the two together from 21:30 until 24:00 in piazza Grimana; and by Quintavalle on the presence of a young woman, later identified as Ms. Knox, when he opened his store in the morning of November 2.

An umpteenth element of suspicion is the basic failure of the alibi linked to other, claimed human interactions in the computer of his belongings, albeit if we can’t talk about false alibi, since it’s more appropriate to speak about unsuccessful alibi.

Sollecito in his police interview of the 5 Nov 2007, shortly after which he was arrested, withdrew his alibi from Amanda Knox.  During the Nencini appeal phase, he and his advocate, Bongiorno, called a press conference to underline that Sollecito ‘could not vouch for Knox’ whereabouts between 8:45 pm and 1:00 am on the night of the murder.  Sollecito has never once retracted this withdrawal of an alibi for Amanda.

Further, Judges Marasca and Bruno state:

The defensive argument extending the computer interaction up to the visualization of a cartoon, downloaded from the internet, in a time that they claim compatible with the time of death of Ms. Kercher, is certainly not sufficient to dispel such strong suspicions.

In fact, even following the reconstruction claimed by the defence and even if we assume as certain that the interaction was by Mr. Sollecito himself and that he watched the whole clip, still the time of ending of his computer activity wouldn’t be incompatible with his subsequent presence in Ms. Kercher’s house, given the short distance between the two houses, walkable in about ten [sic] minutes.


Sollecito had claimed he was surfing the internet until 3:00 am in one statement and claimed to have watched Naruto cartoon until 9:45 pm on the murder night. It winds up:

The technical tests requested by the defence cannot grant any contribution of clarity, not only because a long time has passed, but also because they regard aspects of problematic examination (such as the possibility of selective cleaning) or of manifest irrelevance (technical analysis on Sollecito’s computer) given that is was possible, as said, for him to go to Kercher’s house whatever the length of his interaction with the computer (even if one concedes that such interaction exists), or they are manifestly unnecessary, given that some unexceptionable technical analysis carried out are exhaustive (such are for example the cadaver inspection and the following medico-legal examinations).

Leading to the verdict:

Following the considerations above, it is obvious that a remand [rinvio] would be useless, hence the declaration of annulment without remand, based on art. 620 L) of the procedure code, thus we apply an acquittal [proscioglimento *] formula [see note just below] which a further judge on remand would be anyway compelled to apply, to abide to the principles of law established in this current sentence.

*[Translator’s note: The Italian word for “acquittal” is actually “assoluzione”; while the term “proscioglimento” instead, in the Italian Procedure Code, actually refers only to non-definitive preliminary judgments during investigation phase, and it could be translated as “dropping of charges”. Note: as for investigation phase “proscioglimento” is normally meant as a non-binding decision, not subjected to double jeopardy, since it is not considered a judgment nor a court’s decision.] http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Marasca-Bruno_Report_(English)


The Issues Facing the Florence Appeal Court

Sollecito has clearly passed the first hurdle of being eligible to have a hearing for compensation.  His legal team have asked for the maximum €516,000.  A claimant who can successfully plead ‘wrongful imprisonment’ can claim €500, per diem imprisonment, up to a cap of €516,000.

Sollecito’s legal team have referred to Marasca’s criticism of the investigation as grounds for the full compensation, claiming Sollecito’s “innocence and loss of youthful endeavours” because of the ‘flaws’.  Problem is, the issue of investigative flaws was never pleaded at trial, or at least, not upheld, by either the trial or appeal court judge.  Marasca never really explains in which way this was a proven fact.

The Prosecutor’s Office based at Florence is opposing the application.  I would expect they will be relying on Matteini’s remand hearing and Gemmelli’s written reasons rejecting Sollecito’s appeal against being kept in custody until the hearing.

The three judges who on 27 January 2017 in a hearing listed for five days announced they would issue their verdict ‘within five days’, as of 7 Feb 2017, some seven working days later, have yet to make a decision.  Alternatively, the decision has been made, but the public and press have not yet accessed it.  It could be Sollecito’s legal team have yet to call a press conference, whilst they study the findings.

The Florence panel of judges will have to decide:

    1. is Sollecito entitled to compensation?

    2. if so, how much?

    3. did he lie to police or mislead them?

    4. if so, to what extent was he contributory to his being remanded?

    5. to what extent is the ‘flawed investigation’ a factor in his ‘wrongful imprisonment’?

    6. should Sollecito receive compensation for the one year remand in custody leading up to the trial?

    7. should he be compensated for the three further years of a sentence served as a convicted prisoner, six months of it in solitary confinement?

    8. should this be for both of the above, either of the above, or neither of them?

Watch this space for the decision! Also Sollecito has made noises that he plans further legal action against the prosecutor, based on Marasca’s criticisms in the Motivational Report. Watch for that too.

Sources: The Murder of Meredith Kercher com True Justice for Meredith Kercher

Posted on 02/07/17 at 10:35 PM by KrissyGClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (25)

Wednesday, February 01, 2017

Florence Court Decision On Whether Sollecito Gets Any Compensation - If Yes, Why Its Ill Deserved

Posted by Peter Quennell





Here is the BBC’s interview with Sollecito on his compensation claim.

The ill-prepared Victoria Derbyshire was snowed.

Sollecito was convicted ONCE and not ever found “innocent”. The verdict was that he was probably at the scene of the crime, and Knox definitely so.  And that fail was despite a mighty effort to corrupt two Italian courts.

Who knows what new tricks behind the scenes are being played now?  But if the Florence judge really studies the record of the early days, there is no way in which Sollecito gets paid.

He ADMITTED on 5-6 November 2007 that he had lied to the cops, because Knox made him do so. That same night he signed a confession to that effect. Lying to the cops is itself a crime.

And Sollecito was treated extremely fairly throughout. He and Knox had half a dozen judicial hearings even before the 2009 trial began.

He and Knox failed to win release at every one - all the judges ending with Judge Micheli who wrote up the case against them at length turned his pleas down, moving him from prison to mere house arrest being one.

One of Sollecito’s and Knox’s failed attempts at being sprung before trial was an appeal directly to the Supreme Court (amazing - try that in the UK or US!).

Our translation by Catnip of the Gemelli judgment is highly worth a read (there is a similar judgement for Knox) as the Florence court has to decide: did the Gemmeli court act unfairly in light of the list of evidence here?

Gemelli Court Decision on Raffaele Sollecito’s 2008 Appeal (English)

Summary

Held: the decision to continue pre-trial prison detention for the suspect was reasonable.

THE REPUBLIC OF ITALY
IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
THE SUPREME COURT OF CASSATION
SECTION 1 CRIMINAL DIVISION

Comprised of the most Honourable Justices:

Dr Torquato GEMELLI - President -
Dr Emilio Giovanni GIRONI - Member -
Dr Maria Cristina SIOTTO - Member -
Dr Umberto ZAMPETTI - Member -
Dr Margherita CASSANO - Member -

have pronounced the following JUDGMENT on the appeal lodged by:

(1) RS, born on X, against Order of 30/11/2007 Liberty Court of Perugia;

having heard the relation made by Member Emilio Giovanni Gironi;
having heard the conclusions of the Prosecutor-General Dr Consolo for its rejection;
having heard the defence advocates G and T (substituting for advocate M).

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

The order referred to in opening confirmed, at the Re-examination stage, the one by which the GIP [the Preliminary Investigation Magistrate] had applied pre-trial prison detention of RS for participation in the murder of MSCK, the which occurring in Perugia on the evening of the 1st of November 2007 by means of a cutting weapon, in an alleged context of sexual assault by a group, in which there would have taken part, in addition to S, his girlfriend AK and a RHG, who had left behind a palm print on the bloodied pillow on which the victim’s body was resting and whose DNA was found on the vaginal swab taken from the body of the same and on faecal traces found in a bathroom of the house that the victim was sharing with Ms AK and two Italian students.

The picture of circumstantial evidence specifically concerning S consists of the identification of a print left in haematic material present at the scene of the crime of a sports shoe held to be compatible, because its dimensions and configuration of the sole, with the type of footwear, “N” brand size 42.5, used by the suspect; of the recovery – in the kitchen of his house – of a kitchen knife bearing traces of Ms AK’s DNA on the handle and on the blade traces of Ms MK’s DNA; and of the collapse of the alibi put up by the young man (having been disproven by technical investigations carried out), in which, as asserted by him, he had interacted with his computer during the hours in which, according to the forensic pathologist’s reconstruction, the criminal fact would have occurred, that is between 22:00 and 23:00 of the 1st November 2007; from the investigations carried out up until now it would appear, in fact, that the last interaction with the machine on 1 November occurred at 21:10 and that the subsequent one took place at 5:32 the day after, when S also reactivated his mobile phone, acts witnessing thereby an agitated and sleepless night. Equally disproven was that the young man had received a phone call from his father at 23:00 on the night of the murder, it resulting, instead, that said call had happened at 20:40.

Against S, caught at the time of arrest with a switchblade initially considered compatible with the wounds found on the neck of the victim, would line up, in addition, the mutability of the stories given to the investigators by the same and by his girlfriend, having initially maintained they had remained the whole evening and night in the young man’s house, later to state, instead, that at a certain point Ms AK would have left to meet the Ivorian [sic] citizen PDL, manager of a pub in which Ms AK was undertaking casual employment, she making a returning to her boyfriend’s house only around one in the morning.

It must, finally, be added that the same Ms AK had, amongst other things, initially referred (not confirming, in any case, the thesis in confused and contradictory subsequent versions) to having taken herself to her own house with L, where this latter (he also was struck with a custody order, later revoked after the previously mentioned identification of G’s DNA) had had sexual relations with Ms MK, and to having, while she herself was in the kitchen, heard her friend scream, without, further, remembering anything else of the subsequent events, up until the occurrences of the day after, marked by the discovery of traces of blood in the small bathroom next to Ms MK’s room and culminating in the discovery of the body, after the intervention of the forces of law and order (the police appear, in particular, to have intervened prior to the call to 112 effected by S); in particular, the young woman was specifically pointing out not being able to remember whether S were also present in the victim’s house on the occasion of the events just described.

The Re-examination Court concluded recognizing, for the purposes of maintaining pre-trial detention, the persistence of all the types of pre-trial exigencies mentioned by Article 274 Criminal Procedure Code.

The S defence has indicated an appeal, on the grounds of, with new reasons as well:

- reference to Ms AK alone of the circumstantial evidence constituted by the presence of biological traces from her and from the victim on the knife found at S’s house;

- absence, at the scene of the crime, of biological traces attributable to the suspect [ndr: note, this was before the bra-clasp tests had been done];

- arbitrary transference onto S of the weighty circumstantial evidence against Ms AK, on the unfounded assumption that the pair could not have been anything but together at the moment of the homicidal fact;

- inexistent evidential value of the phases relative to the discovery of the body;

- absence of blood traces from the soles of the “N” shoes worn by the suspect even at the moment of his arrest;

-  absence of any evidential value of merit, alleged failure of the alibi, constituting the use of his computer, of which the falsity has not in any case been ascertained, of the lack of interaction by the subject with the machine after the last operation at 21:10 not permitting the inference that the computer was not, however, engaged in downloading files (being, to be specific, films);

- irrelevancy of the mistake revealed between the indicated time of the phone call to the father furnished by S and the actual time of the call, given the uncertainty of the time of death of the victim, depending on the time, otherwise uncertain, of the consumption of the dinner (according to various witness statements coinciding with 18:00), it being well able, therefore, for the time indicated by the forensic pathologist (23:00) to be revised backwards to 21:00, a little before which time the witness P had referred to having made a visit to S, finding him at home and not on the verge of going out;

- interpretability of the so-called unlikelihood of the versions supplied by the suspect as attempts to cover for (aid and abet) another subject;

- attribution of the victim’s biological traces found on the knife seized at S’s house to chance contamination not related to the homicidal fact;

- insufficiency of the pre-trial exigencies, having diminished in a probative sense after the return to Italy of G; those relating to risk of flight lacking in specificity and concreteness; and with reference to the conventional content of blogs posted on the internet by the suspect, those relating to danger to society illogically reasoned;

- missing appearance of the young man’s walk, via security cameras installed along the route that the aforesaid would have had to traverse to go from his house to that of the victim’s.


THE APPEAL IS UNFOUNDED

As regards what this Court is permitted to appreciate, not being able here to proceed with a re-reading of the investigative results nor with an alternative interpretation of the factual data referred to in the custody order, the appellant defence substantially contests the recognition, as against S, of the necessary requisite of grave indicia of culpability. The question thus posed and submitted for scrutiny by this bench of the well-known limits of the competence of the court of merit, it must be held that the finding expressed by the Re-examination judges concerning the gravity of the frame of circumstantial evidence is not susceptible to censure.

Not upheld, in the first place, is the defence submission according to which the knife bearing the genetic prints of Ms AK and of Ms MK found in S’s house would constitute a piece of evidence relevant solely as against the young woman, even if privy of traces attributable to the suspect, the utensil has as always been found in the young man’s house, and the testimony acquired up until now has led to the exclusion that it formed part of the inventory of the house inhabited by the victim, and which, at the time, and until proved to the contrary, must be held to be the same available for use by the suspect and which had been used in MK’s house, there being contested no access by her to S’s house.

Given the multitude of group contributive possibilities, the fact is not significative, then, in itself being a neutral element, that on the scene of the crime there are no biological traces attributable to S, to which, in any case, is attributable the “N” brand shoe print considered compatible, by dimensions and sole configuration, with the footwear worn by the suspect at the time of arrest. Although having the same impugned order excluded, at the time, the certainty of the identification constitutes as, in any case, a certain datum that the print in question had been made in haematic material found in Ms MK’s room by a shoe of the kind and of the dimensions of those possessed by the appellant, while it remains to be excluded that this could have originated from G’s shoe, who wore a size 45 and, therefore, dimensions notably larger. The revealed coincidence, notwithstanding the residual uncertainty on the identification, assumes particular valency in relation to the restricted circle of subjects gravitating to the scene of the homicide, with not even Ms AK, who made admissions about her presence on site at the same time as the execution of the offence, excluding the presence of her boyfriend in the victim’s house in the same circumstance; nor can it be held that the print could have been left by S the following morning, he never having claimed to have entered into the room wherein the body was lying.

It does not answer, therefore, to verity that, as against the young man, there had been recognized, by a phenomenon of transference, items of circumstantial evidence in reality pointing solely to Ms AK.

The last finding held unfavourable to S is constituted by the failed proof of the alibi constituted by the argument of the suspect as having remained at home on the computer until late at night; it being a matter of, properly speaking, an alibi failing up till now and not of a false alibi and the defence, correctly, does not refute the technico-judicial valency of the circumstantial evidence, but it remains, in any case, acquired into the case file that the accused had not been able to prove his absence from the locus of the crime at the same time. An item up until now assumed as certain is, instead, the fact that S had interacted with his computer at 5:32 the morning following the murder, at around the same time reactivating his own mobile phone, a contradiction of the assumption of a waking up only at 10:00 and a symptomatic tell-tale of a more or less sleepless night; likewise as symptomatic was held to be the nearly simultaneous cessation of telephonic traffic as much by Ms AK, in his company the evening of 1 November 2007.

The proof of a permanent stay in his house by the suspect can, all told, be considered as acquired up until 20:40 – coincident with P’s visit – who confirmed his presence, or up until 21:10, the last interaction time on the computer, but this does not cover the time of the homicide, located between 22:00 and 23:00.

As for the proposed argument that S’s conduct were interpreted as aiding and abetting, this does not result, in the event, as being supported by anything emerging from the investigations and its plausibility cannot be verified by the judges of merit.

In conclusion, the Re-examination Court’s evaluation as to the gravity of the circumstantial evidence picture are removed from the audit of this court.

There remains, finally, the finding that for what concerns the pre-trial exigencies, those of a probative nature are not able to be considered as ceasing from the sole fact of G’s re-entry into Italy (amongst other things significantly never invoked in the statements by the suspect and by his girlfriend, who instead co-involved L in the proceedings), given the existence of an investigative picture in continual evolution, in which the positions of the various protagonists so far remain unclear, the changing versions of which are marked by reticence and mendaciousness (the same suspect had, in truth, admitted to having, at least initially, told ‘a load of balls’); but the permanence of pre-trial exigencies had been held reasonablely even under the aspect of flight risk, in relation to the gravity of the charges and of the potential sanctions, not to mention danger to society, given the revealed fragility of character and the specific personal traits of the subject, – which would narrowly evaluate as innocuous youthful stereotypes –, in a context the more connoted by the noted habitual use of drugs.


FOR THESE REASONS

Rejects the appeal and sentences the appellant to payment of costs of the proceedings. Article 94 para 1 ter, and activating provisions, Criminal Procedure Code, applies.

Rome, 1.4.2008.

DEPOSITED IN THE REGISTRY ON 21 APRIL 2008

Posted on 02/01/17 at 03:12 PM by Peter QuennellClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (18)

Thursday, January 26, 2017

El Chapo, The Most Most Wily And Deadly Drug Cartel Leader Ever, Is For Now Locked Up - In Manhattan

Posted by Peter Quennell

Mid-2015 report; El Chapo was soon captured, but escaped and was recaptured in November 2016


Who’d a known it? We are being told that the highrise prison adjacent to the courts in downtown Manhattan is maybe the US’s most escape-proof.

Well that is a relief…

The career of Sinaloa cartel leader and escape artist “El Chapo” (three escapes so far) in northern Mexico (see the great 2015 movie El Sicarrio for a fictional version) has been littered with bodies - he himself claims to have bumped off thousands.

Having escaped those three times very ingeniously from Mexican prisons, the authorities there were not unhappy to send Guzman northward. He faces his first American trial soon, in the Federal courts in Brooklyn. The Chicago courts will be his next destination.

Much of northern Mexico is a desert - actually a quite beautiful one - and the drug-transporting cartels had traditionally divided it up into corridors to run the drugs that are produced further south, especially in Colombia. The Sinaloa cartel initially settled for only the western several.

But as the video explains, a fired-up and mistrustful El Chapo set about taking over all of the corridors.

The Sinaloans are assiduous builders of long tunnels, and there are said for example to be many dozens between the Tijuana and San Diego areas.

No border wall like that being mooted is likely to have any effect on them. This is though experts say hard drugs do way more harm to society than the dwindling trickle of illegal immigrants.

See this case for example.

Posted on 01/26/17 at 11:20 AM by Peter QuennellClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (10)

Thursday, January 19, 2017

Understanding Why Guede’s Appeal For A New Trial Was Declined By The Florence Court

Posted by Machiavelli





A few days ago Guede’s requst for a trial review was declared inadmissible by the Florence court. As usual a written explanation will be issued by the court; meanwhile, this is my take.

A trial review is something that resembles what in the US would be called an “appeal”, in fact a kind of appeal that a person convicted might request, in the event that new evidence emerges that may change the verdict. The existence of new evidence is required in order to simply request a revew trial. The burden for presenting new evidence which is significant is fully on the convicted person (requesting party).

So this is what Guede was attempting to request. The “new evidence” that he was presenting as I understand was basically the points made by the Fifth Chambers of the Supreme Court, that is basically: the finding that presence at the murder is not sufficient evidence to convict beyond reasonable doubt; despite it being proven the suspects were there there is still no evidence beyond reasonable doubt of their active role in the act of killing.

If that point was applied to Guede too, he could argue that there is still reasonable doubt on his participation in the murder and guilt, despite the evidence of his being on the scene of crime (as the Fifth Chambers said about Knox).

In a situation of the normal functioning of the law - where the previous judges’ decisions are actually legal - there would be no room for a review of Guede’s conviction, because in order to obtain a trial review, a convicted person has to show that given the new evidence, the overall assessment of the evidence has a significant probability to change, meaning that a court assessing all the evidence would have a significant probability to come to a different conclusion.

Now, if evidence on Rudy Guede is assessed legally by a court, there would be no significant probability that any court would come out with a different verdict, because there is in fact sufficient evidence that he took part in a murder and that he is guilty in complicity along with other culprits as the courts have already found.

Before the Florence ruling my mind was open because the situation was not a normal legal situation: we had the Fifth Chambers verdict that was making those absurd points of law potentially changing the legal landscape, they created a precedent on which Guede could have requested a different assessment of his evidence, aligned with the standards set by the Fifth Chambers.

Those standards are not normal, not legal. They are delusional. But they are in the record, and so the decision on whether to allow a re-trial of Guede would depend on (1) whether the court decides based on the normal legal standards, or (2) whether they decide based on the verdict & rationale on reasonable doubt by the Fifth Chambers.

Since there is a conflict of res iudicata any possible rationale on Guede’s request was theoretically possible.

My guess is that the Florence judges could see that based on normal legal rules it was obvious that there is no actual room for a trial review of Guede’s verdict. So they declared his request inadmissible.

The question of how to fit the decision with the Fifth Chambers Bruno/Marasca verdict is an open question, upon which the court may decide to invent something so to make it look consistent in the pending report.

It is impossible to make it *actually* consistent with the Fifth Chambers verdict, but the Florence court can’t change the Fifth Chambers verdict and the verdict is not about Guede, therefore they might just ignore it, or mention it in a way that is vague, or write arguments that are either building pretexts about it or dismissive of its implications. What they write doesn’t really matter, actually because their decision is not about Knox & Sollecito.

The Florentine court can neither find AK & RS guilty nor “acquit” them, that is they cannot “take them away from the murder room” where the Fifth Chambers definitely placed them. This is true no matter what the Florence courts decides to write about AK & RS: it doesn’t matter what they write about them, since they only have power to assess the final verdict about Rudy Guede for retrial purposes and nothing else.

Whatever excuse they write about any other topic - such as the participation of Knox & Sollecito - is legally irrelevant, because they are not invested with the task of finding anything else. Whatever they write in their motivations might be useful for the media, but we shall bear in mind the Florence court is making no decision about Knox & Sollecito and cannot make any finding that could ever change the previous definitive judicial truths.

That included the definitive finding that Guede acted in complicity with others, that he was not the person who was holding the murder weapon, and that AK and probably RS were right there.

Posted on 01/19/17 at 12:33 AM by MachiavelliClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (11)

Wednesday, December 28, 2016

Meredith’s Birthday: By Now She Could Have Risen Far And Fast, In A Career Of Great Implication

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters

Brussels, the headquarters of the European Community.

This is where Meredith thought she might be heading. With a skillset and natural leadership talents that Europe and, well, everywhere so badly needs now.

Have others of her age been so inspired? We have heard from friends that their mostly brief acquaintances still really matter, and their own futures are better for having known her.

And the prosperous attractive caring well-run town of Perugia, now relatively drug-free, has some of that to revere her for.

Posted on 12/28/16 at 04:04 AM by The TJMK Main PostersClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (7)

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

What Is The Legal Situation As Of Todays Hearing Of Rudy Guede, As Set Out By The Courts Themselves?

Posted by KrissyG



[Rudy Guede at Viterbo Prison with one of the legal advisers there who works on his case]

Update: The Florence court has agreed to do an initial review and has requested some documents and will convene again on January 10.  The court could then trigger Criminal Code Article 636 which provides for a quick retrial focusing on that evidence relevant to what Guede’s team think was handled wrong, which rotates around the identity of the other two. There is tough evidence suggesting he was part of the attack so a simple release seems not in the cards. But there is tough evidence also suggesting that RS and AK were those other two, as Florence Judge Nencini in 2014 already showed.

What is Guede’s legal situation as set out by the courts?

Guede has brought the application for a review of his case to the Florence courts.

A closed session excluding the media and the Knox and Sollecito teams is scheduled for today. Guede’s application cites ‘internal inconsistencies’ within the Marasca-Bruno reasoning in respect of Knox and Sollecito.

I plan to sort out the facts from the fiction and to provide a definitive review of what the legal facts concerning Guede are. These will be as specified at his trial and appeal and rubber-stamped by the Supreme Court in Guede’s case, plus how the Supreme Court verdict in the Knox / Sollecito case impacts on then.

I also anticipate what might be the comebacks of the Knox and Sollecito defenses if they are allowed to participate down the road.

One starting point might be the recent crimepod broadcast by ex-FBI agent and ex- District Attorney & prosecutor, Jim Clemente, in tandem with Laura Richards, criminal psychologist and ex-Scotland Yard, wherein they attempt a ‘behavioural analysis’ of the Guede interview on RAI3an Italiana TV channel earlier this year with interviewer Franca Leosini.

My analysis below of their analysis will highlight some of the misconceptions about the case revealed by Clemente and Richards in this broadcast, which can be accessed here.

Sorting the Facts from the Spin

There are many theories about Guede’s role in the Kercher murder case with many assertions becoming common currency, as interested parties, such as Knox and Sollecito compete for the hegemony.  I have referred to original source material to get to the actual facts of the matter.

These consist of Guede’s Prison Diary whilst under extradition proceedings in Koblenz, between 21 Nov 2007 and late November 2007, his Skype conversation 19 Nov 2007 with best friend Giacomo Benedetti, whilst on the run from the police and the detailed Micheli report, Perugia, 28 Oct 2008,the finalised legal findings of fact, and as approved by the Cassazione Supreme Court.

Thus, whether one agrees or disagrees with the court findings or of Guede’s exact role in the crime, these remain the legal position today, and these are the grounds on which Guede is bringing his application for a review to the Florence Supreme Court.

A summary of the main findings of Judge Micheli

• Guede definitively did not wield the murder knife.

• He had no meaningful prior contact with Meredith.

• Therefore he was not invited to the cottage or let in by Meredith, nor had any consensual contact.

• The burglary and rape mise en scene was a second stage of the crime after the murder.

• It thus follows, says Micheli, that Knox let Guede into the murder cottage.

• The crime was sexually motivated, and not one motivated by theft.

• There were multiple assailants – as per DNA and luminol testing and the fact of a return to the scene to rearrange it.

• Guede did not steal the rent money or the phones.

• He was guilty of aggravated murder because of his complicity in the attack and failure to stop it as soon as knives were produced.

• Complicity: “Above all if the certain facts include the consequent outline of that supposed ‘unknown’ (the presence of the three at the scene of the crime) they are abundant, and all abundantly proven”. - Micheli

How the ‘True Crime’ Masters of Spin Clemente and Richards Act as PR-Agents for Knox and Sollecito

1. Is Clemente’s and Richards’ claim – one of Guede being the ‘lone killer’  grounded in any substance?

2. The timeline of the events from Guede’s point of view

3. Could Guede have been the sole killer?

4. How do Knox and Sollecito fit in with Guede?

5. The actual legal position with Guede, as laid down at Guede’s trial.

6. How this differs from the Fifth Chambers (Knox & Sollecito) Supreme Court’s controversial ruling in March 2015, acquitting the pair on the grounds of Article 530 Para II, ‘Not guilty: due to insufficient evidence’.


These are the claims of Clemente and Richards,which reflect the views of pro-innocence campaigners of Knox & Sollecito, critiquing Franca Leosini’s tv interview.

During their broadcast several ‘behavioral’ observations are made:

1. ‘The foundation as to why he is in her room and cottage, DNA inside as well as outside – he is finding a plausible excuse for being there.’

Comment:  Guede did not claim to have made sexual advances in Meredith’s room.

2. ‘Meredith had locked door from the inside – helped self to drink – Meredith went to bedroom – claimed she was mad at Knox for stealing money and being dirty.’ 

3. ‘He said he ‘wouldn’t go with her unless she had a condom.  Not appropriate time to get going so got dressed.  As if.!  Leosini cracks, ‘You missed the best part of the evening – ‘No Sex Please We’re British’ – inappropriate – she is flirting with him (Leosini).  She purports to get tough with him, but he dances around the question.’

4. ‘Got dressed, had bad stomach, had to go to bathroom, kernel of truth – poop in toilet.  Before Meredith came in. Trapped in there – he if flushed the toilet, she’d know he was there. She tells him to use that bathroom, in kitchen, then went to bedroom. 

Comment:  Guede used the large bathroom which was by the front door.  If he was in there when Meredith unexpectedly returned, it was easy to run away unrecognised.


5. Heard doorbell ring, Meredith opens door, engages in conversation - 101% it is Amanda.  Fallacy – Amanda lives there, why would she ring doorbell?  ‘Meredith had locked inside door.’  There is no reason for Amanda to ring doorbell.

Comment:  The courts agree.  The courts uphold that it was Knox who let Guede in.

6. Becomes very detailed and specific. He saying look, I’m very clean.  Poor boy ‘found myself in Germany’.  101% - extending.

7. Why would Amanda ring, Rudy’s explanation.  Identifies someone by voice – despite listening to very loud music.  Hears girls arguing, puts on ear phones to block out- 2.5 songs – 10 minutes.  Inconsistency.  It’s a lie. The attack on MK took about 10”.  Kernel of truth in the lie. 

Comment:  Guede says he put on headphones after hearing initial greetings.  However, Micheli agrees that how come Guede only hears the last scream, from 4-5 metres away, when a nearby resident, witness Mrs Capezelli, heard a series from 70 metres away.

8. It was Meredith coming home, not Amanda, we ‘know as a fact’ it didn’t happen.  His sleeve had the victim’s DNA. He carried a knife consistent with bloody impression on bed. 

Comment:  There is no evidence Guede carried a knife.  At the Milan nursery trespass 27 Oct 2007, Guede was found with a knife which belonged to the nursery so had not carried it with him.

9. Scream louder than his music, runs to Meredith’s room, lights off.  So concerned about his image in terms of cleanliness.  He leaves a dying girl alone.  ‘Lights were suddenly not on’ coming out of the bathroom into the hall, but were on in her room.

10. Can only describe the jacket – guy facing Meredith.  Guy turns starts flashing with his scalpel.  Happened so fast, did didn’t know what was in his hand.  He says, ‘I said’, not what happened.  Recount what happened, not ‘when I testified I said this’ – leakage – skips ahead.  ‘This is the story I am sticking to’.  It shows he is trying to keep to the story he testified. 

11. “He turned around and came to me I didn’t see his face”.  Quotes self.  Not in the moment any more.  Wildly gesticulating hands – struggling for words.  Cognitive load, wants to get it right.  Story trying to remember.  How do you remember insignia but not face? (The brand logo on the man’s jacket.)

Comment:  The light was described as an abat-jour so it’s possible it was on an auto-timer.  Guede explains he was busy concentrating on the blade in the man’s hand.  The man’s face would have been back lit.  Good point about Guede reverting back to testimony.

12. German police found he had a cut on his hand.- ‘you were focused on his hand’ – ‘I said I thought it was a scalpel.  It could have been a knife 12” long 7” blade.  So he says, ‘I thought’ but didn’t know.  Mignini argued, ‘There are two knives’.  Rudy and Mignini are ‘perverted accomplished liars’  (Clemente’s view).  ‘Pissed off with Mignini for perverting justice.  Collusion’.  Man fleeing.  RG backed out of way.

Comment: The fact of at least two knives was decided by the courts after expert witness testimony and not up to the prosecutor.

13. Says he saw Amanda walking away outside.  Statement made to Mignini – You must have seen her, you must have seen her! -  I saw her silhouette a long way into the night. -  Voice over music in earphone from bathroom.  Mignini pushing his agenda to ID Amanda.  ‘Man is like – had beret with red band, jacket’ ; called out to other person, let’s run before they catch us; black man found’ odd thing to say .  ‘Great! We just killed Kercher, we’ve got a black man here we can blame!’

Comment:  the courts agree this is Guede being self-serving.  The fact he doesn’t mention the silhouette until later, could be preclusion, from reading the press.

14. Hero, he finds Meredith bleeding – runs out of bedroom to grab towel x 2.  Grabs third towel, that didn’t work, so left. Said she was alive. Was able to run into Romanelli’s room – sees Amanda run away with this young man.  Made silhouette ID in time period there is a dying woman on the floor.  More important than helping Meredith is to go to Filomena’s room to ID these people. 

Comment:  No DNA on towels due to environmental degradation, but someone did apply them. 

15. Why, If he is already 101% certain it was Amanda?  No reason except to please the prosecutor.  All of a sudden, people saw the three together.  Pressuring others.  Mignini ends up giving Rudy a fast track trial.  – he wouldn’t have to testify on any subsequent trial.  Takes first amendment against self-incrimination, should have to testify in Amanda and Raffaele’s case – he was not used.

Comment:  Mignini as a prosecutor (district attorney) has no authority to provide legal advice.  Guede would have been advised by his counsel to take the fast track as it offers the incentive of a ‘one-third off’ discount from the sentence.  He pleaded, ‘Not Guilty’ therefore, he had the right to decline from giving any further self-incriminating testimony, as exercised by Sollecito himself in his trial.  There are mechanisms.  A party can appeal for other documents or transcripts in evidence instead (as Mignini did at one stage) and it is up to the presiding judge whether to accept the application or dismiss it.  It is the Judge’s or the defendant’s decision, not the prosecutor’s.

16. Why does he want the fast track? – wait.  He has to say he stayed in bathroom for that long.  This other person did it, when he left, Rudy was trying to stop the bleeding.  Meredith was saying af – writing on the wall ‘in her blood’ – there’s a desk right there.  Why didn’t he alert for help?  Has to construct a narrative to make sense.  How does this person get in when door was locked?  What we hear in his narrative is how he is overwhelmed.  He is the victim, everyone feels sympathy for him.

Comment:  In his original claims he says he was in the bathroom between six and ten minutes.  Later Guede changes this to ‘lightning fast’, although he may have meant the supposed fight between him and the mystery man.

17. He hears scream.  The broadcast host, Laura Richards says she once saw someone run into a room and stab someone.  Stabbing had very little blood.  Saw stab put pressure on it.  Quick in and out – what prisoners do.  Will never forget the guy’s face.  Guy turned ran out, Guede could not remember the guy’s face.  Would he forget?  In the only lit room.  Light is on this guy, why can’t he ID his face? – clearly lying.  Fear.  Afraid he’d be blamed.  What does he do, he goes out drinking with his friends – he is establishing an alibi.  He ran out of country ‘because he was afraid’ – alibiing himself.

Comment:  The issue of the blood spray after the stabbing is an important forensic point, which is dealt with further on.

18. Clever narrative because of kernel of truth.  Always wants to be seen as victim.  ‘Why didn’t you call for help?’ a six-year old would ask – he starts to talk over her – the real him.  ‘The investigators didn’t believe your point’.  Sad fact is, that black people do get blamed for crime – he is lumping himself in with them.  OJ?  Exactly same situation – charismatic, wants people to think he’s a victim.  How he left Meredith.  Details of crime scene.

19. When he left Meredith she was fully dressed.  In his story, Amanda had argument with Meredith killed her, then ran away everything was in order except one drawer pulled out.  Filomena’s room undisturbed.

Comment:  Guede describes Meredith as wearing a white top.  Robyn Butterworth (friend) testified Meredith was wearing a sky-blue zip up top with sporty arm stripes, with a beige top underneath, and perhaps a second, patterned one.

20. If he saw her, she must have seen him.  Raffaele must have told Amanda man there.  Why would Amanda then come back?  Feel bad for anyone who believes this crap.  ‘Judge didn’t believe your version of events’.  Why did someone come back and alter the crime scene?’  He left Meredith fully clothed, with full details of clothes she was wearing but can’t remember the guy’s face. 

21. Franca Leosini says left foot and face showing.  Crime scene staged , as a legal fact.  Glass and rock on top of clothes, rock thrown from inside. Glass and rock on top.  Rudy gets specific about Knox and Sollecito; not in dispute they were there.  Judge said Rudy wasn’t the one who had the knife and dealt the blow, not in dispute.  It is now in dispute, they were declared ‘innocent of the crime’.

Comment:  False: there is zero mention Knox and Sollecito were ‘declared innocent’.

22. Rudy did it in concert with two people – it is a legal point of law and cannot be appealed – certified fact.  Once evaluated it was 100% fraudulent, not a mistake.  People would be fired if they did not say what Mignini wanted them to say.  If they disagreed, they weren’t called to testify. (Clemente’s views.)

Comment:  Mignini - and later Comodi - only get to choose the prosecution witnesses, the defence get to call whomsoever they wish..

23. Leosini: You fled to Germany.  Guede:  I had no idea how I got there, it could have been Russia.  Conversely, they (Knox/Sollecito) did not run.  Rudy trusts the system.  Skyped with his friend Giacomo for four hours.  Threw away clothing. Choosing not to give an account.

24. Specifically says, ‘Amanda was not there’.  Why bring it up at this point?  Friend says Amanda was arrested.  Friend brought her up.  Police direct the conversation.  Says clearly, ‘She was not there’.  Rudy gets it from Mignini.  Mignini gets Rudy to ID Knox – silhouette, knife.  Patrick Lumumba has a proven alibi, so they needed another black man there, which is why Amanda volunteered his name.

Comment:  Knox was hardly arrested ‘for no reason’.

25. Accomplished liar.  Part 9, Leosini talks through the forensics consensual foreplay.  Palm print, DNA on toilet paper . Interesting leakage about Patrick being there – he gets vociferous there, true self.  Why fast track trial?  He says because of his ‘non-involvement’.  More than one person.  Sentence reduced from 30 to 16 on assumption he did not hold the knife. ‘He went along with others’; someone else’s initiative. 

26. Jan 2016.  People are still sticking to their beliefs Sollecito and Knox are still guilty.  Reformed character, artsy, intellectual.  Served sentence because, “I didn’t call for help”.  Lawyers have been very strategic – stylised interview – deliberate choice.  FB and twitter set up.

27. All evidence points to him being only killer and guilty of murder and sexual assault.  He’s charismatic, intelligent, detail-oriented no sign of remorse.  Psychopath; gifted at selling himself. Takes a trained eye to see the holes in his story. Let Meredith die; fled country only after he went drinking with his friends.  Abominable.  Foster father says he is ‘an accomplished liar’.  Multiple perpetrators.

28. Retrial 20 Dec will be interesting.  Already eligible for parole.  2018.  By the time the motivation comes out.  Opens everything up for Kercher family.  This interview may have been the grounds on which the interview is granted.  Engaging charismatic young man – interview strategy to get him out.  “Amanda got away with murder.”  It was because of Mignini.  He used Rudy to get Amanda.  Should be prosecuted.  Recommendation: Amanda wrongfully convicted and then exonerated. JC and LR.

Comment: Mignini was nothing to do with the ultimate conviction.  That was solely for the courts to decide.

Timeline of events from Guede’s Perspective

Born in the Ivory Coast 26 Dec 1987 six months older than Knox and three years younger than Sollecito.  Came to Italy with his father Roger, aged five, rejected by his mother.  Lived with a series of foster families, including a wealthy local family, whom he left as soon as he reached age of majority.  Stayed with an aunt in Lecca.  Took up various short-term jobs, had periods of unemployment, tended to ‘disappear’.

His childhood friend Mancini, the son of Guede’s teacher, Mrs Tiberi tried to keep tabs on him.  His last job he was fired from for sickness without a note, took up bedsit in Perugia in early September 2007 nearby Sollecito and the cottage.  Socialised with the Spanish contingent in his house.  Mrs Tiberi described Guede as always polite and well-behaved.  His childhood friends, Mancini and Benedetti, say they never saw him take drugs or get drunk, although latterly they had not seen him much.  His more short-term acquaintances mentioned witnessing him drunk at various times.

A witness claimed he had said he wanted to go to Milan for a few days ‘to dance’.  In Milan 27 Oct 2007, just a few days before the murder, he was caught trespassing at a nursery, but was not charged at the time.  He was found in possession of a stolen laptop, a knife found at the nursery, a ladies watch and a small glass-breaking hammer.  His mobile phone was confiscated, thus claimed to have no phone as of the time of the murder.  He was charged post-murder conviction for the laptop possession.

Around the time of a friend’s birthday (Owen), ‘12th or 14th October 2007’ he’d been out celebrating with friends, met up with some basketball playing pals outside, which included the boys in the downstairs apartment of the cottage, Knox approached, whom he had seen before at Patrick’s bar, Le Chic, to say ‘Hi, I’m Amanda from Seattle’, the boys made off towards home, together with Guede.  Knox went into her apartment on the upper level whilst the boys went downstairs and lit up a joint.  Knox came down to join them, and then Meredith later.  This was the first time she met Guede.  Guede relates Meredith had just one toke on the joint and then said she was off to bed, Knox followed shortly after.

The next time Guede saw Meredith was at a pub called ‘The Shamrock’ where the World Cup Rugby Final between England and South Africa was being played.  This took place 20 Oct 2007.  Witnesses confirm that both Meredith and Guede were present, within groups of friends.  Guede claims to have struck up a banter with Meredith, but there are no witnesses to this and Meredith never mentioned it to her friends if it happened.  On Sunday, Guede went by the cottage to watch the Formula One final after seventeen events.  This took place 21 Oct 2007.  If Guede had struck up a friendship with Meredith, he made no attempt to pop his head around the door to say hello.  Laura Mezzetti, one of the roommates upstairs did witness Guede there, when she came down to ‘buy a smoke for €5’.

Guede then claims to have asked Meredith for a date on the night of Halloween on 31 October 2007 at the Domus nightclub, again there were no witnesses to this and Meredith never mentioned it to anyone.  Both were at the packed night spot. He gives this as the reason he approached the cottage the next evening, 1st Nov 2007, claiming Meredith let him in.  He had a drink from the fridge whilst Meredith went to her room.  He claims he heard her cursing Amanda, as her money was missing; she showed him her drawer where she had kept it; he calmed her down; they searched the cottage together and, after chatting about their families; they began canoodling.  They had no condoms so it went no further. 

As Meredith had not been home when he first arrived circa 20:20 pm, he had gone to see his friend Alex and then went to buy a kebab whilst he waited.  Because of the effects of the kebab, Guede claimed that whilst at the cottage, he had to rush to the bathroom and whilst there, the doorbell rang, Meredith who had been on her way to her room, answered the door and Guede heard Amanda’s voice with Meredith saying, ‘We need to talk’ and Amanda reply, ‘What’s happened?  What is the problem?’

Guede put on his earphones to listen to loud music for ten minutes when he heard a loud scream, ran out, the light was now off, ‘to my astonishment’, saw the figure of a man standing on the threshold of Meredith’s room, who suddenly turned with a knife in his hand.  Guede backed off and grabbed a chair in self-defence, the man said, ‘Black man found, black man guilty’ and then ‘Let’s go!’ and ran off.  Guede administerd three towels to the dying girl before himself running off, because he heard a noise from downstairs that frightened him, he claimed.

He ran home via Plaza Grimana direction, changed and washed his jogging pants, then went out nightclubbing.

3 Nov 2007 he went to Milan via Modena and Bologna and after midnight he jumped on a random train, to avoid police seen at the station, an ended up in Duesseldorf in Germany.  Between then and 19th he stayed in barges and places along the Rhine.  Sixteen days to reflect.  Mancini his childhood friend had contacted him 12/13th November via the internet, unaware he was wanted, accusing him of ‘always running away’ and Guede replied, ‘You know why’, without elaborating.  His other old friend, Benedetti helping police, set up a Skype conversation with Guede, 19 Nov 2007,and persuaded him to return.  In the meantime German police caught him on a train without a ticket and on an Interpol warrant, held him in custody in Koblenz until 1 December 2007, whilst processing an extradition order. 

Guede was brought back to Italy and subsequently interviewed by prosecutor Mignini 26 March 2008 and charged with the murder, in complicity with Knox and Sollecito.  Guede opted for a separate, ‘fast-track’ trial, which was closed, although we can discern what took place from the presiding Judge’s reasoning (Micheli) for the ‘guilty of aggravated murder’ verdict and the dismissal of the theft charge of the phones and credit cards. 

Could Guede have been the Sole Killer?

The Missing Money:  Who first mentioned it?  It was Guede, and he brags about this fact of being first in his Prison Diary written in Koblenz up to 19 Nov 2007.

Who First Mentioned Knox and Sollecito at the scene?  Whilst Guede does refer to a mystery man holding a knife in the doorway of Meredith’s room in his presence, he does not actually name either Knox or Sollecito until his recorded interview with Mignini, March 2008.  We know he read the papers whilst on the run for he mentions to Benedetti in the Skype conversation he saw that Knox is accused of using the washing machine to clean Meredith’s clothes. 

An alternate explanation is that he was applying ‘Prisoners Dilemma’, a situation when there are several perpetrators and each is dependent on the other/s to not ‘grass’ them up. Therefore, it is theorised, the best strategy is to say nothing.  Knox did not name him, he did not name Knox.  Guede himself confirms he did not know Sollecito at all to name him.

Who First Mentioned Sollecito and Knox together at the scene with Guede, and when?  A witness, Kokomani did come forward to say he had seen the three together outside the cottage prior to the murder, and police have corroborated he was in the region because of pings from his phone and his account of seeing a dark car, also seen by a separate car mechanic witness.  However, his testimony was dismissed by Micheli as ‘ravings’.  It appears that what holds the three together is circumstantial evidence as constructed by the forensic police (DNA, luminol, bathmat footprint), the inactivity of Knox & Sollecito’s phones in advance of the crime and for the rest of the night, their false alibis and inability to ‘remember’ what they did that evening, together with the apparent staged scene of the burglary, clean up and repositioned body.

The case against Rudy Guede When comparing Guede’s original account with his later recorded interview, it is safe to note that much of what he says is:

• To try to establish justification for being at the cottage at all.  To do this, he claims to have made a date with Meredith the night before.  However, when he made a date with a Latvian girl in a similar circumstance, they wanted to swap telephone numbers, with Guede having to memorise hers as he did not have a phone at the time.  He does not say this for Meredith.

• To try to justify his DNA being on Meredith’s body, he precludes this by claiming the contact was consensual.  In his conversation with Benedetti he expresses he knows none of his sperm will be found.  In his Prison Diary he makes no mention at all of Meredith talking about her mother being ill.  Micheli points out that his later claim that Meredith spoke about her mother’s specific condition was already widely reported in the papers since 4 November 2007, by Meredith’s aunt. 

He claims in his testimony the Formula 1 final race (21 Oct 2007) was BEFORE the Rugby World Cup (20 Oct 2007) – and Micheli does not pick up on this – to evade the fact he didn’t say hello to Meredith when he visited the cottage to watch the F1 race downstairs.  In his Prison Diary he claims Meredith told him she had ‘someone special’ back home, implying she was free in Italy.  However, we know Meredith was in an exciting new relationship with Silenzi, from downstairs, so would not have made herself easily available.  None of the British girls corroborated Guede’s claim to have made friends with Meredith.

• Guede in both his original Prison Diary account and in the Leosini tv interview in Jan 2016, expresses disapproval of Meredith cursing out Knox over the missing rent money.  In the interview he becomes quite agitated.  Thus, Guede takes Knox’ side in this dispute and is not a friend of Meredith’s.

• To try to justify running away without calling for help for Meredith, despite his claim it was ‘another man’ who did the killing, Guede says he was worried he would be blamed because he was Black and because the man said so, before running off.  He claims he was frightened off by ‘a noise downstairs’.

• Most incriminating of all is the description of the blood.  Micheli found as a fact that Meredith was stabbed in the neck and then immediately fell backwards into a supine position because (a) of a bruise on the back of her neck indicating a violent jolt, (b) because there is no spray of blood on the desk where one would expect it to be and (c) it was a logical position by which to carry out the sexual assault by Guede.  Her left hand was restrained.  Dr Arpile an expert witness said this was a characteristic of a sexual attack.

• In his Prison Diary in Koblenz he recalls the stabbing of Meredith was being like the time he was whacked over the head with a stick by his father and blood spurted out of his head ‘like a fountain’.  This suggests he may have witnessed the ‘fountain of blood’ spurting from Meredith?

In his Prison Diary Guede makes much of the sheer volume of blood.  He sees blood everywhere, and sees nothing but ‘red’ when he closes his eyes to sleep.  Massei in the later trial of Knox and Sollecito, does not agree with Micheli that she was stabbed whilst standing and then falling onto her back, and rules that Meredith was killed whilst forced into a kneeling position.  Where then, did the spray of blood go, when the knife was pulled out, if there is none to be seen on the furnishings and upholstery?  Garofano in Darkness Descending offers his expert forensic opinion that the blood surge would have gone all over the person who withdrew the knife.

Guede by his own account relates that his pants were ‘soaking wet’ and he’d had to cover them up with his sweatshirt as he ran home fleeing the scene.

• Guede states that on his way out, none of the windows were broken and Meredith was full dressed.  The broken window and condition of the body were all widely reported so it could be argued that Guede states everything was intact when he left as a self-serving narrative to preclude himself as the culprit.

Micheli’s Finding Of Fact

Micheli ruled that Guede’s claim to have struck up a first date with Meredith was proven false and therefore it was not Meredith who let him into the cottage.  As Meredith was in a new relationship and no-one could corroborate any date with Guede, she did not consent to any sexual activity with him.  In addition, Knox would not need to ring the doorbell as she had a key and in any case, had Meredith locked the door from the inside, she would have in effect locked Guede in for the night, not to mention locking out Knox.  Therefore, as the burglary was staged – clothes rummaged first and then window broken, bits of paper from the burglary on top of the duvet on top of the body – then it must have been Knox who let him in.

Micheli directs that it is a legal fact that Guede did not wield the knife based on submissions by the prosecutor and that the crime was in complicity with the others.  This was due to the fact that even if Guede only intended a sexual assault, he became culpable of murder ‘as soon as the knives were produced’. 

Micheli legally acquitted Guede of the theft of the phones as he ruled that they were taken ‘to cause their sudden removal’ and not for lucrative gain.  He ruled that the autocall to Meredith’s bank Abbey National logged at circa 22:11 was due to the phone falling from her person to the floor due to her wanting urgent contact with her sick mother, and indeed, there does appear to be an outline in blood in the shape of a phone.

Micheli ruled that Guede did not go through Meredith’s bag as his DNA (which was scant at the scene) was midway on the clasp at the top of the bag, indicating Guede had gripped it to lift and move it, as there is no DNA or blood stains inside it.  In addition, there were multiple differing footprints of sundry persons at the murder scene, as highlighted by luminol, a forensic instrument to make visible invisible blood which had been cleaned up.

• Complicity:  “Above all if the certain facts include the consequent outline of that supposed ‘unknown’ (the presence of the three at the scene of the crime) they are abundant, and all abundantly proven”. – Micheli

The March 2015 Fifth Chambers Ruling acquitting Knox and Sollecito

This merely stated that the pair were acquitted because of ‘insufficient evidence’, not because they were ‘innocent’.  Knox was placed at the scene of the crime and Sollecito probably so. The attackers were estimated most probably at three. All attempts to prove they were other than Knox and Soillecito fell far short.

It specifies that Knox did wash off the victim’s blood from her hands and did cover up for Guede.  It stated that the pair told ‘umpteen lies’ and that their behaviour remains ‘highly suspicious’.

So does Guede have a case, based on the final definitive facts, as set out, above?

We shall see.

*** UPDATE*** It has been decided that there will be a decision on whether to revise Guede’s verdict on 10 January 2017

Source:  The Murder of Meredith Kercher wiki:  http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Primary_Sources

Posted on 12/20/16 at 03:23 AM by KrissyGClick here for my past posts, via link at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (24)

Page 1 of 41 pages  1 2 3 >  Last »