Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Why Knox’s Damning Last Live TV Interview Was Attacked And Labeled “Controversial”

Posted by Chimera


1. Overview Of This Post

This is the complete 22 minute video of the interview Knox did with Chris Cuomo on 7 May 2014.

Chris Cuomo asked some excellent questions. CNN itself quickly put online a video of some clips lasting 2 1/2 minutes. On 22 May Vivianna posted an analysis: “The Cuomo Interview: Why This May Be The Last Time Knox Tries To Argue Innocence On TV.”

In her post Vivianna clarified the 2 types of innocence (factual v.s. legal), and found it bizarre that Knox focused exclusively on the ‘legal’ argument.  It was a wonderful piece, very sound scientifically, and very compelling.

The full interview (see above and this transcript) makes more understandable why Cuomo was angrily attacked online for asking “unfair questions” on subjects normally made off-limits by the PR. It really rattled some cages.

I will show here below why, and also how it could have rattled even more cages, by highlighting the insights that leaked out barely noticed, and the opportunities for many tougher questions.

2. Analysis Of The Full Interview

In the 2 1/2 minute clip Cuomo looked like a bit of a wimp. But in the full interview, he is actually pretty aggressive in pushing back against Knox’s attempts at convincing answers. 

While I am still a bit disappointed that Cuomoe seems to back off from the really tough questions (see below) and like Diane Sawyer seems to be lacking in many of the hard facts (see below) this is definitely a more revealing picture than the short video.

At no time, does Amanda ever say, ‘‘I DIDN’T KILL MEREDITH’‘.  And for someone giving a truthful answer, she has to pause and think far too often.

Below are excerpts from the CNN with my own commentary:

Chris Cuomo starts with a brief narrative about the case, and says the police immediately zeroed in on Knox. He cotinues:
 
1) Not because of witnesses or forensics….

2) She wasn’t distraught enough….

3) She kissed her then boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito outside the crime scene….

4) She did yoga in the police station….

5) Soon the media would come up with a persona… Foxy Knoxy

6) It was the stuff of tabloid headlines

7) It was also, as many would argue, the prosecution’s entire case

8) Despite this, Knox and Sollecito were convicted in 2009

9) It was another 2 years before another court cited lack of objective evidence

10) Last year, [2013] a new trial was ordered.

11) The appeals court convicted Knox again, but based on a new motive

12) There were multiple assailants, and 2 knives and Knox delivered the fatal blow

13) All of this is based on the only person [Guede] whose DNA is all over the crime scene

14) Due to a quirk in the Italian legal system, Guede is due to be released this year, after less than 6 years in jail

An okay attempt, but something of a shortfall. Here is my corrected version of Chris Cuomo’s narrative.

    1a) Well, perhaps they zeroed in on her after she wrote statements placing herself at the scene

    2a) She wasn’t distraught? Well, her friend f***ing bled to death, but shit happens, let’s get on with life

    3a) She did a lot more than just kiss

    4a) She only did the splits, not the cartwheel, remember?

    5a) The name Foxy Knoxy was her childhood soccer name, which she kept for other reasons.

    6a) Yes, thanks dad, I needed the publicity

    7a) Actually, the prosecution spent time arguing a pattern of lying, no alibi, partial confession, forensic evidence ....

    8a) No, they were convicted in 2009, because of the exact opposite of what you argued.

    9a) While this is actually true, Chris neglects to explain why this first appeal was annulled.

    10a) It was not a new trial, but a redo of the appeal against the 2009 Massei conviction.

    11a) Nencini did not reconvict, he ‘‘confirmed’’ Massei, and motive had little to do with it.

    12a) Chris sees to be implying, as this came after ‘‘changed motive’’ that these facts changed as well. However, Massei believed as well there were multiple attackers, 2 knives, and Knox killed Meredith.

    13a) Judges and prosecutors believed next to nothing of what Guede said. Only Guede’s DNA? Amanda’s and Meredith’s DNA was mixed in several places. Raffaele’s DNA is on Meredith’s bra clasp

    14a) The ‘‘quirk’’ is the short form trial, which got Guede a reduced sentence. And while ‘‘eligible’’ for day release, it is not the same as ‘‘due for release’‘. November 2007 to late 2014 is 7 years, Chris, not 6.

(2:45) Cuomo: What surprised you in the reasons?

(2:55) Knox: I think what surprised me the most is how the court has attempted to account for exonerating evidence. That is really surprising to me. It’s not surprising that they place so much emphasis on circumstantial evidence, as opposed to objective forensic evidence.  And I’m really disappointed about that, because the circumstantial clues have all been equivical, have been unreliable, whereas forensic evidence that proves what happened that night in the room is there.  (odd smile) It is available to be understood.  And that continues to be an incredibly difficult obstacle that I’m having to confront, in proving my innocence.

Is the court allowed to consider circumstantial evidence like phone records, lying, and no alibi?  No, they are circumstantial.

What about bloody footprints and mixed blood? They are objective.  No they may be in the house, but they are not in the murder room.

What about your shoeprint and Raffaele’s DNA in the murder room?  No, it is contaminated.

But isn’t Rudy Guede’s handprints, shoeprints and DNA in the murder room?  Yes, and it proves my innocence.

I actually think Amanda Knox would make a great lawyer (for all the wrong reasons).

(3:50) Cuomo: Why do you think this judge goes further than any other, that only that you had it because of DNA around the hilt, but that he thinks that you are the one who actually killed Meredith Kercher?

(4:08) Knox: (smiles) I believe, I mean, I can’t speculate what this judge’s motivations are, personal motivations or otherwise.  But what I can say is that, as this case has progressed, the evidence the prosecution has claimed exists against me has been proven less and less and less.  And all that has happened is that they fill these holes with speculation.

Yes Judge Nencini holds some personal grudge….  Granted you have never actually met, but maybe he was just miffed you sent an email and hit the talk show circuit rather than attend your own appeal.

Or maybe there is some hard truth in that 350 page report he wrote up.

(4:47) Knox: I did not kill my friend.  I did not wield a knife. (for emphasis), I had no reason to.  In the month that we were living together we were becoming friends.  A week before the murder we went to a classical music concert together.  Like we had never fought.  And the idea .... I mean, he’s brought up lots of things, crazy motives,

So it takes her a minute to deny killing ‘her friend’, who may or may not be Meredith. And she didn’t kill ‘her friend’ as she says she and Meredith were ‘becoming friends’  Um…. would you kill ‘your friend’ if you had ‘a reason to’?

(5:15) Cuomo: He [Nencini] doesn’t agree with anything you’re saying with regard to the relationship.  (Amanda nods).  This judge believes that this fight was about money, and that you stole money from your roommate, and that this is what started this violent night.  Is there truth to that?

You aren’t sure if you stole money from Meredith?

(5:30) Knox: (pausing to think) Absolutely not.  He is getting this from Rudy Guede, who is coming up with these sorts of things for self interest.  And the truth of the matter is:... one, I had no criminal record, so I am not the type of person who is going to violently kill someone… (pauses) ... for any reason.  And furthermore, I had saved up to go to Italy, and was not in need of stealing any money, unlike Rudy Guede, who was a known thief, who is a known burglar, who did this on a regular basis to survive.  And why they would think I (points to herself) was a thief, when in Meredith’s own purse, there was Rudy Guede’s fingerprints…. it’s based on nothing.

Amanda has to think to herself before denying it.  And she says that she is not the type to violently kill (is there another type?) but doesn’t say she didn’t do it.

And you don’t have to be a career criminal to commit murder. Many killers are first timers.

(6:18) Cuomo: To step through what he [Nencini] sees as the fact pattern for that night, and literally, it reads like a yes/no list.

(6:30) Cuomo: Were you and your boyfriend hanging outside the piazza that night?
      Knox: No
      Cuomo: Did you let Rudy Guede into your apartment?
      Knox: No
      Cuomo: Were you with Rudy Guede in your apartment that night?
      Knox: No
      Cuomo: Was there a fight over money with Meredith Kercher, witnessed by Rudy Guede?
      Knox: No
     
(7:00) Cuomo: The judge believes the only way he could have gotten in is with keys.  He throws out the possibility that there was a break in through the window, that was found in the home you shared.  Why do you think he dismisses that possibility as orchestrated?

Chris, you could of course just read the report…

(7:10) Knox: I mean again, why he [Nencini] thinks it?  What I can say is that Rudy Guede is a known burglar (pauses) who broke into houses and offices through second story windows, having thrown a rock, carrying a knife, and that these all resembled everything that happened in our apartment.  So, why this judge thinks it’s impossible just doesn’t make sense to me.

Except the sexually assaulted and murdered woman ....  For my curiousity, where were all these other supposed burglaries?

The judge may think the theory possible, if not for all the evidence that contradicts it.

(7:38) Cuomo: Your roommate said you had a strained relationship.  Now that’s a bad fact as we call it in the law.  Why would your roommates lie about the relationship between you and Meredith?

(7:49) Knox: They said that we weren’t hanging out as much at the time when the murder occurred.  But that was only because I had gotten a job. Meredith’s British friends suggested that maybe Meredith was a little uncomfortable about certain issues about hygiene, but (looks angry), these were not issues that were ever going to lead to any kind of violence.  They never ... led to any aggressive communication between us. That never happened.

Sexually assaulting and stabbing is ‘‘aggressive communication’’ now? Wow, interesting use of the English language.  And yes you got a job,at Patrick’s bar. But wasn’t it about to go to Meredith?

(8:22) Cuomo: The judge believes that there were 3 people who did this.  The said the blood is suggestive of it, that Rudy Guede had free hands.  And it he had free hands, he must not have been alone. That the DNA evidence from Raffaele Sollecito is there on the clasp, and that shows that he was trying to take off her clothes or manipulate her somehow. (Knox nods)  And that there had to be a third person.  And the DNA of footprints that he believes are yours and your boyfriend’s prove that there were three of you in the room that night. Why is he wrong?

For someone who maintains the ‘‘no evidence’’ line, Knox is nodding through much of this.

(8:53) Knox: Well, um, let’s break that down.  We have a bra clasp that independent court experts have claimed is not reliable because it was collected 46 days after the crime scene had been gone through by the CSI’s of Italy.  And after police had tromped through it and basically completely destroyed that scene.  That is not a reliable piece of evidence.  Then we have the idea that Rudy Guede would not have been able to attack Meredith because someone had to hold her down.

Amanda, you didn’t address the footprints… And again C&V were not independent nor reliable….  And you know the CSIs compromised the scene how….

(9:35) Knox: first of all, the weapon that they claimed is the murder weapon, is not the murder weapon.

To ask the obvious question - how does she know more than her lawyers and the police?  You’d almost think she was there.

(9:45) Knox: An athletic male, armed with a knife ... to overpower a young woman, that happens every day, in this world, and I don’t think that is impossible to be what happened to Meredith.

True, it may not be ‘impossible to be what happened’, but she is not insisting that ‘is’ what happened.

(10:00) Cuomo: and your saying to me tonight is that it is impossible that you were in the room that night, you had a knife in your hand, and that you helped Meredith Kercher?

Odd for an investigative role.  He asks if it was impossible, but avoids directly asking if she did it

(10:06) Knox: Absolutely, because my DNA, any trace of me, is not there…. when your talking about traces of me, that they’re attributing to the crime scene, they’re talking about DNA in my own bathroom

Again, Knox goes straight for the ‘‘the evidence is not there’’ argument, rather than directly saying she was not involved in Meredith’s murder.  Also, this may be the first time she has acknowledged the bathroom is part of the crime scene.  Yay….?

(10:30) Knox: ...or my footsteps which tested negative for blood, that had mine and Meredith’s DNA on the floor between our bedrooms and the bathrooms.  Of course our DNA was there, we lived there for a month, it was there.  It tested negative for blood, so it wasn’t blood.  And so it’s irrelevant to the crime.  But we’re talking about the crime that happened in Meredith’s bedroom.

Here Knox is making a strawman argument, saying that the hallway is irrelevant.  Odd, considering that unless ‘‘Spiderman’’ Guede would have to have gone through the hallway unless he jumped out the window.

Also curious that (if my understanding is right), it was the shape of the footprints the the hall, and not necessarily DNA itself which was introduced.

Yes, the crime itself happened in Meredith’s room, but the luminol did reveal footprints in the hallway, and there was mixed blood in the bathroom.  Is Knox just scatterbrained in this interview, of being deliberately deceptive?

(10:43) If Rudy Guede committed this crime, which he did, we know that because his DNA is there, on Meredith’s body, his handprints and footprints in her blood.  None of that exists for me.  And if I were there, I would have had traces of Meredith’s broken body on me, and I would have left traces of myself… around Meredith’s corpse.

Wasn’t Sollecito’s bloody footprint on the bathroom mat a major piece against him?  Was there not Knox’s DNA (mixed with Meredith) in the bathroom and in Filomena’s room? Was a size 37 woman’s shoeprint not found in the room?

Odd, that Knox’s DNA is in her apartment, which she lived in, but not a single fingerprint….  You know Rudy Guede committed the crime strictly because this DNA, handprints and footprints are there… but logically, the same types of evidence don’t count against you and Raffaele? “If Guede killed Meredith”?  You know something we don’t?

(11:15) Knox: And I am not there, and that proves my innocence

Yes, Amanda, but were you really there?

(11;20) Cuomo: Those are the big points this judge makes.  There are others, and there is also another man who judged you before, he wants to weigh in, and we have a statement from him.

(11:38) Cuomo: The appeals court judge who set Amanda free says the appellate court’s ruling against her is more worthy of a Hollywood movie set, than a courtroom.  In a statement obtained exclusively by CNN, retired judge Claudio Hellmann says:

The Florence Appeals Court has written a script for a movie or thriller book while it should have considered only the facts and evidence. There is no evidence to condemn Knox and Sollecito.  It’s a verdict, that seems to me is the result of fantasy and has nothing to do with the evidence.

Judge Hellmann, you were meant to be running a narrow appeal, not attempting a new trial with only the defense presenting. After the way your ruling was trashed by Cassation as perhaps the most incompetent, illegally wide, illogical, and obviously biased that Italy has seen, ever, and considering you were a business judge who caused a disaster on your one other murder case also, you are not really one to give a professional opinion on this. Judge Zanetti neither.

(12:15) Cuomo: Obviously words of comfort to you. What does it mean to hear that from a now retired judge?

Interesting, no complaints are made about Hellmann giving these statements, but Nencini gets a formal complaint for commenting about not severing the appeals?

(12:19) Knox: It gives me a lot of hope.  He did the right thing.  He appointed independent experts, he looked at the forensic evidence, the objective evidence, he didn’t give more weight to equivocal and unreliable circumstantial clues than needed to be.

Hope, but for the wrong reasons.  C&V were not really independent witnesses.  Appellate level judges were not supposed to hire experts. Cassation criticised just this action.

Circumstantial evidence can very reliable, and very powerful.  Didn’t give more weight to ‘unreliable circumstantial clues’? A judge should not give ANY weight to unreliable clues.

(12:46) Cuomo: However, the judge on top of him, Nencini, looked at what he did, dismisses it out of hand, almost as saying that is why he retired, just look at this decision, and he seems to believe, quote: ‘‘No alternative explanation is conceivable…. that is casting a tremendous amount of doubt on the story that you tell about what happened that night.

Chris gets some basic facts wrong. It is Cassation, not Nencini, who is on top.  Nencini is simply another lower level appeal judge. It is not ‘‘almost as saying’’ why Hellmann retired, he WAS forced to retire

(13:10) Knox: This is not a complex case. It’s only complex when you try to find explanations ....

You are right. We should only explore simple solutions.

(13:30) Cuomo: .... that Rudy Guede had to have entered from use of your keys.

(13:34) Knox: That’s not true either.  He had a history of breaking and entering second story windows, with rocks, carrying knives. Like, how is that impossible?  There is a window below which he could have climbed up from.  He was perfectly capable of doing that.

Technically, Knox is right. She could have just left the door unlocked. So Rudy has a type, second story, with rocks and knives?  Interesting…

Wait, didn’t I just hear this identical argument just a few minutes earlier?  Rehearse much, Mandy?

(13:55) Cuomo: ... [Nencini] believes the convicted killer more than you.  What does that mean to you?

(14:02) Knox: (smiles) I don’t know. It’s definitely very disheartening.  Because I don’t know (another smile). I’m sitting here having to prove my innocence.  It is incredibly disheartening when Rudy Guede was found to be unreliable, when he found certainly to be Meredith’s rapist and killer, they would consider his testimony over mine.  There’s no explanation for it, in my mind.

I can explain that.  Judge Nencini (and Massei, and Micheli, and Cassation), think more than 1 person was involved.

(14:45) Cuomo: What does it lead you to believe that [Nencini] thinks about you, this judge, as a person?

(14:52) Knox: As a person, well, he says in his report that when the prosecutor describes me as a person who is capable of not only disturbing not only everyone around me, but getting drugged up and .... (shakes head) ... but I am not that person. And the evidence doesn’t show that.

Um…. didn’t your roommates and Meredith’s friends all testify to that being exactly the kind of person you are?  The testimony of many witnesses is not evidence?

And while you may not be that person now, were you then?

(15:25) Cuomo: Another thing Judge Hellman says: I THINK THAT THE HIGH COURT WILL BE OBLIGED TO CONFIRM THE FLORENCE RULING IF THEY DON’T WANT TO OPENLY CONTRADICT THEIR COLLEAGUES.

This is idiotic, especially if Hellmann wanted to be taken seriously.  The entire point of appeals is so that fresh eyes will review the work of the trial (or lower appellate level) judges, and make sure their findings, facts, logic, and procedures are sound.  It would complete defeat the purpose of appeals if the higher court simply signed off on lower court rulings.

(15:37) Knox: (indignant sigh) He was willing to do it.  So I have to believe there are authorities in Italy who will be sitting on that Supreme Court panel who will look at the facts of this case, and will do the same thing he did.

So, you are going to corrupt Cassation as well? F*** my life.

(16:00) Cuomo Do you believe you are haunted by first impressions? How you behaved in the aftermath, what they saw as antics….

(16:18) Knox: I think I’m haunted more by people’s projections of their ideas onto me than my own impressions on others, because there’s been an absurd focus on the hours, the seconds I spent outside of my house, of police’s testimony about what did or didn’t happen in the police office.  I think it’s true that people seem to have had a kind of tunnel vision….  and that is something I’ve been having to fight against for a long time.

Considering her email to judge Nencini, I am not convinced she knows what projecting really is.

(17:08) Cuomo: Legally, there is only one more step [Cassation].  What do you plan to do to have this come out in your favour?

I have an idea. Perhaps, attend your appeal this time.

However, the answer was cut off by a commercial. Afterwards, it cuts to a clip of the interview of Knox and Cuomo from May 2013.  It shows a few clips of Amanda pretending to cry, and repeating how she is afraid.

(18:02) Cuomo: Then you had the anticipation of what the ruling would be.  Which was worse: the anticipation of it, or now knowing what the ruling is?

(18:15) Knox: I think it’s now knowing where it stands with the judges, because I had truly believed that this court was going to find me innocent.  No new evidence had been presented. I did not expect this, (grimaces) and I’m incredibly hurt and disappointed to read what they’re saying is true but so clearly not.  And I guess my only hope is that people are going to see all of the flaws that are throughout the entire document that justifies this verdict. This whole theory that I might somehow be involved in some way with Meredith’s murder is wrong.

You truly believed Nencini would find you innocent?  But you skip the appeal and email saying you are afraid?!  The horribly flawed document… were you referring to Hellmann’s by any chance?

You weren’t ‘somehow involved’ in ‘some way’. Judge Nencini ruled that you actually delivered the fatal blow

(19:08) Cuomo: You will appeal
        Knox: Yes
        Cuomo: You will stay here in the United States for the duration of the appeal?
        Knox: Yes
        Cuomo: What happens if the Supreme Court confirms this ruling? The case is closed, and you are guilty.

(19:25) Knox: (angry smile showing) from this whole experience, especially in prison, where you have to take everything day by day, now i’m having to take everything step by step. And if I think about everything that I could possibly be facing, it’s way to overwhelming for me to even conceive.

(19:50) Cuomo: Are you able to be present, or are you trapped in 2007?

(20:00) Knox: (smiles) it’s definitely a limbo (smiles again).  My entire adult life has been weighed down by and overtaken by this tremendous mess, this, this, (shuts her eyes and grins slightly).  On the one hand, I have my life in Seattle.  I get to go to school.  I get to be with my family and friends.  And I’m so grateful to have them.  They really helped me get through this.  And know there are people who believe me.  And on the other hand, there is this huge wait, this huge struggle, and trying to learn each step of the way, what’s so wrong and how I can fix it.  And I guess I’m just one of the luck ones? (confused look).

(21:10) Knox: People have looked into my case. I’m not just a forgotten case.

That is totally true.  Thanks to FOA and Dave Marriott, your case will never be forgotten.

(21:18) Cuomo: If the case is affirmed, and you are found guilty in final fashion, but the United States decides not to extradite, your life goes on, you can live in the United States, but will you ever really be free?

(21:35) Knox: Absolutely not. No, that is not a liveable ... especially since right now me and Raffaele are fighting together for our innocence.  And like I said, I truly believe that it can happen.  It’s only speculation that convicts us.  It’s evidence that acquits us.  And I’m holding firm in that what you’re suggesting might happen doesn’t.

Good luck with that one. You need to not leave so much out if there is a next time.

Posted on 01/27/15 at 06:22 PM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (16)

Thursday, January 22, 2015

The Sollecito Trial For “Honor Bound” #5: Gumbel Really A Cowardly Defamatory Shill?

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



Above: “Neutral ghostwriter” Andrew Gumbel tweets…

1, Today In The Florence Court

Lately many of the chest-thumping PR shills have whined a lot more about themselves as victims than done anything to boost Sollecito and Knox.

Think of Preston, Burleigh, Dempsey, Sforza, Fisher, Moore, and a whole lot of other serial complainers. Now chest-thumper Andrew Gumbel seems to want to join their ranks. That is if the claim that he was ONLY a ghostwriter was made by his lawyer with his consent to the Florence judge.

2. Signs Gumbel Really Is A Shill

Note that Sollecito gave many signs during his US book promotion tour late in 2012 that he really didn’t know much about what was in his own book.

So did Gumbel really only hang on Sollecito’s every word? Or did he talk to a lot more people than that, and get very invested in nasty, dishonest propaganda to deny justice for Meredith via the courts?

Here’s Andrew Gumbel on 1 May 2014, providing the first media opinion in the UK on Judge Nencini’s appeal report. The nasty false claims highlighted suggest Gumbel has a very strong investment in Sollecito and Knox and not a little contempt for the Italian courts.

One truth in Gumbel’s article which he must really regret? That sentence in the thitrd paragraph: “Disclosure: I am the co-author with Sollecito on his memoir about the case.”

The longer the Italian courts consider the Meredith Kercher case – and we have now had three trials, six presiding judges, two hearings before the Italian high court and a third on the way – the more the country’s institutions of justice have covered themselves in shame.

Judge after judge has twisted the available evidence into extraordinary contortions of logic to assert, at different times, that Kercher – a British exchange student stabbed to death in her room in Perugia in 2007 – was the victim of a premeditated attack; that her murder happened spontaneously; that the motive was sexual; that the motive was a dispute over housework with Amanda Knox, the star defendant; that the trigger for the murder was the unseemly appetite Knox and her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, had for sex and drugs; that the trigger for the murder was Rudy Guede, the Ivorian-born drifter everyone agrees was involved, knocking on the door to use the toilet.

By now, Knox and Sollecito have been convicted, acquitted and convicted again, and the underlying forensic evidence has been both exposed as a sham and, mystifyingly, reinstated. (Disclosure: I am the co-author, with Sollecito, on his memoir about the case.)

Still, the latest judicial document in the ongoing battle, a 337-page justification of the most recent convictions made public on Tuesday, marks a new low. Not only has Alessandro Nencini, the presiding judge of the Florence appeals court, apparently resorted to the same tortured logic as his predecessors; he has also stated things as fact that are manifestly and provably wrong.

That may be more than even the Italian justice system can stomach; judges, after all, aren’t supposed to do things like that. And it may provide Knox and Sollecito with unexpected – if still slim – grounds for hope at the very moment when Kercher’s death had seemed settled, at last, according to the law.

To read the new conviction report in detail is to enter a kind of alternate reality, where concrete facts appear ignored and alternate facts are seemingly plucked from the air. Kercher’s murder is reduced to a parlor game and all roads lead to the inevitable, if not also foregone, conclusion that Knox and Sollecito are guilty. For instance:

  • On page 63, Judge Nencini claims that a partial shoeprint found at the murder scene comes from a size 37 women’s shoe and must therefore belong to Amanda Knox. But this is not based on the available evidence. In the early days of the case, the prosecution sought to show that the shoeprint was from Sollecito’s Nikes; the pattern of concentric circles on the sole was later proven to come from a different pair of Nikes belonging to Guede.

  • On page 81, Nencini grapples with the question of how Knox and Sollecito could have participated in the murder but left no more than a single, hotly disputed trace of themselves at the scene. Extraordinarily, Nencini argues that Knox and Sollecito must have wiped the place clean of their DNA (but left an abundance of Guede’s) because no traces of Knox’s DNA were found anywhere in the apartment that she shared with the victim. But multiple samples of Knox’s DNA were found and presented at trial; they just weren’t found in the room where the murder took place.

  • Then, on page 321, Nencini writes that the blade of the purported murder weapon – a large kitchen knife found in Sollecito’s apartment – bore traces of both Kercher’s and Sollecito’s DNA. Again, this is at variance with the evidence. The most the prosecution ever asserted was that Kercher’s DNA was on the tip of the blade. Sollecito’s DNA has never been found.

The defense teams have reacted with consternation: Knox issued a formal statement decrying the lack of “credible evidence or logic” in this latest document, which arrived just ahead of the three-month deadline following her latest conviction; Sollecito’s lead lawyer, Giulia Bongiorno, denounced what she said were “at least ten clamorous mistakes per page”. (A Kercher family lawyer called the document “a version that we have always in some ways sustained”.)

This being Italy, however, the judicial errors are not necessarily a bad thing for Knox and Sollecito, because they give the Italian high court an opening – should the justices choose to take it – to overturn the latest conviction, and either dismiss the case, send it back to get the mistakes fixed, or order yet another trial in another court.

The high court justices will be aware, of course, that the longer the case drags on, the more suspect the process will look in the eyes of world opinion. Another trial would test the patience of even the most ardent believers in Knox and Sollecito’s guilt, and certainly of the Kercher family. But the process is starting to curdle – even without the spectacle of lawyers arguing, yet again, over the same controversies before a barrage of international TV cameras. That leaves the high court, which always has one eye on the integrity of the system, with a genuine dilemma.

Much has been written about Italian justice’s desire to save face in this much written-about case. To admit a miscarriage of justice, the argument runs, has become too difficult, because it would expose the mistakes of too many people, from the primary investigators to the Rome forensic lab to the prosecutors and judges.

However, as the case trudges toward the seven-year mark, one has to wonder how much appetite the institutions of justice still have to stand by what they have done. Will the high court really want to endorse Nencini’s report with all these evident flaws? Or will this finally be the moment when the justice system calls a halt to a travesty committed in its name and exonerates Knox and Sollecito, as it should have done years ago?


3. How Gumbel Got It Wrong

We responded by rebutting 20 of Gumbel’s malicious claims in just the first 7 pages of Honor Bound. And Pataz1, a TJMK main poster who also runs his own blog posted this rebuttal of Gumbel below

This letter was sent to the Guardian’s Reader Editor on 4 May 2014, and again on 3 June, 2014. The Reader’s Editor did not respond to either of the email submissions.

Gumbel’s May 1st, 2014 article in the Guardian is a thinly veiled advocacy piece for Sollecito and Knox. He left out a significant phrase from a Nencini passage he cites; this phrase he omitted undermines one of his main claims.

To the Guardian:

I’m writing to you about Andrew Gumbel’s “comment” on developments in the murder of Meredith Kercher case. Gumbel writes about the recently released Nencini court motivations document, which outlines the court’s reasoning for affirming Knox and Sollecito’s conviction for the murder of Meredith Kercher.

Gumbel waits until the end of the third paragraph in his article to provide his disclaimer: that he is a co-author of the book by one of the defendants. Its hard to understand why Gumbel waited so long to disclose his vested financial interest in the innocence of one of the defendants on trial. By this time, Gumbel has already levied allegations of impropriety upon the Italian courts and judges. For example, he alleges “the country’s institutions of justice have covered themselves in shame.” He continues specific allegations that “judge after judge has twisted the available evidence […]”.  If Gumbel had provided his disclaimer appropriately at the beginning of his letter, readers would have had a more appropriate understanding of Gumbel’s perspective and motivations for writing his letter.

Despite being a co-author of a book by one of the two still on trial for Meredith’s murder, Gumbel’s statements on the court process are wrong. Gumbel pushes the perspective that Knox’s reps have pushed in the US; that Knox and Sollecito have been “convicted again” after an acquittal. Gumbel leaves out any mention of the Italian Supreme Court ruling that overturned Knox and Sollecito’s acquittal and sent the case back to the appellate level. After the acquittal was annulled, the original 2009 conviction remained in place. Gumbel is no doubt aware that the Florence court is an appellate court.  (Curiously, Sollecito’s co-defendant Knox also wrongly claims on her website that the Italian Supreme Court “annulled all previous verdicts”; ref: http://www.amandaknox.com/about-contact/?).

Gumbel’s omission of the Italian Supreme Court ruling is odd, because the entire point of his article is the integrity of the judicial decisions. Gumbel left out that the Italian Supreme Court has already made one ruling regarding the integrity of a judicial decision in this case. The Supreme Court’s ruling wasn’t in favor of Gumbel’s co-author and defendant Raffaele Sollecito;  perhaps this is the reason that Gumbel failed to mention the actual outcome of the acquittal.

Or perhaps Gumbel left out this information so he could present the evidence the way it is framed by supporters of Knox and Sollecito. Later in the the same paragraph, Gumbel expresses confusion about why evidence remains in the case. He states “the underlying forensic evidence has been both exposed as a sham and, mystifyingly, reinstated.” As the co-author of the book with Sollecito, Gumbel is again no doubt aware that after the appellate-level acquittal was thrown out, the original conviction (with all of the evidence) remained as a part of the case. Any decision made by Hellmann on the evidence was also thrown out of the case, including Hellmann’s conclusions on the knife DNA evidence and the Sollecito’s DNA on the bra clasp. Further, if Gumbel had indeed read the Nencini decision, he would have read the passage where Nencini takes to task the “independent experts” in the Hellmann trial (detailed here:http://thefreelancedesk.com/amanda-knox-trials-meredith-kercher-case/). Gumbel should be well aware after his reading of Nencini why the evidence still contributed to the Florence court upholding his co-author’s conviction.

In his second point on the Nencini decision, Gumbel leaves out a key phrase that completely undermines his claim. By this time in his article, one is forced to wonder if this omission is deliberate. Gumbel’s claim is that Nencini contradicted himself by writing that Knox and Sollecito only left a “single, hotly disputed trace of themselves” despite the other evidence that Nencini also talks about. But the start of the passage Gumbel cites is:

“Una peculiarità è, ad esempio, il rilievo che all’interno della villetta di via della Pergola quasi non sono state rinvenute tracce di Amanda Marie Knox – se non quelle di cui si dirà e riferibili all’omicidio – né di Raffaele Sollecito.”

The phrase Gumbel deliberately left out is this: “se non quelle di cui si dirà e riferibili all’omicidio”, which, roughly translated, is “except those which will be discussed and related to the murder.”  The Nencini Motivations document explicitly contains a clause that accommodates the other traces related to the murder. Gumbel’s point is provably false. As someone who arguably puts himself forth as an expert on the case, this omission is highly concerning.

In Gumbel’s third point he highlights what is a minor error in the Nencini report. Calling out one word in a longer passage, Gumbel points out the report states that Sollecito’s DNA was found on the knife that is alleged as a murder weapon. If Gumbel truly read the report, as he claimed in a twitter exchange with me, he would be aware that the rest of the section that is contained in makes it clear that the finding is Knox’s DNA on the knife, not Sollecito’s. This minor error is hardly cause to overturn the full conviction.

I could continue, but the rest of Gumbel’s article is largely a diatribe against the length of the trial and the Italian justice system. Gumbel cites an article written by Douglas Preston, another author who has financially benefited by being openly critical of the prosecutor in Knox’s case. Knox and Sollecito’s case has gone through three levels of the Italian court system, and back to appeals. Cases in the US that follow a similar path have not happened any faster than the one in Italy. For example, in the Scott Peterson case in the US his defense still filed appeals eight years after his first-level conviction.

That the Guardian has allowed itself to be used as a platform to push the defense’s perspective is not only a disservice to the family of the murder victim who lives in the UK, but is also a disservice to the victim of a violent, brutal murder.


Wednesday, January 21, 2015

The Sollecito Trial For “Honor Bound” #4: Chimera Examines The Most Inflammatory Angles

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



[A far from joyful dad once again tries to knock sense into his loose-cannon offspring]

1. Overview Of This Series And Post

Tomorrow is the day when the wraps come off the prosecutions’ targets in the book.

This is also when Sollecito & Gumbel might try to justify themselves though they have a tough task ahead of them. For Sollecito and Gumbel (and also Knox and Kulman) their books actually constitute four kinds of problems;

(1) their defamations of the Italian courts and justice system;
(2) their defamations of many police, investigators and prosecutors who work within it,
(3) their numerous lies by omission, the pesky facts they never mention; and
(4) the unwitting truths and half-truths pointing to guilt, which the court may especially zero in on.

As mentioned in the previous post, a separate new TJMK pasge will soon take the book apart definitively. To this many posters have contributed.

Also we will have a new TJMK page on all of the lies of omission and who tends to avoid what area of evidence. .

2. Examination By Chimera Of Sollecito Book

In Part 1 Chimera addrresses problem (4) the truths and half-truths.

In Part 2 Chimera comes up with an alternative synopsis of the book.

In Part 3 Chimera Suggests why there could have been pre-meditation.

1. Examination Of RS’s Truthfulness

[page xv] ‘’....Often, they are more interested in constructing compelling narratives than in building up the evidence piece by piece, a task considered too prosaic and painstaking to be really interesting….’‘

A main criticism by the Supreme Court of Judge Hellmann was that he looked at the evidence piece by piece, rather than trying to make a story of all the evidence as a whole.

[page xvi] ‘’....She was Amanda the heartless when she didn’t cry over Meredith’s death and Amanda the hysterical manipulator when she did. Whatever she did—practice yoga, play Beatles songs, buy underwear—it was held against her.

Well, when someone does not seem upset that their ‘friend’ is murdered, and then behaves in this fashion, would police not at least have their curiosity piqued?

[page 20] ‘’... First, Guede could reasonably assume that the occupants of the house were either out for the night or away for the long weekend. Second, he had previously stayed over in the boys’ apartment downstairs—he fell asleep on the toilet one night in early October and ended up sprawled on the couch—so he knew the lay of the land. He had even met Meredith and Amanda briefly. And, third, since it was the first of the month, chances were good that the accumulated rent money for November was sitting in a pile somewhere in the house.

In the upstairs apartment, Filomena took responsibility for gathering everyone’s cash and handing it over to the landlady. And it was Filomena’s bedroom window that would soon be smashed with a large rock…’‘

This only makes sense if and only if:

(a) Rudy knew the schedules of all 8 people in the house
(b) Rudy may have slept downstairs, but implies he must have been upstairs at some point
(c) Rudy knew that Filomena had all the money (that she took charge of it)
(d) That rent would be paid in cash, not a cheque or bank automatic withdrawl. Which suggests…

A failure on those parameters points to an inside job.

[page 22] ‘’... My father took her advice, but because my cell phone was turned off, I didn’t receive the message until six the next morning.

It was a desperately unlucky combination of circumstances. If my father had tried my cell and then called me on the home line—which he would have done, because he’s persistent that way—I would have had incontrovertible proof from the phone records that I was home that night. And the nightmare that was about to engulf me might never have begun.’‘

First, it is an admission that the cell phone was turned off

Second, it is an admission that had Francesco called him, he would have an alibi, suggesting he did not…

[page 24] ‘’ ... Many Italians, including most of my family, could not fathom how she could go ahead with her shower after finding blood on the tap, much less put her wet feet on the bath mat, which was also stained, and drag it across the floor.’‘

So, Amanda showered, even with blood on the tap and on the bathmat, and no one, not even Raffaele, can make sense of it. Perhaps it is just an odd way of being quirky.

[page 26] ‘’... Then I pushed open Filomena’s door, which had been left slightly ajar, and saw that the place was trashed. Clothes and belongings were strewn everywhere. The window had a large, roundish hole, and broken glass was spread all over the floor.

Okay, we thought, so there’s been a break-in. What we couldn’t understand was why Filomena’s laptop was still propped upright in its case on the floor, or why her digital camera was still sitting out in the kitchen. As far as we could tell, nothing of value was missing anywhere….’‘

And this would be found to be suspicious by the police. An apparent break in, but nothing seems to be missing. And we haven’t even gotten to the spiderman climb yet.

[page 27] ‘’... Amanda went into the Italian women’s bathroom alone, only to run back out and grab on to me as though she had seen a ghost. “The shit’s not in the toilet anymore!” she said. “What if the intruder’s still here and he’s locked himself in Meredith’s room?”

Interesting. Perhaps Raffaele instinctively leaves poop in the toilet as well. Why would he not flush to make sure?

[page 27 contains the following lines:]

‘’ ....Don’t do anything stupid.’‘
‘’ ....Now what do we do?’‘
‘’ ....My sister is in the Carabinieri.’‘

These were supposedly in reference to the frantic attempts to see in Meredith’s room. Does anyone think there is some innuendo/hidden meaning?

[page 29] ‘’... “No, nothing’s been taken.” I didn’t know that for sure, of course, and I should have been more careful about my choice of words. At the time, though, I thought I was just performing my civic duty by passing the information along. The only reason I was on the line was because Amanda’s Italian was not good enough for her to make the call herself.’‘

This sounds innocuous enough, with the qualifiers, but without them:  ‘‘No, nothing’s been taken… I should have been more careful about my choice of words.”

[page 33] ‘’.... As things spiraled out of control over the next several days, a senior investigator with the carabinieri in Perugia took it upon himself to call my sister and apologize, colleague to colleague. “If we had arrived ten minutes earlier,” he told Vanessa, “the case would have been ours. And things would have gone very differently.”

This sounds eerily like an admission that things could have been tampered with, or ‘saved’, if only the ‘right’ people had been there in time.

[page 35] ‘’... Amanda didn’t understand the question, so I answered for her, explaining that she’d taken a shower and then come back to my house. “Really, you took a shower?” Paola said. She was incredulous…’‘

However, the book does not clarify why Paola was incredulous. Take your pick.

(a) Amanda didn’t look or smell like she had a shower
(b) Amanda showered in a blood soaked bathroom
(c) Both ‘a’ and ‘b’

[page 39] ‘’... In the moment, I didn’t say anything because I didn’t want to make Amanda feel worse. The whole purpose of my being there was to comfort her. So I defended her, even beyond the point where I felt comfortable or could be said to be looking out for my own interests.’‘

This is arguably the most true part of the book. He does have to comfort her, so she doesn’t talk. And it probably was uncomfortable.

And ‘‘beyond the point where ... I could be said to be looking out for my own interests.’’ Notice that Raffaele does not say ‘‘beyond that point where I WAS looking out for my own interests. It only ‘looks’ like it, because it is very much in his interest - at that time - to pacify Amanda.

[page 40] ‘’.... Italian newspapers reporting ‘Amanda could kill for a pizza’.’‘

To most people, Raffaele could mean this signifies that killing and death did not affect her greatly, or that she is simply immature.

It could also be an admission: Meredith’s death was over something extremely trivial, and Raffaele knew it.

[page 40] ‘’...Why focus on her, and not on Meredith’s other friends? I wondered. She and Amanda were new acquaintances…’‘

Exactly. Compared to what has been portrayed, they were not close friends, or even friends

[page 41] ‘’... Amanda noticed the police’s sex obsession right away; they couldn’t stop asking her about the Vaseline pot and a vibrator they had found in the bathroom. The vibrator was a joke item, a little rubber bunny rabbit shaped to look like a vibrator and fashioned into a pendant, but the police seemed to find this difficult to accept. What about Meredith’s sex life? Amanda knew only that Meredith had left a boyfriend in England and was now involved with one of the men who lived downstairs, a twenty-two-year-old telecommunications student with a carefully sculpted beard and outsize earrings named Giacomo Silenzi. Amanda had helped Meredith out a couple times by giving her a condom from her supply. But Amanda had no idea how, or how often, Meredith had sex and didn’t feel comfortable fielding questions about it.’‘

This is creepily ‘Knoxian’ in that Raffaele is deliberately leaking extremely personal details about Meredith. Is this a desire they share: to humiliate her deeper, in the public domain, far beyond what they already have done.

[page 42] ‘’... A few days later, this episode would be distorted in the newspapers to make it seem as if the first thing we did after the murder was to buy sexy lingerie—specifically, a G-string—and tell each other how we couldn’t wait to try it out. The store owner, who did not speak English, corroborated the story in pursuit of his own brief moment in the spotlight. True, the surveillance video in the store showed us touching and kissing, but that was hardly a crime. I wasn’t making out with her in some vulgar or inappropriate way, just comforting her and letting her know I was there for her. Besides, there was nothing remotely sexy about Bubble. A much sexier underwear store was next door, and we didn’t set foot in…’‘

Interesting. Raffaele says that this was blown out of proportion, yet his defense is that we didn’t do anything sexual, but if we did, it is not a crime, and besides, there was a better place next door.

[page 43] ‘’... I realized I had not properly acknowledged my own discomfort with Amanda. I was not scandalized by her, in the way that so many others later said they were, but I shouldn’t have allowed her to climb all over me in the Questura, and I should have counseled her quietly not to complain so much. I understood the gallant side of being her boyfriend, but I could have given her better advice and protected myself in the process.’‘

Translation: Amanda, quit whining so much. And while boning you in the police station may be fun, it is seriously jeopardizing my interests.

[page 44] ‘’... She told them, quite openly, about a guy from Rome she went to bed with a few days before meeting me. She had no problem being open about her sex life, and that made her interrogators suspicious. How many men, they wondered, did she plan on getting through during her year in Perugia?

Probably true, except for the conclusion. More likely they wondered: Why does she have to bring this up now?

[page 46]’‘... My sister, Vanessa, made her own separate inquiries and felt much less reassured. The first time she called the Questura, they left her waiting on the line, even though she announced herself as a lieutenant in the carabinieri, and never took her call.
The second time, she had herself put through from the carabinieri’s regional switchboard, to make it more official. This time she got through, but only to a junior policeman clearly her inferior. (In Italian law enforcement, protocol on such matters is followed scrupulously.) “Listen,” the man told her impatiently, “everything is fine.”

“Is there someone I can talk to who is in charge of this case?” Vanessa insisted.

This sounds like a very detailed (if true) attempt at subverting justice. Way to drop Vanessa in it, Raffy.

[page 47] ‘’... The truth, though, was that the authorities were still clueless.’‘

Don’t worry, they will get a clue soon enough.

[page 48] ‘’... What did they have on us? Nothing of substance. But they did find our behavior odd, and we had no real alibi for the night of November 1 except each other, and we did not have lawyers to protect us, and we seemed to have a propensity for saying things without thinking them through. In other words, we were the lowest-hanging fruit, and the police simply reached out and grabbed us.’‘

So, what does Sollecito list in just this paragraph?

(a) Odd behaviour
(b) No real alibi except each other
(c) Saying things without thinking them through

Can’t see why this would attract police attention…

[page 49] ‘’... Not only did they have no physical evidence, they saw no need for any.’‘

Well, odd behaviour, no real alibi,conflicting stories, and saying things through without thinking them through… oh, right, and that very detailed account of Patrik murdering Meredith, Sollecito ‘might’ be there, and Raffaele telling a pack of lies.

I guess physical evidence would be overkill (pardon the pun). Sounds very Knoxian in the ‘there is no evidence’ denials.

[page 50] ‘’... Carrying a small knife had been a habit of mine since I was a teenager—not for self-defense, mind you, just as an ornamental thing. I’d use one occasionally to peel apples or carve my name on tree trunks, but mostly I carried them around for the sake of it. Having a knife on me had become automatic, like carrying my wallet or my keys.’‘

So the rumours of having a knife fetish are true? Thanks for confirming it.

[page 50] ‘’... Besides, what kind of idiot killer would bring the murder weapon to the police station?’‘

Wow - how to begin with this one…  Although, on a more manipulative level, was it not the other knife that actually delivered the fatal blow?

[page 51] ‘’... My words in Italian—stai tranquillo—were the last my father would hear from me as a free man.’‘

It could mean physically free. Could also mean not free as in forced to confront his actions.

[page 51]  “You need to tell us what happened that night,” they began.

“Which night?” I asked wearily. I was getting tired of the endless questioning. I don’t think they appreciated my attitude.

“The night of November first.”

I don’t think this is a drug haze. More just being arrogant and callous.

[page 56] ‘’... I had been brought up to think the police were honest defenders of public safety. My sister was a member of the carabinieri, no less! Now it seemed to me they were behaving more like gangsters.’‘

Another sign of entitlement showing. Surely, the little brother of a carabinieri officer should not have to be subjected to this nonsense.

[page 56] ‘’... Something was exciting the police more than my pocketknife, and that was the pattern they had detected on the bottom of my shoes. By sheer bad luck, I was wearing Nikes that night, and the pattern of concentric circles on the soles instantly reminded my interrogators of the bloody shoe prints at the scene of the crime, which were made by Nikes too.

I had no idea of any of this. All I knew was, the rest of the interrogation team piled back into the room and told me to take off my shoes.’‘

Shoeprints placing a person at a crime scene? Why would that possibly be considered evidence?

[page 59] ‘’... Then, at some point after midnight, an interpreter arrived. Amanda’s mood only worsened. She hadn’t remembered texting Patrick at all, so she was in no position to parse over the contents of her message. When it was suggested to her she had not only written to him but arranged a meeting, her composure crumbled; she burst into uncontrollable tears, and held her hands up to her ears as if to say, I don’t want to hear any more of this.’‘

Depending on whether or not you believe Amanda’s ‘version’ of events, this could either be corroboration of her events, or corroboration she faked her fit.

Minor detail: Sollecito was in a totally different part of the Questera, but hey, it’s just semantics.

[page 61] ‘’...When I first found out what Amanda had signed her name to, I was furious. Okay, she was under a lot of pressure, as I had been, but how could she just invent stuff out of nowhere? Why would she drag me into something I had no part of? It soon transpired, of course, that she felt similarly about me. “What I don’t understand,” she wrote, as soon as she began to retract her statements, “is why Raffaele, who has always been so caring and gentle with me, would lie. . . . What does he have to hide?”

It took us both a long time to understand how we had been manipulated and played against each other. It took me even longer to appreciate that the circumstances of our interrogations were designed expressly to extract statements we would otherwise never have made, and that I shouldn’t blame Amanda for going crazy and spouting dangerous nonsense…’‘

-If Amanda got me locked up, I would be mad too
-Yes, she did make stuff (about Patrik) out of nowhere
-I was angry when Amanda asked ‘what I have to hide’
-Yes, police tend to play suspects off each other
-Yes, suspects try to avoid implicating each other
-Yes, Amanda only spouted dangerous nonsense after you took her alibi

This section is almost 100% true

[page 62] ‘’... Even before dawn broke on November 6, the authorities had us where they wanted us. True, neither of us had confessed to murder. But what they had—a web of contradictions, witnesses pitted against each other, and a third suspect on whom to pin the crime—was an acceptable second best.’‘

Also true, and great police work.

[page 63] ‘’... I asked to talk to my family again. I said I needed at least to inform my thesis director where I was. “Where you’re going, a degree’s not going to do you any good,” came the answer.’‘

Curious, he has just been arrested for murder and sexual assault, and among his first thoughts is his thesis. And didn’t he end up doing his Master’s thesis ... on himself?

[page 64] ‘’... As soon as we walked into my apartment, a policeman named Armando Finzi said loudly that the place stank of bleach. That wasn’t correct. My cleaning lady had been through the day before and cleaned the tile floor with Lysoform, not bleach. Still, he insisted on mentioning the bleach a couple more times—the clear implication being that I’d needed something powerful to clean up a compromising mess.’‘

Perhaps overanalysing this, but could Raffaele be flippantly thinking to himself: Nope, the cleaning lady used lysoform to clean up the mess. Wasn’t bleach, dudes.

[page 77] ‘’... Even before Judge Matteini had finished reading the complaint against me, I blurted out that I didn’t know Patrick Lumumba and that any prints from my shoes found at Via della Pergola could only have been made before November 1. Immediately I ran into trouble because I had in fact met Patrick at his bar, on the night Amanda and I first got together. And I had no idea that the shoe prints in question were made in blood. In no time, I was flailing and suggesting, in response to the judge’s pointed questions, that maybe I picked up some of the blood on the floor when I walked around the house on November 2, the day the body was discovered. Even more unwisely, I speculated that someone might have stolen my shoes and committed the murder in them. It just did not occur to me that the shoe print evidence was wrong.

At Raffaele’s first hearing:

-He claims not to have met Patrick, (his co-accused), but admits later, that he has
-He suggests that he may have picked up blood on the floor
-He claims the shoes were stolen

Why would Judge Matteini have reason to doubt his story?

[page 78] ‘’... I felt like a fool describing my extensive knife collection and even described myself as a testa di cazzo, a dickhead, for having so many. My judgment and my self-confidence were sinking fast.

“Perhaps the worst moment came when I was asked, for the umpteenth time, if Amanda had gone out on the night of the murder. I still had no clarity on this and could not answer the judge’s repeated questions without sounding evasive.”

[page 80] ‘’... Matteini swallowed the prosecution’s story whole. The break-in was staged after the fact, she asserted—just as Mignini had. The murderer or murderers must therefore have got into the house with a set of keys, and Amanda was the only keyholder without a solid alibi for the night in question. Patrick Lumumba had the hots for.

Meredith, Matteini theorized, and Amanda and I tagged along to experience something new and different. From my testimony at the hearing, Matteini concluded I was “bored by the same old evenings” and wanted to experience some “strong emotions.” (She moved my blog entry from October 2006, the date marked on the document, to October 2007, just weeks before the murder, which bolstered the argument.) She didn’t ascribe a specific motive to Amanda, assuming only that she must have felt the same way I did. The bloody footprints “proved” I was present at the scene of the murder, and my three-inch flick knife was “compatible with the possible murder weapon.” The house, she wrote, was “smeared with blood everywhere.”

Substitute in Rudy Guede for Patrick, and this sounds somewhat plausible.

[page 83] ‘’... Amanda recovered her lucidity faster than I did. The day we were arrested, she wrote a statement in English that all but retracted what she had signed the night before. “In regards to this ‘confession,’ ” she wrote, “I want to make clear that I’m very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion.” She was still conjuring up images of Patrick as the murderer, but she added, “These things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or just dreams in my head.”

The next day, she wrote a second, more confident statement: “I DID NOT KILL MY FRIEND . . . But I’m very confused, because the police tell me that they know I was at my house when she was murdered, which I don’t remember. They tell me a lot of things I don’t remember.” Then she gave a substantially more accurate account of the night of November 1 than I was coming up with at the time.’‘

All this does is confirm that much of the confusing, manipulative statements from Amanda exist. Gee thanks Raffaele.

[page 86] ‘’... short story about date rape that Amanda had submitted to a University of Washington creative-writing class was held up as evidence of her warped criminal mind. A Myspace video of her boasting about the number of shots she had downed at a party became an excuse to depict her as an alcohol-fueled harpy. I was described as “crazy,” based on a line I’d written in a blog entry, and held up to ridicule for a photograph, taken during a high-spirited moment of fun in my first year in Perugia, in which I was wrapped from head to foot in toilet paper, brandishing a machete in one hand and a bottle of pink alcohol in the other.’‘

“Amanda does lots of alcohol, write rape stories, and I dress in toilet paper, wielding a machete. Nothing to see here, people.”

[page 87] ‘’... I knew a lot of the coverage of the case itself was flawed. It was reported, for example, that the police had found bleach receipts at my house, strongly suggesting I had purchased materials to clean up the crime scene. But my cleaning lady didn’t use bleach, and the only receipts the police found from November 1 onward were for pizza. I wouldn’t have needed to buy bleach, anyway, because I had some left over from my previous cleaning lady. It had sat untouched for months.’‘

“Nope, I didn’t need to buy bleach for the cleanup, I already had it.”

[page 88] ‘’... Then came Maori. He told me that he too carried pocketknives from time to time. But he didn’t seem too interested in connecting with me beyond such superficial niceties. I felt he didn’t entirely trust me. His game plan, which became clear over a series of meetings, was to dissociate me as much as possible from Amanda. And that was it. He did not have a clear strategy to undermine the prosecution’s evidence on the knife and the shoe print, because—as he indicated to me—he believed there might be something to it. ‘’

Which means: “I don’t really believe you are innocent, the evidence seems too strong. But for your sake, separate yourself from this mentally unstable woman.”

Sounds very likely.

[page 90] ‘’... I even allowed myself a little optimism: my computer, I decided, would show if I was connected to the Internet that night and, if so, when, and how often. Unless Amanda and I had somehow made love all night long, pausing only to make ourselves dinner and nod off to sleep, the full proof of our innocence would soon be out in the open.

According to the police, it showed no activity from the time we finished watching Amélie at 9:10 p.m. until 5:30 the next morning.

That sounded all wrong to me, and my defense team’s technical experts would later find reasons to doubt the reliability of this finding. But there would be no easy way out of the mess Amanda and I were now in.’‘

Wishful thinking to form a coherent alibi or defense. Indeed, if only it was that simple.

[page 91] ‘’...Still, there was something I could not fathom. How did Meredith’s DNA end up on my knife when she’d never visited my house? I was feeling so panicky I imagined for a moment that I had used the knife to cook lunch at Via della Pergola and accidentally jabbed Meredith in the hand. Something like that had in fact happened in the week before the murder. My hand slipped and the knife I was using made contact with her skin for the briefest of moments. Meredith was not hurt, I apologized, and that was that. But of course I wasn’t using my own knife at the time. There was no possible connection.’

I imagined this happened? Is amnesia or hallucinating contagious? I’m surprised he did not have a vision that he saw Patrik attacking Meredith.

On another note: giving a blatantly false account of how a victim’s DNA ended up on your knife seems a bit suspicious.

[page 93] ‘’... The nuts and bolts of the investigation, the hard evidence, kept yielding good things for us. We were told that my Nikes had tested negative for blood and for Meredith’s DNA. So had my car, and everything else I had touched around the time of the murder. Even the mop Amanda and I carried back and forth on the morning of November 2, an object of particular suspicion, was reported to be clean.

Well, I have no doubt that the AMERICAN media reported this to be the case….

And ‘the mop Amanda and I carried back and forth…?’

[page 94] ‘’... During a conversation with her mother in prison, they reported, Amanda had blurted out, “I was there, I cannot lie about that.” She seemed not to realize the conversation was being recorded, and the police picked up on it right away.’‘

Amanda again places herself at the scene, but again, there is a simple explanation. Amanda being Amanda?

[page 94] ‘’... his time the papers quoted what they said was an extract fromher diary. “I don’t remember anything,” the passage read, “but maybe Raffaele went to Meredith’s house, raped and killed her, and then put my fingerprints on the knife back at his house while I was asleep.”

Of course, Amanda writes that someone planted her fingerprints. Odd, as I think that no one ever claimed her prints were on the knife. Why would she think they were?

This needs to be said: What the hell is U of W teaching in their ‘creative writing’ program?

[page 97] ‘’... I remember watching the news of Guede’s arrest on the small-screen TV in my cell and seeing the Perugia police all puffed up with pride about catching him. If anything, I felt happier than they did, because Guede was a complete stranger to me. The relief was palpable. All along I had worried the murderer would turn out to be someone I knew and that I’d be dragged into the plot by association. Now I had one less thing to worry about. Not that I wasn’t still wary: so much invented nonsense had been laid at my door I was still half-expecting the authorities to produce more.’

The ‘real’ killer is caught, and you are worried more things may be invented? Interesting.

[page 98] ‘’...Lumumba had every right to be angry; he had spent two weeks in lockup for no reason. He had been able to prove that Le Chic stayed open throughout the evening of November 1, producing an eyewitness, a Swiss university professor, who vouched for his presence that night. One would expect his anger to be directed as much toward Mignini, who threw him in prison without checking the facts, as it was toward Amanda. But Lumumba and his strikingly aggressive lawyer, Carlo Pacelli, could find only vicious things to say about Amanda from the moment he got out of jail—even though he had not, in fact, fired her and remained friendly with her for several days after the murder.’‘

True, except why be mad at Mignini? It is Amanda who falsely accused him, not Mignini. But again, minor details.

[page 107] ‘’... Papà was spinning like a dervish to clear my name, but not everyone he hired was as helpful as he hoped. One consultant whom he asked to monitor the Polizia Scientifica demanded eight thousand euros up front, only to prove reluctant to make overt criticisms of the police’s work, the very thing for which he’d been hired. A forensic expert who also seemed a little too close to the police charged four thousand euros for his retainer with the boast, “I’m expensive, but I’m good.” He wasn’t. A computer expert recommended by Luca Maori didn’t know anything about Macs, only PC’s.’‘

That first line is a bit disturbing. ‘Not everyone he hired was as helpful as he hoped.’ This can be easily interpretted as shopping around for an expert of ‘hired gun’.

[page 110] ‘’... Amanda and I came in for what was by now a familiar drubbing. The judges said my account of events was “unpardonably implausible.” Indeed, I had a “rather complex and worrying personality” prone to all sorts of impulses. Amanda, for her part, was not shy about having “multiple sex partners” and had a “multifaceted personality, detached from reality.” Over and above the flight risk if we were released from prison, the judges foresaw a significant danger that we would make up new fantastical scenarios to throw off the investigation. In Amanda’s case, they said she might take advantage of her liberty to kill again.’‘

Most rational people would come to the same conclusions.

[page 112] ‘’... Since I had no such testimony to offer, I did the Italian equivalent of taking the Fifth: I availed myself, as we say, of the right not to respond.

I found some satisfaction in that, but also frustration, because I had at last worked out why Amanda did not leave—could not have left—my house on the night of the murder. She didn’t have her own key, so if she’d gone out alone, she would have had to ring the doorbell and ask me to buzz her back in. Even if I’d been stoned or asleep when she rang, I would have remembered that. And it didn’t happen.’‘

Hmm… I swear I am innocent, but plead the fifth ammendment. And I am not positive Amanda did not leave, but ad hoc have worked out that she must not have.

[page 112] ‘’...Obviously, I wanted to shout the news to the world. But I also understood that telling Mignini now would have been a gift to him; it would only have bought him time to figure out a way around it.’‘

“I could tell a certain version of events to the prosecutor, but if I did that now, he would only have time to discover the holes in that story.”

[page 113] ‘’... I knew the Kerchers had hired an Italian lawyer, Francesco Maresca, whom they picked off a short list provided by the British embassy. I addressed my letter to him, saying how sorry I was for everything that had happened and expressing a wish that the full truth would soon come out.

I was naive enough to believe that Maresca would be sympathetic.’‘

Knox was criticised for fake attempts to reach out to the victim’s family, and had been told to act more like a defendant. Interesting that it started so much earlier.

[page 115] ‘’... Regrettably, Guede’s shoes were not available, presumably because he ditched them; they were not at his apartment and they were not among his possessions when he was arrested in Germany.’‘

Very interesting. Raffaele believes that the ‘murderer’s shoes’ were not available, and may have been ditched. This seems to be more than just speculation on his part.

[page 117] ‘’... Mignini questioned Amanda again on December 17, and she, unlike me, agreed to answer his questions in the presence of her lawyers. She was more composed now and gave him nothing new to work with. She couldn’t have been present at the murder, she insisted, because she’d spent all night with me.’‘

How does this not sound incredibly incriminating? I refused to talk, though Amanda agreed to, but only with lawyers. And does this not sound like Amanda was better able to stonewall the investigation?

[page 121] ‘’... Instead, he tried to control the damage and talked to every reporter who called him. “The most plausible explanation,” he said to most of them, “is that the bra had been worn by Amanda as well, and Raffaele touched it when she was wearing it.”

There were two problems with this statement. First, it was so speculative and far-fetched it did nothing to diminish the perception that I was guilty. And, second, it showed that my father—my dear, straight-arrow, ever-optimistic, overtrusting father—still couldn’t stop assuming that if the police or the prosecutor’s office was saying something, it must be so.

There are 3 possibilities here, all bad.

(a) This entire scenario was made up, and like the ‘my shoes were stolen’, only leaves everyone shaking their heads in disbelief.

(b) Amanda actually had worn the bra BEFORE and returned it without washing it. Remember what this woman tends to think when she sees blood. Ew.

(c) Amanda wore the bra AFTER Meredith was murdered, and that she and Raffaele fooled around after. Not too farfetched when you remember that Raffaele kept the murder weapon as a souvenir.

[page 122] ‘’... Along with the Albanian, we had to contend with a seventy-six-year-old woman by the name of Nara Capezzali, who claimed she had heard a bloodcurdling scream coming from Meredith’s house at about 11:00 p.m. on the night of the murder, followed by sounds of people running through the streets.’‘

Yes, this confirms at least part of Amanda’s account that night. Yes, she seemed to vaguely remember Patrik killing Meredith, and wasn’t sure if Raffaele was there, but the scream detail is corroborated.

[page 125] ‘’... As my time alone stretched out into weeks and then months, I had to let go of everything that was happening and hold on to other, more permanent, more consoling thoughts: my family and friends, the memory of my mother, the simple pleasures I’d enjoyed with Amanda, the peace that came from knowing that neither of us had done anything wrong.

If they want to kill me this way, I remember thinking, let them go ahead. I’m happy to have lived life as I did, and to have made the choices I made.’‘

Hmm… so he finds peace being locked away for things he did not do?

More likely, Raffaele is coming to terms with the inevitable consequences of life in prison.

[page 129] ‘’... The one victory we eked out was a finding that we should have been told we were under criminal investigation before our long night of interrogations in the Questura. The statements we produced would not be admissible at trial.’‘

Do I really need to explain this one?

[page 150] ‘’... I talked about Amanda with Filippo, my cellmate, and he listened, just as I had listened to his problems. One day, though, he told me he was bisexual, and his eyes started to brighten visibly when he looked at me. Then he burst into tears and tried to caress my face.’‘

Given the overlap between Waiting to be Heard and Honor Bound, did the ‘authors’ collaborate?

[page 151] ‘’... My father hired a telecommunications expert to help resolve a few other mysteries from the night of the murder. The prosecution had given no adequate explanation for a series of calls registered on Meredith’s English cell phone after she’d returned from her friends’ house around 9:00 p.m., and many of them seemed baffling, assuming they were made—as the prosecution argued—by Meredith herself. We believed Meredith was dead by the time of the last two calls, and our expert Bruno Pellero intended to help us prove that.’‘

This sounds disturbingly like another attempt to subvert justice.

[page 154] ‘’... She also acknowledged that a contaminated or improperly analyzed DNA sample could, in theory, lead to an incorrect identification.’‘

Wait, weren’t those same people involved in the finding the evidence against Guede? Right, that evidence is clean.

[page 156] ‘’... Judge Micheli issued his ruling at the end of October. On the plus side, he found Guede guilty of murder and sentenced him to thirty years behind bars in an accelerated trial requested by Guede himself. Judge Micheli also accepted our evidence that it wouldn’t have been that difficult to throw a rock through Filomena’s window and climb the wall.

But, Spider-Man or no Spider-Man, he still didn’t believe Guede got into the house that way. He argued that Filomena’s window was too exposed and that any intruder would have run too great a risk of discovery by climbing through it. Therefore, he concluded, Amanda and I must have let him in. There seemed to be no shaking the authorities out of their conviction that the break-in was staged.’‘

So, Judge Micheli is a fine judge who saw Rudy Guede for who he is and convicted him, yet he is so poor a judge he ruled that Amanda and I had to be involved?

Didn’t Knox say very similar things in her December 2013 email to Appeal Court Judge Nencini?

[page 160] ‘’... Still, the prosecution jumped all over [Quintavalle] and later put him on the stand to bolster the argument that Amanda and I had spent that morning wiping the murder scene clean of our traces—but not, curiously, Guede’s. It was one of their more dishonest, not to mention absurd, arguments, because any forensics expert could have told them such a thing was physically impossible. Still, it was all they had, and they single-mindedly stuck to it.’‘

Depending on how you view this, it could be an ad hoc admission that yes, selectively cleaning up wasn’t really possible, as the evidence was all intermingled.

[page 167] ‘’... I was pushing for another sort of change, a single trial team to defend Amanda and me together. I was told right away that this was out of the question, but I don’t think my logic was wrong. The only way either of us would get out of this situation, I reasoned, was if we stuck together. If the prosecution drove a wedge between us, we would more than likely both be doomed.’‘

This seems to justify Guede’s suspicions that his co-defendants would team up on him.

[page 169] ‘’... Stefanoni and Mignini were holding out on that information, and we needed to pry it from them quickly before more damage was done. The shots would ultimately be called by the judge, and we hadn’t had a lot of luck with judges so far.’‘

Why would you need ‘luck’ from a judge?

[page 173] ‘’... No matter how much we demanded to be heard, no matter how much we sought to refute the grotesque cartoon images of ourselves and give calm, reasoned presentations of the truth, we never escaped the feeling that our words were tolerated rather than listened to; that the court was fundamentally uninterested in what we had to say.’‘

That is probably true. No one cares why Amanda’s vibrator is on full display.

And yes, you did demand to be heard. Perhaps, if you had agreed to full cross examination, you would know what the judges and prosecutors would be interested in hearing.

[page 173] ‘’... A week later, Meredith’s English friends took the stand and testified with such uniform consistency it was hard to think of them as distinct individuals. Robyn Butterworth, Amy Frost, and Sophie Purton all said that Meredith had been unhappy with Amanda’s standards of hygiene, particularly her forgetfulness about flushing the toilet. It sounded almost as if they were reading from a prepared script. Meredith, they agreed, had found Amanda a little too forward for keeping her condoms and what looked like a vibrator in their shared bathroom. And, they said, Amanda had acted weirdly in the Questura.

That was it. They mentioned nothing positive about the relationship. No word on Meredith and Amanda’s socializing together, or attending Perugia’s annual chocolate festival, or going to the concert on the night Amanda and I met.’‘

Yes, the prosecution case does seem stronger when their witnesses are consistent. Absolutely right.

Strangely, Meredith’s English friends also did not talk about how compassionate Amanda was at the memorial. Wait a minute….

[page 174] ‘’... Amanda arrived in court wearing a T-shirt with the words ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE emblazoned in huge pink letters, to mark Valentine’s Day. It seemed she wanted to find a way to defuse the English girls’ ill will toward her, but it didn’t work.’‘

No kidding.

[page 186] ‘’... Meanwhile, we had to worry about Amanda taking the stand. Her lawyers decided that the best way to refute the stories about her wayward personality was to have the court take a good, hard look at her up close. But my lawyers were deeply concerned she would put her foot in her mouth, in ways that might prove enduringly harmful to both of us. If she deviated even one iota from the version of events we now broadly agreed on, it could mean a life sentence for both of us.’‘

Amanda puts her foot in her mouth? Yup.

“The truth we agreed on”?? Come on, you actually put this in the book?

[page 193] ‘’... My father was all over the place. He knew exactly how bad the news was, but he wanted to shield me as best he could. “Whatever happens, don’t worry,” he told me. “There’s always the appeal. The work we’ve done won’t go to waste.”

And indeed, the first (now annulled) appeal did ‘save’ them.

[page 195] ‘’... Mignini had to scrabble around to explain how Amanda, Guede, and I could have formulated a murder plan together without any obvious indication that we knew each other. Guede, he postulated, could have offered himself as our drug pusher.’‘

“I can explain that. Amanda and I are admitted drug users. We smeared Guede as a drug dealer. Reasonable people might believe that there is some connection to drugs.”

[page 204] ‘’... The next piece of bad news came down within three weeks of our being found guilty. Rudy Guede’s sentence, we learned, had been cut down on appeal from thirty years to sixteen. The thinking of the appeals court was that if Amanda and I were guilty, then Guede couldn’t serve a sentence greater than ours. If I had supplied the knife and Amanda had wielded it, as Mignini and Comodi postulated and Judge Massei and his colleagues apparently accepted, we needed to receive the stiffer punishment.’‘

Yes, the thinking of the courts, and those pesky short-form trial sentence deductions that are mandatory.

‘’[page 204] ...I didn’t think I could feel any worse, but this was an extra slap in the face and it knocked me flat. Not only were Amanda and I the victims of a grotesque miscarriage of justice, but Meredith’s real killer, the person everybody should have been afraid of, was inching closer to freedom. It wasn’t just outrageous; it was a menace to public safety.’‘

Yes, it was a miscarriage in that Amanda and I didn’t get the life sentences Mignini called for, and that Meredith’s real killer, Amanda, would soon get her freedom via Hellmann.

[page 219] ‘’... My family was not beating up on Amanda entirely without cause. What I did not know at the time, because they preferred not to fill me in, was that they were exploring what it would take for the prosecution to soften or drop the case against me. The advice they received was almost unanimous:’‘

Although the deal itself is illegal, I have no doubt that the Sollecito family at least explored the option.

[page 258] ‘’... Judge Hellmann’s sentencing report was magnificent: 143 pages of close argument that knocked down every piece of evidence against us and sided with our experts on just about every technical issue.’‘

That is true, with one huge omission: the defense only cherry picked a few small pieces of evidence. Yes, it ‘knocked down every piece of evidence we chose to contest.’

2. Synopsis Of “Honor Bound”

(20) The robbery that night was perfect, assuming the perp had the inside info.

(22) My cellphone was turned off.

(22) If my father called the land line I would have an alibi.

(24) I cannot make sense of showering in a bloody bathroom.

(26) Despite the break in, nothing had been taken.

(27) Someone did not flush the toilet, and I won’t either.

(27) The following dialogue:

‘’ ....Don’t do anything stupid.’‘

‘’ ....Now what do we do?’‘

‘’ ....My sister is in the Carabinieri.’‘

(29) I should have been more careful about my choice of words when I said

‘’ .... Nothing has been taken.’‘

(35) The police were shocked/disbelieving Amanda just took a shower.

(39) Things would be okay if my Carabinieri sister had helped.

(40) I defended Amanda, beyond the point of looking after my own interests.

(40) Amanda could kill for something minimal, even a pizza.

(40) Amanda and Meredith were not friends, despite living together.

(41) Amanda and I share embarrassing sexual information about the victim.

(42) We weren’t misbehaving in the lingerie shop, but if we were, it was taken out of context.

(43) Amanda whined, and we fooled around in the police station. Maybe not a good idea.

(44) Amanda does not shut up about her sex life.

(46) Vanessa made inquiries on my behalf.

(47) Prior to our arrest, the authorities were clueless.

(48) We behaved oddly, had no real alibi, and said things without thinking.

(49) We are not guilty only because there is no physical evidence.

(50) I like to carry knives.

(51) I had trouble remembering the date Meredith was killed.

(56) My sister works for the carabinieri. Why am I even here?

(56) My shoes are similar to ones found at the crime scene

(59/60) Amanda gave the false statement regarding Patrik.

(61) The police got Amanda and I to say things against each other.

(62) Amanda and I spun a web of contradictions.

(63) This is going to mess up my graduation.

(64) The smell wasn’t bleach, it was lysoform

(77) I never met Patrik, my co-accused (or did I)? 

The shoes might have dragged blood, or might have been stolen.

(78) I collect a lot of knives, and don’t remember if Amanda left.

(83) Amanda made admissions she tried to retract.

(86) Amanda and I engage in alarming behaviour, such as writing rape stories, and taking photos with weapons

(87) I had access to bleach, receipts or not.

(88) My lawyer thinks the evidence is strong, and wants me away from Amanda.

(90) I hope there is evidence on my computer that clears me.

(91) I imagined that the DNA on the knife came from a cooking accident.

(93) Amanda and I carried a mop back and forth for some reason.

(94) Amanda, in a jail recorded call, places herself at the scene.

(94) Amanda writes that I may have planted her fingerprints on the knife.

(97) Rudy Guede is caught, but I fear I may get named in other things.

(98) Lumumba is released, angry at Amanda for false accusation.

(107) Dad tried to cherrypick experts who would get me out.

(110) The courts saw us as unstable and potential flight risks.

(112) I decline to answer.

(112) I don’t want the prosecutor checking my story

(113) I creepily tried to reach out to the Kerchers, despite being accused, just like Amanda.

(115) Rudy should have kept his shoes in order to exonerate Amanda and I.

(117) I still refused to talk.  Amanda did, with lawyers.

(121) Amanda has been wearing Meredith’s underwear and without washing it.

(122) A witness heard Meredith scream, just as Amanda described.

(125) I am at peace with everything.

(129) The courts threw out our statements at the police station.

(150) I had a memorable encounter with a bisexual inmate (same as Amanda)

(151) My dad tried to find an alternate explanation for the phone evidence.

(154) The evidence against Rudy Guede is rock solid. The evidence against me is contaminated.

(156) Micheli is a great judge. He convicted Guede.

(156) Micheli is an idiot judge.  He believes Amanda and I were involved.

(160) It was foolish to think we could selectively clean the crime scene.

(167) In order to save ourselves, Amanda and I teamed up against Rudy.

(169) We weren’t getting the judges we wanted.

(173) We did not shut up, but had nothing helpful to say.

(173) Meredith’s English friends gave consistent testimony that did not help us.

(174) the ALL YOU NEED IS LOVE t-shirt was a bad idea.

(186) I worried about Amanda testifying, saying dumb things, and deviating from our ‘version’

(193) We knew the trial was doomed, but there was the appeal. (Hellmann)?

(195) For all the ‘drug dealer’ and ‘drug user’ name calling, prosecutors seemed to think this might be about drugs.

(204) Guede’s sentence was cut from 30 years to 16.  What an injustice for us… I mean Meredith.

(219) Legally speaking, it would be better to split from Amanda.

(258) Hellmann’s report knocked down the evidence we chose to present.

3. Premeditation And Why RS Goes No Further

The real reason Sollecito goes no further could be in as in the title ‘‘Honor Bound’‘.  Many altruistic people may interpret this as behaving, or conducting themselves honourably. 

But take a more shallow and selfish view.  It could just refer to being SEEN as honourable.  I think everyone here would agree that RS and AK are quite narcissistic and arrogrant.  And how manly to be protecting the women in your life.

The truth does set you free - except only when the truth is much worse than what the assumptions are. I repeat, the truth sets you free, except when it is actually worse.

What could be worse? Premeditation. Far beyond what has been suggested.

1) Raffaele himself suggests that doing a robbery at the house at that time would be ideal.

This makes sense if:

(a) Rudy knew that Filomena had all the money (that she took charge of it)
(b) That rent would be paid in cash, not a cheque or bank automatic withdrawl.

So, by this reasoning, there would be over 1000 Euros in cash at that time. Of course, the average household does not carry that much, and normally, there would be no reason to think so. The date had to be planned. It also lends credence to the theory that this really was about money, and he had help.

2) The fact that Laura and Filomena were gone, as were the men downstairs. Really, how often does it happen, and how would an outsider know?

3) The trip to Gubbio. Does anyone know if either AK or RS were heavily into travel, or was this a one time thing? My point being that it could have been to establish an alibi, they just didn’t expect to still be there when the police showed up.

4) The fact that Rudy Guede was brought in, when he had no legitimate reason to be upstairs. RS could explain away DNA or prints, but not RG. Even if it really was just about stealing money, would there not be some trace of him left when the theft was reported.

And if murder was the plan all along, there would still be some trace of him.

5) Purchasing bleach. Everyone had assumed that it was done after the fact to clean up, but there is another thought. What if there already was bleach available in the home, and this purchase was merely a replacement as an afterthought?

6) The knife in Raffaele’s home. What if Amanda chose to bring a knife that Raffaele would not be able to ditch, simply so that should suspicion fall on them, there would be a knife to implicate Raffy? Remember, Amanda already made statements that point to him. Maybe those weren’t her first attempts.

Of course, I did make the suggestion that they were keeping the knives for trophies.

7) The ‘alibi’ email home. Sure, it could have been written on the spot. However, it seems too long and detailed for that. Yes, some details would need to be added (like the poop), but who is to say she didn’t start working on it BEFORE the murder?

8) Keeping the text to Patrik to say ‘see you later’. Amanda says she doesn’t keep messages on her phone, but she had this one, and several days after the murder. Could this have been saved as a ‘backup plan’ in case naming Rudy does not work for some reason. Besides, don’t all black guys look the same? (sarcasm).

9) Yes, there was a bloody shoeprint (believed to be AK), but I don’t recall anyone saying her shoes were missing, or any other clothes she had. And she supposedly did not have many clothes. So, did she have ‘extras’ for that night?

10) Wiping down the home (even if it was botched), would take time, and ‘supplies’. A chronic slob just happens to have all these cleaning supplies on hand, or were they acquired before?

So, I suspect the real refusal to talk is that the full truth is a lot worse than any game or drugged up prank. The time and location is chosen, no clothes are ‘noticed’ missing, and Amanda has at least 3 potential patzies: Rudy, Raffaele, and Patrik. Remember, Guede and Lumumba are on ‘the list’ Knox ended up writing for Rita Ficarra. And AK and RS are scheduled to go on a trip that would take them away with a plausible alibi. Cleaning supplies may already be there.

Call me cynical: but I see all the signs of staging, and premeditation. Yes, the act itself was messy, but there are very obvious marks of forethought.

So. What will the judges of Cassation be seeing?


Monday, January 19, 2015

The Sollecito Trial For “Honor Bound” #3: Targeted Claims On Which Sollecito & Gumbel May Fold

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



Dr Giuliano Bartolomei of the chief prosecutor’s office of the Florence court brings the case

1. The Court Contenders

Judge Dolores Limongi will preside over Sollecito’s new trial in Florence this thursday and Dr Giuliano Bartolomei will prosecute.

No word about whether the hapless bungler Andrew Gumbel will attend, but Sollecito has said he will be there.  Sollecito’s defense team seems rather weak. After Sollecito’s own lawyers for his murder trial publicly renounced the most damaging claims in his book (see below) his family turned to Alfredo Brizioli for help.

Brizioli is a Perugia lawyer who was accused of being one of those trying to disguise the murdered Narducci’s involvement in the Monster of Florence killings. That shadowy group has just taken another hit in Italian eyes - a Milan court has ruled that Narducci, the probable murderer in the Monster of Florence crimes, was indeed himself murdered and there exists powerful evidence for this.

2. The Specific Charges

Charges against Sollecito are of two kinds: criminal defamation of both the justice system itself and of some of those who work within it. In US and UK terms criminal contempt of court comes close.

Criminal contempt charges become separate charges from the underlying case. Unlike civil contempt sanctions, criminal contempt charges may live on after resolution of the underlying case.

One charged with criminal contempt generally gets the constitutional rights guaranteed to criminal defendants, including the right to counsel, right to put on a defense, and the right to a jury trial in certain cases. Charges of criminal contempt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, incarceration for contempt may begin immediately, before the contempt charge is adjudicated and the sentence decided. Depending on the jurisdiction and the case, the same judge who decided to charge a person with contempt may end up presiding over the contempt proceedings.

Criminal contempt can bring punishment including jail time and/or a fine.

 

In this case a guilty verdict can open the tidal gates to criminal prosecutions and civil suits against Sharlene Martin and the Simon & Schuster team and all those many who repeated ANY of Sollecito’s and Gumbel’s false claims as gospel in their own books and online in the US and UK.

3. Nature Of The Claims

Typically the modus operandi of Knox and Sollecito and their factions in their US campaign (this falls flat in Italy) is to make some very damaging core claims, while leaving hundreds of pesky truths ignored.

Pesky truths helpfully ignored by most of the US and UK media too who apart from freelance Andrea Vogt have still done almost zero translation of their own. The previous post below shows a good example of this. Sollecito makes 20 false claims in a few pages. Dozens of facts that would belie those claims are simply left out.

The false claims continue (with considerable duplication for emphasis) throughout the 250-plus pages of the book.

Sollecito’s claims were published only in English. That was in the apparent hope that things would be reversed by political pressure from the US. Perhaps the US would let Sollecito come and live and stiff the Italian courts.

The Italian flagship crime show Porta a Porta wrecked that unusual and in-itself damaging strategy only 10 days out - with Francesco Sollecito’s and Luca Maori’s help.

The three worst-case examples quoted here and some others became public when Andrea Vogt and Italian reporters pointed to them after an October hearing. Page numbers are for the hard-cover book. 



Raffaele Sollecito retained Alfredo Brizioli after he burned his trial lawyers in his book

4. Example Claim One

Our brief response to this for now is that this felony attempt to frame the prosecutor for a serious crime was entirely made up. His own father and both his trial lawyers publicly said so. There was never a police or prosecution bias against Knox or toward Sollecito. As was very obvious at trial in 2009 the case against both was equally strong (an example of a key fact left out). Knox herself would seem to have a reason to get mad with Sollecito for this shafting - and in fact she did.

[ Page 219-222] My family was not beating up on Amanda entirely without cause. What I did not know at the time, because they preferred not to fill me in, was that they were exploring what it would take for the prosecution to soften or drop the case against me. The advice they received was almost unanimous: the more I distanced myself from Amanda, the better. The legal community in Perugia was full of holes and leaks, and my family learned all sorts of things about the opinions being bandied about behind the scenes, including discussions within the prosecutor’s office. The bottom line: Mignini, they were told, was not all that interested in me except as a gateway to Amanda. He might indeed be willing to acknowledge I was innocent, but only if I gave him something in exchange, either by incriminating Amanda directly or by no longer vouching for her.

I’m glad my family did not include me in these discussions because I would have lost it completely. First, my uncle Giuseppe approached a lawyer in private practice in Perugia - with half an idea in his head that this new attorney could replace Maori - and asked what I could do to mitigate my dauntingly long sentence. The lawyer said I should accept a plea deal and confess to some of the lesser charges. I could, for instance, agree that I had helped clean up the murder scene but otherwise played no part in it. “He’d get a sentence of six to twelve years,” the lawyer said, “but because he has no priors the sentence would be suspended and he’d serve no more jail time.”

To their credit, my family knew I would never go for this. It made even them uncomfortable to contemplate me pleading guilty to something I had not done. It was, as my sister, Vanessa, put it, “not morally possible.”

The next line of inquiry was through a different lawyer, who was on close terms with Mignini and was even invited to the baptism of Mignini’s youngest child that summer. (Among the other guests at the baptism was Francesco Maresca, the Kerchers’ lawyer, who had long since aligned himself with Mignini in court.) This lawyer said he believed I was innocent, but he was also convinced that Amanda was guilty. He gave my family the strong impression that Mignini felt the same way. If true - and there was no way to confirm that - it was a clamorous revelation. How could a prosecutor believe in the innocence of a defendant and at the same time ask the courts to sentence him to life imprisonment? The lawyer offered to intercede with Mignini, but made no firm promises. He wasn’t willing to plead my cause, he said, but he would listen to anything the prosecutor had to offer.

Over the late spring and summer of 2010, my father used this lawyer as a back channel and maneuvered negotiations to a point where they believed Mignini and Comodi would be willing to meet with Giulia Bongiorno and hear what she had to say. When Papà  presented this to Bongiorno, however, she was horrified and said she might have to drop the case altogether because the back channel was a serious violation of the rules of procedure. A private lawyer has no business talking to a prosecutor about a case, she explained, unless he is acting with the express permission of the defendant. It would be bad enough if the lawyer doing this was on my defense team; for an outside party to undertake such discussions not only risked landing me in deeper legal trouble, it also warranted disciplinary action from the Ordine degli Avvocati, the Italian equivalent of the Bar Association.

My father was mortified. He had no idea how dangerous a game he had been playing and wrote a letter to Bongiorno begging her to forgive him and stay on the case. He was at fault, he said, and it would be wrong to punish her client by withdrawing her services when I didn’t even know about the back channel, much less approve it. To his relief, Bongiorno relented.

My family, though, did not. Whenever they came to visit they would suggest some form of compromise with the truth. Mostly they asked why I couldn’t say I was asleep on the night of the murder and had no idea what Amanda got up to.


5. Example Claim 2

Our brief response to this for now is that the case against Sollecito was being driven by Judge Matteini and Judge Ricciarelli and Judge Micheli, not Dr Mignini (an example of a key fact left out) and they got their information directly from the police. More than a year prior to Sollecito’s book coming out, a Florence appeal court had totally annulled a vengeance conviction against Dr Mignini [“there is no evidence”] and the Supreme Court had endorsed the result (an example of a key fact left out).

[2. Page 176-177] One of the reasons our hearings were so spread out was that Mignini was fighting his own, separate legal battle to fend off criminal charges of prosecutorial misconduct. He and a police inspector working on the Monster of Florence case stood accused of intimidating public officials and journalists by opening legal proceedings against them and tapping their phones without proper justification.

To Mignini, the case smacked of professional jealousy because the prosecutors in Florence resented his intrusion on a murder mystery they had struggled for so long to resolve. But Mignini’s behavior had already attracted international condemnation, never more so than when he threw the journalist most indefatigably devoted to following the Monster case, Mario Spezi, into jail for three weeks.

Spezi had ridiculed Mignini’s theories about Francesco Narducci, the Perugian doctor whom Mignini suspected of being part of a satanic cult connected to the killings. In response, Mignini accused Spezi himself of involvement in Narducci’s murder - even though the death had been ruled a suicide. It was a staggering power play, and the international Committee to Protect Journalists was soon on the case. Spezi was not initially told why he was being arrested and, like me, was denied access to a lawyer for days. Even Mignini, though, could not press murder charges without proving first that a murder had taken place, and Spezi was eventually let out.

I firmly believe that our trial was, among other things, a grand diversion intended to keep media attention away from Mignini’s legal battle in Florence and to provide him with the high-profile court victory he desperately needed to restore his reputation. Already in the pretrial hearing, Mignini had shown signs of hypersensitivity about his critics, in particular the handful of English-speaking investigators and reporters who had questioned his case against us early on. He issued an explicit warning that anyone hoping he would back off the Meredith Kercher case or resign should think again. “Nobody has left their post, and nobody will,” he said. “Let that be clear, in Perugia and beyond.”

Just as he had in the Monster of Florence case, Mignini used every tool at his disposal against his critics and adversaries. He spied on my family and tapped their phones. He went after Amanda not just for murder, but also for defaming Patrick Lumumba - whom she had implicated under duress and at the police’s suggestion. He opened or threatened about a dozen other legal cases against his critics in Italy and beyond. He charged Amanda’s parents with criminal defamation for repeating the accusation that she had been hit in the head while in custody. And he sued or threatened to sue an assortment of reporters, writers, and newspapers, either because they said negative things about him or the police directly or because they quoted others saying such things.

Mignini’s volley of lawsuits had an unmistakable chilling effect, especially on the Italian press, and played a clear role in tipping public opinion against us. We weren’t the only ones mounting the fight of our lives in court, and it was difficult not to interpret this legal onslaught as part of Mignini’s campaign to beat back the abuse-of-office charges. His approach seemed singularly vindictive. Not only did we have to sit in prison while the murder trial dragged on; it seemed he wanted to throw our friends and supporters - anyone who voiced a sympathetic opinion in public - into prison right alongside us.


6. Example Claim 3

Our brief response to this for now is that this was long ago revealed to be a hoax (an example of a key fact left out). Neither the police nor the prosecution were in any way involved. A fake positive for HIV turned up, Knox was warned not to be concerned, and she was soon told that a new test showed her fine. Her list of recent sex partners was her idea, and its leaking to the media was demonstrably a family and defense-team thing (an example of a key fact left out).

[Page 101-102] The prosecution’s tactics grew nastier, never more so than when Amanda was taken to the prison infirmary the day after Patrick’s release and told she had tested positive for HIV.

She was devastated. She wrote in her diary, “I don’t want to die. I want to get married and have children. I want to create something good. I want to get old. I want my time. I want my life. Why why why? I can’t believe this.”

For a week she was tormented with the idea that she would contract AIDS in prison, serving time for a crime she did not commit. But the whole thing was a ruse, designed to frighten her into admitting how many men she had slept with. When asked, she provided a list of her sexual partners, and the contraceptive method she had used with each. Only then was she told the test was a false positive

To the prosecution, the information must have been a disappointment: seven partners in all, of whom four were boyfriends she had never made a secret of, and three she qualified as one-night stands. Rudy Guede was not on the list, and neither was anyone else who might prove useful in the case. She hadn’t been handing herself around like candy at Le Chic, as Patrick now alleged. She’d fooled around with two guys soon after arriving in Italy, neither of them at Patrick’s bar, and then she had been with me. Okay, so she was no Mother Teresa. But neither was she the whore of Babylon.

To compound the nastiness, the list was eventually leaked to the media, with the erroneous twist that the seven partners on the list were just the men she’d had since arriving in Perugia. Whatever one thought of Amanda and her free-spirited American attitude toward sex, this callous disregard for her privacy and her feelings was the behavior of savages.


7. Looking Forward

More posts to come.  We are going to open the floodgates on our own analysis of the book if the court on thursday takes a significant step forward.

Note that Sollecito has to contend with negative Italian public opinion as his claims bitterly disparaging to Italy itself (see the post below) are finally repeated in translation by the media and so become better known - at a disastrous time for him and Knox, two months before Cassation decides on their failed appeal.

In late 2012 after the book came out the TV crime show Porta a Porta gave Dr Sollecito quite a roasting on the first claim here and anger continued for some days more. He and Sollecito’s sister may be in court but no surprises if they are not. Knox could also react - the second and third claims above also appear in her book. 


Friday, January 16, 2015

The Sollecito Trial For “Honor Bound” #2: False Accusations From The First Few Pages

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



Suggested cover for a followup book due to multiple attempted malicious framings in first books

Examples: 20 False Claims In Seven Pages

We count several hundred malicious claims throughout that can easily be proved wrong. These twenty examples all appear in the book’s preface, which is only seven pages long.

Such claims continue throughout the book at approximately the same rate. Many sharp eyes here set about identifying them and are credited in the TJMK Liewatch page for Sollecito which will be switched on again when the secrecy requirement described in Part #12 below is relaxed by the court next week. 

1. That Italian justice authorities took the easy way out

This is the story of two ordinary people who stumbled upon an extraordinary circumstance, the brutal murder of a British student in Italy. Neither Amanda Knox nor I had anything to do with the crime, but we came perilously close to spending the rest of our lives in prison because the authorities found it easier, and more convenient, to take advantage of our youth and inexperience than to mount a proper investigation.  It’s that simple. And that absurd.

No advantage was taken of them. The two stood themselves out very sharply from all the others of similar age, and of similar inexperience (whatever that means). They did and said dozens of things in the early days that set them sharply apart.

They were questioned quite fairly, the Italian media was not especially hard, Dr Mignini never ever leaked, and they had lawyers and family handy at every turn after they were arrested. They each gave the authorities less than zero help - they tried to lead them off on wild goose chases, for example the false claim AK made against Patrick and dozens of other false claims, and apparently tried to finger yet another north African, Hicham Khiri, in a conversation they clearly knew was being recorded.

A “proper” investigation was indeed done. Simply read through all the posts on the trial here in the first half of 2009, and the prosecutor’s excellent summations, and you will see what a smooth comprehensive job was done. And the Supreme Court concluded that THREE had to have been involved, from the recreation of the attack and all the wounds on Meredith’s body. Subsequent to Patrick, AK and RS and their lawyers never came within light-years of throwing real suspicion on anyone else.

2. That the preventive custody was very harsh

On November 1, 2007, Amanda and I were carefree students at the beginning of a cross-cultural love affair in a beautiful Umbrian hill town. Within days, we were thrown into solitary confinement in a filthy prison, without access to lawyers or loved ones, accused of acts so heinous and disturbing we may never be able to banish them from our thoughts, or our nightmares.

Raffaele was sent to preventative prison on Tuesday November 6. Capanne Prison was almost brand-new then, and far from crowded. Cells contain TVs and private bathrooms.

All questioning had been stopped early on 6 November until Sollecito could have a lawyer present. He himself wrote to his father in his “prison diary” on November 7:  “I may see you tomorrow, at least that is what I was told by Tiziano [Tiziano Tedeschi, his lawyer at the time], who I saw today and who defended me before the judge.”

Mr Tedeschi made no complaint about any delay in the first meeting with his new client. In Italy, a judge must determine within 48 hours whether to hold or release detained suspects. Judge Matteini did so meticulously with Tedeschi present and refused Sollecito’s release.

3. That the prosecution and Italian media demonized the pair

In the newspapers and on the nightly news, we were turned into monsters, grotesque distortions of our true selves. It did not matter how thin the evidence was, or how quickly it became apparent that the culprit was someone else entirely. Our guilt was presumed, and everything the prosecution did and fed to the media stemmed from that false premise.

In the real world, the prosecution fed nothing at all secretly to the media and publicly very little, none of it self-servingly biased. Italian reporting was sporadic and very mild compared to anything one can see said daily about possible perps in the US and UK newspapers and on US TV. Besides, any coverage, which was in part deliberate in the situation as dozens of students were fleeing Perugia, had no influence on anything, neither on the investigation nor the trial.

The Italian system is set up so media can have less influence than almost any other media on any other justice system in the world. The Micheli and Massei sentencing reports show the judges were not unduly influenced even by the lawyers right in front of them, let alone by mild media reports 1 or 2 years before that.

4. That four years were wasted showing where the prosecution went wrong.

By the time we had dismantled the case and demonstrated its breathtaking absurdity [in the bent and annulled Hellmann appeal] we had spent four of what should have been the best years of our lives behind bars.

“We” meaning the defense lawyers did very little in the bent and annulled Hellmann appeal that they hadn’t flailed uselessly against in the trial. Except of course shopping for an inexperienced and pliable business judge, and for DNA consultants who they could then spoon-feed.

The list of lies by omission is extremely long. Much of the hard evidence they simply kept well away from, both in the trial and annulled appeal. Such as the extensive evidence in the corridor and bathroom and Filomena’s room, which were all considered parts of the crime scene.

On the other hand, RS’s claim could well apply to what Dr Galati and Cassation did for the Hellman sentencing report. Dismantled the appeal verdict, and demonstrated its breathtaking absurdity.

5. That Knox was made a target because timid Italy was scared of her.

Amanda and I certainly made our share of mistakes. At the beginning we were too trusting, spoke too frivolously and too soon, and remained oblivious to the danger we were courting even after the judicial noose began to tighten. Amanda behaved in ways that were culturally baffling to many Italians and attracted a torrent of gossip and criticism.

An inaccurate and xenophobic remark originated by the American Nina Burleigh, who was having severe culture shock of her own and surrounded only by other foreigners with similar mindsets.

What EXACTLY was so baffling about Knox to the very hip Italians? That Knox was pushy, obnoxious, humorless, rather lazy, rather grubby, and not especially funny or pretty or bright?  That she slept with a drug wholesaler up to the day of her arrest and cost him a stint in prison? That she put off Patrick, Meredith, her other flatmates, the boys downstairs, the customers in the bar, and just about everybody else except for the distasteful druggie loner Sollecito?

Read this post by the Italian-American Nicki in Milan. To quote from it “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….. Amanda Knox is not on trial because she is American and therefore too “emancipated”....Italians don’t much like Amanda primarily because they perceive her as a manipulative liar, who is suspected of having committed a heinous crime for which there is a whole stack of evidence.”

6. That Knox and Meredith were really great, great friends.

We were young and naive, unthinking and a little reckless. Of that much we were guilty.  But what we did not do—and could not have done, as the evidence clearly showed—was murder Meredith Kercher.

Meredith was Amanda’s friend, a fellow English speaker in the house they shared with two Italian women just outside Perugia’s ancient city walls. She was twenty-one years old, intelligent, and beautiful. She and Amanda knew each other for a little over three weeks, long enough to feel their way into their new surroundings and appreciate each other’s interests and temperaments. I never heard about a single tense moment between them.

Plenty of other people did know of tensions. Meredith’s family and friends all knew Meredith was finding the noisy dirty lazy loud unfocused Knox and her one-night-stands hard to take.  Her other flatmates found her hard to take. Her employer Patrick found her hard to take. His customers in the bar found her hard to take.  The Lifetime movie got this strident angle of Knox pretty straight.

Remember, Meredith had enrolled for a full academic load at the main university. Knox in sharp contrast took only one undemanding language course - which anyone could walk into - requiring maybe 10 hours of study a week.  They increasingly did less together. In fact after several weeks, nobody was lining up to have anything to do with Amanda Knox.

Seemingly unable to reverse herself, Knox was headed to being among the least popular of students (or part-time students) in Perugia.  It should be recalled that the callous remarks by Amanda Knox about the death of her so-called friend Meredith included “Shit happens”, “She fucking bled to death”, and “‘I want to get on with the rest of my life”.

7. That an intruder knew about the rent money and so murder ensued.

Meredith, of course, suffered infinitely worse luck than we did: she came home, alone, on an ordinary Thursday night and had her throat slit by an intruder hoping to steal the household rent money.

There is zero evidence that this was the case. Knox herself ended up with a similar amount of cash that she has never been able to explain. There is zero possibility that Guede would know that any money was lying around - or not lying around, as it was concealed in Meredith’s drawer.

And take a look at the many images of the brightly lit house at night around 8:00 pm. There are several dozen other houses behind it in the dark which any smart burglar would have chosen first and entered hours later.  In 2008 two real break-ins occurred at the house - both were in the dark behind the house, which is by far the easiest place to break in.

So much for the spurious lone-wolf theory, which Judge Micheli first ruled out even before trial.

8. That the media got hysterical and portrayed heartless killers.

But the roles could easily have been reversed. If Meredith’s Italian boyfriend had not gone away for the weekend and if Amanda had not started sleeping over at my house, she—not Meredith—might have been the one found in a pool of blood on her bedroom floor. That reality was quickly lost amid the hysteria of the media coverage. But it continued to hover over both of us—Amanda especially—as we sank into the legal quagmire and struggled in vain to overcome the public image of us as heartless killers.

There was zero media hysteria. This silly claim was addressed above. Watch the Porta a Porta YouTubes and dozens of other Italian reports and try to find ONE that is not fair and cautious and mature.

How precisely did the two struggle in vain to overcome their public image? By coming up repeatedly with stories which didnt even tally with others of their own, let alone with one another’s? They never between them made even one helpful statement which actually helped the police.  And even their respective parents strongly suspected or knew of their guilt and were all caught incriminatingly on tape.

9. That Rudy Guede did it alone; ignore vast evidence that proves not.

This should not have been a complicated case. The intruder was quickly identified as Rudy Guede, an African immigrant living in Perugia with a history of break-ins and petty crimes. His DNA was found all over Meredith’s room, and footprints made in her blood were found to match his shoes. Everything at the crime scene pointed to a lone assailant, and a single weapon. Guede repeatedly broke into houses by throwing a rock through a window, as happened here, and he had been caught by the authorities in the past with a knife similar to the one that inflicted Meredith’s fatal wounds.

This is laughable. The room itself could not be checked for DNA as the choice was to fingerprint-check it instead. Sollecito’s footprint on the bathroom mat is a smoking gun all by itself. Crack national investigators demonstrated in numerous ways that the attack involved multiple assailants and this was endorsed by the Supreme Court.

Sollecito’s own lawyers never forcefully argued this. They produced two non-credible witnesses in the appeal trial (Alessi and Aviello) to actually prove that Guede had some other accomplices or that several others did it. Amanda Knox if anything diverted attention AWAY from Guede as he did in turn from her. He wasn’t quickly identified precisely because Knox had extremely credibly again and again on 5-6 Nov fingered Patrick.

There is no proof Guede intruded anywhere. The trial court concluded Knox invited him in. Guede had zero proven history of break-ins or petty crimes or drug-dealing, and late in 2008 at his trial Judge Micheli became angry at such claims. Guede had no prior criminal record at all. He had only been back in Perugia for a few weeks, after an extended stay up north.  His DNA was not found “all over” Meredith’s room. A major surprise, in fact, was how few traces of him were found.

The recreation of the crime scene and the autopsy both pointed AWAY FROM a lone assailant, not toward.  From Meredith’s wounds, it was quite evident that two and perhaps three knives had been used, and not a single weapon. What lone intruder carries or uses two or three knives?  And footprints in blood outside the door matched the feet of both RS and AK. This is why the Supreme Court confirmed Guede’s guilt only “in concorso” (with others).

10. That the cops could have caught Guede fast, despite Knox’s frame

Guede did not call the police, as Amanda and I did, or volunteer information, or agree to hours of questioning whenever asked. Rather, he fled to Germany as soon as the investigation began and stayed there until his arrest two and a half weeks later.

Guede’s apprehension and eventual conviction on murder charges should have been the end of the story. But by the time Guede was identified, the police and the public prosecutor’s office had convinced themselves that the murder was, incredibly, the result of a sexual orgy gone wrong, in which Amanda and I had played leading roles. Their speculations ignited a media firestorm, inspiring sensationalist headlines across the world about the evil lurking behind our seemingly innocent faces.

The authorities had no shred of evidence to substantiate this story line, only erroneous suppositions and wild imaginings. We had an alibi for the most likely time of death, and none of the initial forensic evidence tied us to the scene of the crime. Nothing in our backgrounds gave any hint of a propensity for violence or criminality. We were both accomplished, hardworking students known to our friends and families for our gentleness and even tempers.

Four more untrue claims. All three were convicted of a murder with a sex-crime element, and nobody was wrongly “convinced”. Which alibi is Sollecito talking about now? He himself admits in chapter 1 (Love and Death) that they had no “real alibi”. They still have no alibis at all for the second half of the evening, neither of them, when Meredith’s murder indisputably occurred.

Extensive forensic evidence within days tied them both to the scene. Not a single element of it has been discredited in the eyes of the Massei trial and Nencini appeal court. Not even one. Nothing was proven falsified, no item at all.

Neither of their backgrounds was squeaky clean. Both had long been into illegal drugs, the loner Sollecito had to be watched by his father and teachers, the increasingly disliked Knox had a history of doing and saying crass off-putting things. Both were lagging behind their brighter peers in their studies and Knox was in reality taking a year off.

11. That the prosecution fed the media a huge number of false claims.

Yet the authorities stuck to their guns. They fed the media a steady diet of sensationalist stories of how Amanda, the promiscuous American she-devil, and I, her sex-and-drug-addled Italian helpmeet, had tried without success to drag Meredith into our depravity and punished her by plunging an outsize kitchen knife into her neck.

Complete fiction. Again, in the real world, as the media reporters all confirm, the prosecution fed nothing at all secretly to the media, and publicly very little, none of it self-servingly biased.  Italian reporting was sporadic and very mild compared to anything one can see daily on possible perps in the US and UK newspapers and on US TV crime shows. There is zero sign this mild coverage mattered to the courts. As the media reporters all confirm, they were fed next to nothing by the police or prosecution on the case,

But whereas Mr Mignini famously never leaks, the defenses are widely claimed to have leaked throughout like sieves. So did Sollecito’s own family - they leaked an evidence video to Telenorba TV, for which they were considered for trial. Even we at TJMK and PMF received several offers of juicy leaks. Here is one example of where the Knox forces leaked - wrongly in fact - and then nastily slimed the prosecution and defenseless prison staff.

12. That the authorities had lots and lots and lots of scenarios.

It might have been funny if the consequences had not been so devastating. Listening to the tortured language of the prosecution—“one can hypothesize that . . . ,” “it is possible that . . . ,” “one can imagine that . . . ,” “this scenario is not incompatible with . . .”—it became clear that the authorities, like the media, were treating our case with the bizarre levity of an after-dinner game of Clue, or an Agatha Christie mystery. Everyone, even the judges in their black robes, had theories they were itching to air.

Have Sollecito and Gumbel ever before been in any other court in Italy or the UK or the US?  Every judge and/or jury seeks to zero in on a viable scenario on lines not unlike this. That is the whole POINT of having courts - to weight the probabilities in what happened in the crime.  The only difference in Italy is that the judges have to think their verdict through for weeks, and then write it all out, and then see it scrutinized by a higher court. Hardly a requirement to be sneered at.

Gumbel and Sollecito should have studied how US and UK juries arrive at their own scenarios. Very few US and UK lawyers think they do a better job. Ask those who watched the OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony trials and bitterly criticised the outcomes of those. And Italy has a vastly lower rate of false imprisonment than the US does, less than 1/6 of the US rate.

13. That Italy is a medieval country with a primitive justice system.

It could have been Colonel Mustard in the drawing room with the revolver; instead it was Amanda and Raffaele in the bedroom with the kitchen knife. How was it conceivable that a democratic country known for its style and beauty and effortless charm—the Italy of the Renaissance and la dolce vita—could allow two young people to be catapulted to international notoriety and convicted of a horrific crime on the basis of nothing at all?

This is not remotely what happened. There was very far from nothing at all. Convictions in the US and UK regularly result based on evidence 1/10 or 1/100 of that here - sometimes from one single evidence point. Any one or several of maybe 100 evidence points here could have convicted them in a US or UK court.

Italy gives defendants every possible break, and the justice system has become seriously loaded against victims and their families. Read here and here.

14. That the prosecutors office and media were in a grim embrace.

The answer has something to do with the grim embrace that developed between the prosecutor’s office and the sensationalist media. Like addicts constantly looking for the next fix, each fed the other’s insatiable appetite for titillation and attention. The casual cruelty of “Foxy Knoxy” and her Italian lover became too good a story line to abandon, even when it became apparent it was overheated and unsustainable. Our suffering was the price to be paid for the world’s continuing entertainment.

WHAT grim embrace? WHAT addicts? WHAT fix? WHAT insatiable appetite? WHAT titillation and attention? This is clearly defamatory if it can’t be proven, and we can turn up no evidence that any of it is true. It has to be one of the most foolish lies in the entire book, it is so easy to disprove. These who are being accused of crimes here are career police and prosecutors secure in their jobs, and perhaps some in the media, and none have the slightest gain to make from convictions arrived at through a hoax.

15. That in the justice system speculation and hearsay run rampant

The meandering complexities of the Italian legal system, where speculation and hearsay are allowed to run rampant and time invariably slows to a maddening trickle, did little to help our cause.

Total mischaracterization. First note that by comparison with any country in the world THERE IS NOT MUCH CRIME IN ITALY.  There is some minor corruption and still some minor mafia action, but thefts and burglaries and assaults are few and murders even fewer. The main crime if you can call it such is citizens not lining up to pay taxes.  Italy’s murder rate is 1/6 that of the United States and its prison system size is 1/30 that of the United States, so where IS all this crime about which the claimed speculation and hearsay are running rampant?

The legal process would have been fully over by the end of 2009 if (1) there was not the entitlement to two automatic appeals; in UK and US terms there was very little to appeal about;  and (2) the Hellmann appeal court had not been fixed to produce a corrupt outcome, as the displaced judge Sergio Matteini Chiari and Cassation and the Council of Magistrates have all made plain.

And compared to American police and prosecutors, their Italian counterparts are famously taciturn under their unusually firm rules. There is media interest, for sure, as there should be when there are crimes, but that also is comparatively restrained. Watch the various Porta a Porta shows on YouTube and you will see how sedate crime discussion tends to be.

The Constitution and the judicial code set out to achieve the exact opposite of speculation and hearsay affecting justice, and they do so.  Creating this restraint is a primary reason for the judges’ sentencing reports, and for all the magistrates’ checks of investigations along the way.

This whole series of dishonest claims about the the Italian system in the preface of the book and a later chapter have clearly not been read through or okayed by even one Italian lawyer. They would all know it is wrong.

16. That in Italy proof beyond a reasonable doubt scarcely exists

For reasons deeply embedded in the country’s history, the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt scarcely exists in Italy, and the very notion of undisputed fact is viewed with suspicion, if not outright aversion.

So Gumbel and Sollecito are historians and legal experts now? It would be nice, wouldn’t it, if either were able to explain the remark. This may be an ignorant swipe at the Napoleonic Code on which the law of a lot of continental Europe is based. Ignored is that Italy carried out its own reforms to the Code in 1990 and more subsequently. Much of that reform, it should be pointed out, was procedural or structural rather than substantive law.

There are two things wrong with “..the concept of reasonable doubt scarcely exists in Italy.”

    1. It is factually wrong. Italian jurists, the courts, and so on, are well acquainted with the concept as it has been a fundamental aspect of criminal proceedings in Italy as elsewhere for many decades if not centuries.

    2. It suggests that Italians are not intelligent enough to understand the concept anyway. That of course is an insult to Italians.  Actually they are no less intelligent than the rest of us elsewhere who strive to understand it.

Until the 1990 Reforms the relationship between criminal and civil proceedings in Italy were governed by the principles of unity of jurisdiction and the prevailing status of criminal proceedings. Hence, if the facts were the same then criminal proceedings (to punish the guilty) and civil proceedings (to render liable the guilty for damages) were heard at the same time and still sometimes are, as in the Meredith Kercher case.

What has changed (relevant to the above quote) is that civil cases can be and are more likely to be heard independently from the related criminal cases and, where not, the standard of proof in civil cases (the preponderance of evidence or, as we usually refer to it, the balance of probabilities) is to be applied to the civil case, and the civil case only, rather than be confused with or overriden by the criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt).

Not an easy task, admittedly, to apply different standards to different tasks, based on the same facts, in the same proceedings, but Italian judges are trained to do this because that is their system. No judge would EVER confuse “beyond reasonable doubt” with “the balance of probabilities” when the issue at stake is depriving an individual of his freedom.

17. That the Italian judiciary has vast, unfettered powers

Few in Italian society wield as much unfettered power as the robed members of the judiciary, whose independence makes them answerable to nobody but themselves.

Radically the opposite of the truth. The paranoid claim reads like it came from ex PM Berlusconi fearful of his own conviction or one of his parliamentary lackeys such as Girlanda.

The checks and balances on judges in the Italian system are enormous, perhaps the toughest checks and balances in the world. Read here and here about them.

All of the best judges in the world are independent and they all follow a demanding career path, not elected (as ex-Judge Heavey was) under zero criteria, or appointed under the political sway of politicians. We wonder if Gumbel and Sollecito have ever heard of the US Supreme Court? Do those judges answer to anybody? No? How unfettered. 

18. That the courts are the most reviled institution in Italy.

Many Italians retain a healthy skepticism about the reliability of their procedures and rulings. The courts—tainted by politics, clubbishness, pomposity, and excruciating delays—are the most reviled institution in the country.


As our Sollecito Book pages make clear again and again and again, the Italian system is remarkably NOT tainted by politics, as even the most surperficial watcher of the trials of ex Prime Minister Sylvio Berlusconi would know.

And on the issue of popularity we have previously posted this and this and also this.

Our Italian poster Machiavelli (Yummi), who posted our deep analysis of the appeal to the Supreme Court by Dr Galati, has provided these hard facts:

For comparison, in 2011 the percentage of Italians who declared they trust the justice system “a lot” or “enough” was 53.3%. By comparison, the percentage of Italians who declared they trust the government “a lot” or “enough”  were 14.7%, and those who trust the parliament were only 15%.

In 2012, the percentage of Italians who trust the parliament is now only 9.5%, and those who trust the Mario Monti administration are only 21.1%.

Over the eight years from 2004 to 2012 the percentage of Italians who trust the justice system was always bigger than those who trust parliament or government by at least ten points, and in some years we can see a spread of 20, 30, even 39 percentage points achieved by the judiciary over the parliament and government.

However, some cases of corruption (such as our Hellmann-Zanetti case, but also several others indicated by the Rapporto Italia 2012) do hamper trust.

The most trusted institutions in Italy above all are the Carabinieri (74% of Italians trust them) and the Polizia di Stato (71%).

Which means the most trusted institutions are precisely those law enforcement instruments which are deployed to enforce the orders of prosecutors.

19. That prosecutors can spin their cases into any shape they please.

Because the Italian legal system is almost completely blind to precedent and relies on a tangle of impenetrable codes and procedures, prosecutors and judges have almost boundless freedom to spin their cases into any shape they please and create legal justifications on the fly. Often, they are more interested in constructing compelling narratives than in building up the evidence piece by piece, a task considered too prosaic and painstaking to be really interesting.

Whoever wrote this either wasnt an Italian or a lawyer, and either way didnt have much of a clue. The entire Italian system under the post WWII constitution was designed to PREVENT what Sollecito & Gumbel claim it allows here.

There are checks and balances and reviews every step of the way. Magistrates (initially Matteini here) determine what a prosecutor may do in developing and presenting a case. Parties may appeal to the Supreme Court AT ANY TIME as Knox’s lawyers did over her second written confession - which she herself had demanded to make in front of Dr Mignini after he finished warning her of her rights.

Hard for Sollecito & Gumbel to believe, perhaps, but the defense is actually present in the same courtroom. They can raise points of order at any time. So can the defendants themselves, at any time, something maybe unique in the world.

And judges actually have minds of their own. And then there are the unique written sentencing reports, and the two automatic appeals if any parties want to pursue them.

Sollecito & Gumbel should have read the 2012 Galati appeal more closely. The Prosecution’s Appeal To The Supreme Court is available in English here.  Precedent has a section to itself - “The non-observance of the principles of law dictated by the Cassation Court in the matter of circumstantial cases (Article 606(b)) in relation to Article 192 paragraph 2 Criminal Procedure Code.”

Well, that’s precedent, via the Court of Cassation no less! How surprising from Gumbel/Sollecito that they should make that claim about ignoring precedent when in fact there it is, going right to the heart of the flawed Hellmann/Zanetti judgement on circumstantial evidence!  What else is a Code but in effect a codification, a gathering together, a rationalisation, of best law - and precedent? 

There is an absurd irony here, were they aware of it. Perhaps they are. Surely it is Hellmann and Zanetti who have displayed “a boundless freedom” in spinning the case “into any shape they please”, and who have “created legal justifications on the fly”?  As for prosecutors doing this, at least Dr Mignini followed the evidence, and American readers may recall the infamous Jim Garrison, the DA hero of Oliver Stone’s movie “JFK” but who in reality, unlike Dr Mignini, was a total and utter crackpot.

And what issue exploded the Porta a Porta TV show in Italy in September 2012? It was Sollecito’s false claim that the prosecution had secretly tried to offer him a deal if he would roll over on Knox.  NOBODY including his own father and his own lawyers confirmed him. Evidence against both was overwhelming. Nobody needed such a deal, and Italian prosecutors are highly rules-bound against ever offering such deals.

Sollecito was in effect accusing Dr Mignini of a felony with this much-repeated false claim in his book. (In her book Knox also accused Dr Mignini of a felony.)

20. That the prosecutors and judges in Italy are far too close.

Prosecutors and judges are not independent of each other, as they are in Britain or the United States, but belong to the same professional body of magistrates. So a certain coziness between them is inevitable, especially in smaller jurisdictions like Perugia.

Yes, prosecutors and judges in Italy belong to the same professional body of magistrates. But then so does the defense lawyer Ms Bongiorno. The claim that there is no independence between prosecutors and judges in Italy, in fact a coziness between them, is a bit rich.

Consider, say, the UK. It is true cases are prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service, a government body, but in serious cases the CPS will employ barristers from the Inns of Court. There is scarcely a judge in the UK, even up to the highest level, who was not and who is not still a member of one of the Inns of Court from whence barristers, for the prosecution or for the defence, ply their trade.

You can’t walk past an Inn without seeing the names of judges on the roll call on the plaques outside. A judge is still a barrister, just fulfilling a different function, although, of course, now paid by the State.  The old school boy tie? Corruption? No, the fulfilling of different roles by members of the same body is called professionalism. 

Judges and lawyers all belong to the American Bar Association in the US and attend the same conferences. No sign that this lack of “independence” ever affects trials.  This claimed excess of coziness is often ranted about online by the Knoxophile David Anderson who lives near Perugia. Nobody who pays him any attention can get where he derives this from. Maybe he heard it from Hellman?

Perugia prosecutors and magistrates are all known to do a fine job, and the national Olympics & earthquake relief cases involving powerful Rome politicians were assigned for competent handling to where? To Perugia… Defense lawyer Ghirga and Prosecutor Mignini have the reputation of being good friends. And Mignini and Massei would both draw their salaries from the State. But so what? Do not judges and DAs in the the USA do likewise? Are Gumbel and Sollecito impugning the professionalism of the counterparts of Mignini and Massei all over the world? It sure reads like it.


The Sollecito Trial For “Honor Bound” #1: History Of How This Ill-Fated Saga Began

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



The “supertanker” the PR forces worked hard to turn has become a Titanic for them now

1. The Latest Legal Developments

A new phase of the Florence trial of Raffaele Sollecito and Andrew Gumbel is scheduled to start on Thursday of next week.

Why is this the iceberg in the Titanic’s path? Because Sollecito and later Knox made numerous demonstrably false and damaging claims that so many others then made, most usually worse.

See Sollecito go down here, or withdraw his claims, for lack of any proof, and the legal liabilities of all those others stretch to the horizon and beyond.

This trial puts Knox herself and her parents with her wild book and their wild claims at more risk. 

For reasons explained below, the investigation of the myriad claims by an Italian, beamed only at Americans, of official crimes and alternative “facts” couched in a jeering, sneering anti-Italy tone was taken behind the scenes by the Florence prosecution early in 2013.

The charges and target defamatory passages selected out of numerous passages falsely describing facts of the case and falsely accusing officials of crimes have not been formally reported even in Italy yet, except for a website update last October by the indefatigable journalist Andrea Vogt.

2. Chronology 2009-2011: The Trial And Appeal

In 2011 what is widely known in Italy to have been a bent Hellmann appeal court ran a cartoonish and illegal retrial of Sollecito and AK.

This illegal retrial, mostly annulled by the Supreme Court in March 2013, was lacking a few things. Such as most evidence, most witnesses, and all of the 2009 prosecution case and the compelling prosecution summations at the end. An illegal DNA consultancy which should never have occurred at appeal is also believed to have been bent.

3. Various Flashing Warning Lights

On 3 October 2011 Judge Hellmann told RS and AK they were free to go, despite the fact that no legal process for murder and some other crimes is considered final in Italy until no party pursues any further appeals or the Supreme Court signs off. Most still accused of serious crimes (as in the UK and US) remain locked up. Hellmann, pathetically trying to justify this fiasco ever since, was firmly edged out and still the target of a possible charge.

Other flashing warnings should have made Sollecito’s family and legal team and book writers very wary. They included the immediate strong warning of a tough prosecution appeal to the Supreme Court. They also included the pending calunnia trials of Knox and her parents, the pending trial of the Sollecitos for attempting to use politics to subvert justice, the pending trials of Spezi, Aviello, and Sforza, and so on. 

A major flashing warning was right there in Italian law. Trials are meant to be conducted in the courtroom and attempts to poison public opinion are illegal. They can be illegal in the US and UK too but, for historical reasons to do with the mafias and crooked politicians, Italian laws in this area are among the world’s toughest. So mid-process, normally no books are ever published

4. Chronology 2012-2013 The United States Track

Knox quickly headed back to the US West Coast and Sollecito soon came after her there.

After three-plus years of Sollecito and his camp being very iffy about Knox he suddenly - to his father’s open frustration - could not get enough of her.

Very quickly Sollecito found a book agent, Sharlene Martin,  who lives just a couple of miles from the Mellases and Knoxes, and she lined up a shadow writer, Andrew Gumbel, who lives in LA and had been based in Italy in the 1990s.

Both Sharlene Martin and Andrew Gumbel soon revealed that their “knowledge” of the case was paper-thin and dangerously biased.

Sollecito’s Italian lawyers seemingly did not have a clue what was going on on this book front - lately an angry Giulia Bongiorno made that plain enough.

Sollecito’s father and sister did have growing concerns (among much fallout in Italy of their own such as Vanessa losing a plum Carabinieri job) and in March they hopped on a flight to Seattle to try to ditch Knox and presumably the book and drag Sollecito home.

Even Knox at times seemed to want the clingy nuisance gone, and she produced a claimed new love-interest to help to keep him at bay.

Throughout 2012 the hubris of the Knox camp within which Sollecito had embedded himself was immense. David Marriott and Bruce Fischer both posted that it was their efforts that had got the two released, making no mention of a court the defenses had bent.

On 18 September Honor Bound hit the shelves. If Sharlene Martin or Andrew Gumbel or Simon & Schuster had done any due diligence on the book, such as reading court documents, or even run it in final draft in Italian past Sollecito’s lawyers in Italy, that due diligence sure did not show. (A legal case for the Sollecito family to pursue?)

Seemingly irresponsible or incompetent and not caring who in Italy they hurt, Sharlene Martin and Andrew Gumbel then assisted Sollecito in a triumphalist but mostly unconvincing sweep of the US crime shows.

The flagship interview was with Katie Couric on ABC right before the book came out. It really hurt. She had an advance copy and had done her homework. See our suggested questions and report and posts and Kermit’s great spoof here , here , here , here , and here.  The book promotion tour ended in Seattle thus..

Late April 2013 Knox’s book came out. Strong differences with Sollecito emerged both in the books and publicly in the media as described here and here.

Sharlene Martin later set up a panel of the useful idiots Michael Heavey and John Douglas and Steve Moore in a Congressional room for hire, an odd role for an agent of a book, which nobody of importance attended. Just as well. Truth was scarce.

Sollecito repeatedly visited the United States (and the Caribbean) though he was provisionally a convicted felon, not least in a desperate, cynical and hurtful attempt, after the sharp rebuff by Amanda Knox, to find an American wife.

You can read the rest of Sollecito’s US saga in the top posts here. His last visit to the United States was in late 2013.

5. Chronology 2012-2013 The Italy Track

The book was written and published only in English; Francesco Sollecito said no Italian publisher would touch it (surprise, surprise).

In Italy, from our post of 27 September 2012, this media explosion is what happened next.

In Italy Sollecito’s wildly inaccurate and hyper-aggressive book has already set himself up for two kinds of trouble

The Gumbel and Sollecito book was released in English on 18 September 2012 and within ten days all of Italy knew that the book was a crock.

Sollecito’s own father and own lawyer Maori have already been forced to admit the book contains serious lies. Prosecutors are considering whether there should be new charges

Sollecito’s own father Francesco was made to concede by the host and all other guests on the popular Porta a Porta TV show last week that Sollecito lied in claiming that the prosecution had sought a deal under which Sollecito would frame Amanda.

Such a deal would be illegal so Sollecito was falsely accusing prosecutors of a very serious crime. Francesco Sollecito backed down even more in some interviews later. One of Sollecito’s own lawyers, Luca Maori, also had to deny in frustration that the offer of any deal either way ever happened.

Now the prosecution has announced that they are weighing whether there should be new charges lodged against Sollecito.

Sollecito has suddenly claimed in the book, nearly five years after he said it happened, in face of vast evidence including his own writings to the contrary, that police interrogated him over 10 hours, and abused and threatened him.

But he was demonstrably not ever interrogated over 10 hours, and he folded fast when they showed him his phone records, which contradicted his earlier alibis, and so he promptly laid the blame on Amanda.

Prosecutors and police have all already stated that he simply lied here too, and again prosecutors are considering whether there should be new charges

Thereafter we posted a number of times about false claims others and we ourselves identified in the book -  one of three (with Preston’s and Knox’s) probably the most defamatory ever written about any justice system or justice officials anywhere. Our next posts will pick up that thread.

5. Italy Officially Reacts

Finally for now, we posted on 18 February 2013 on a formal move against the book by the Florence Courts, with a Breaking News addendum that (very unusually) the prosecution and supervising magistrate had taken the investigation behind closed doors.

That secrecy order to counter the toxic PR still persists, right up to now, and it will only be next Thursday that the results of the investigation and the charges against Sollecito and Gumbel become widely know.

Next post: selected examples of Sollecito’s and Gumbel’s false claims.


Wednesday, January 14, 2015

Justice System Comparisons #1: Had Meredith’s Murder Taken Place In Canada

Posted by Chimera



Supreme Court Of Canada in the capital Ottawa

Overview Of This Post

Much has been made about the differences between the American and Italian criminal justice systems.

This post offers some different perspectives, from the Canadian system, the one I know most about as I reside in Canada, as do many readers here. While I am not a lawyer, I do know a fair amount about the system here.  Enjoy this multi-part submission.

I explain first the Canadian system, and then what would have happened to those accused of Meredith’s death under this system.  I am making no judgements as to which system is the best, as all have their pros and cons.  Please take this article as a source for broadening perspectives.

Some History Of Our System

a. Canada is part of the British Commonwealth.  Although the Queen of England is still our official head of state, and her representative, the governor general, the head of Canada’s military, the roles are largely figurative.

b. Although most of Canada is governed by Common Law, from the British model, the province of Quebec uses its own regulations, based largely on the Civil Code from Napoleonic times. 

c. Because of the differences in the Common Law and Civil Codes, by law, the Supreme Court of Canada MUST contain both judges from Quebec and from the other provinces.

d. Although in the past cases settled in the Supreme Court of Canada could still be appealed to the UK, that is no longer the case.

Is Criminal Law a Federal, Provincial, or Municipal matter?

Criminal Law is made up, and amended exclusively by the federal government, however, administrating the courts, and trying cases is a provincial matter.  The rules spell out clearly what is a federal v.s. provincial responsibility.  Stepping outside these boundaries often leads to tension, and having the new rules struck down.

Are prisons and probation/parole offices federal or provincial?

It depends on the sentence.  A jail term of 2 years or more is a federal sentence, in which case federal corrections is put in charge of the person.  Naturally, these are for much more serious or repeat crimes.  A jail term (or conditional sentence) of under 2 years is a provincial sentence, and the respective province deals with the person.

Probation and parole rules and regulations are set out differently, and it depends on what the person has received in terms of prison time.  If no prison time is given, then probation is the responsibility of the province.

How Are Offences Classified?

Offences in Canada are classified as such in the criminal code

  • 1. Summary Offences: Minor in nature, in America called a ‘‘misdemeanor’’
  • 2. Indictable Offences: Much more serious, in America called a ‘‘felony’‘
  • 3. Hybrid Offences: The prosecutor has discretion in how to proceed
Who hears criminal appeals in Canada?

The appeal will likely be heard in the province’s court of appeals, the provincal ‘‘top court’‘.  Please do not mistake ‘‘provincial supreme court’’ as being the top court, as it is not the same thing. 

A trial court hears witnesses, while an appeals court is called a ‘paper court’.  It works from transcripts.

1. Generally, there are 2 main trial courts, the lower court, and the higher (Superior or Supreme) court.  As the names imply, the lower courts generally take on less serious cases, while the higher courts take more serious cases, such as murder.

2. If a case is tried summarily (a less designated case) and in the lower court, the case may be appealed to either the Provincial Court of Appeals, or to the High Court (Superior or Supreme)

3. If a case is tried by indictment (felony), or in Superior/Supreme Court, then appeals MUST go to the Provincial Court of Appeals.

    (a) For example, a major case in Ontario will be tried in Ontario Superior Court, and if appealed, it will go to the Ontario Court of Appeals. 
    (b) For example, a major case in British Columbia will be tried in the BC Supreme Court, and if appealed, will go to the BC Court of Appeals.
    (c) Other provinces also have trial courts, then a court of appeals

4 In any case, it may be further appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada

    For some perspective: Imagine Amanda Knox lived in Toronto, Ontario. 

    Her rock throwing riot in Seattle, if here would likely have landed her in the Ontario Court of Justice, and the prosecutors would likely have gone summarily against her, although a more serious charge (assault) would be a hybrid offence.  If she chose to appeal, the Superior Court (which is also a trial court), would likely hear her appeal.

    Her sexual assault and murder charges, if in Ontario, would automatically have been tried as indictable offences and she would be in Superior Court.  Her first appeal would be with the Ontario Court of Appeals

5. A defendant has the right to appeal a criminal conviction to the provincial appeals court.  However, this is more like the U.S. than Italy, in that these appeals are not automatically granted.  The Court first has to determine that there is some merit to the appeal.  If it is baseless, it will be dismissed.  In the case of Knox and Sollecito, it would likely not be allowed to proceed.

6. A defendant has the right to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada after a Provincial Court of Appeals rules.  However, the S.C.C. usually declines to intervene, unless the facts are extremely controversial, or of significance.  This is especially true if it is just a rehash of the Provincial appeal.

What are your rights if arrested in Canada?

Section 10 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms says that you have the right to be informed of the reason, the right to retain a lawyer without delay, and have the validity of the detention challenged by way of habeas corpus.

Are people’s name shielded from press?

In some circumstances

  • The person was a minor at the time of the offence (though an adult sentence annuls that protection)
  • In sexual assault cases, the victim(s) name(s) CANNOT be released publicly
  • In highly sensitive cases (like treason or terrorism)
  • If it would put someone in danger or compromise a witness
Can you give press conferences or talk to the media if accused of a crime?

While possible, this is not recommended.  For example, and appeals about adverse publicity or not being able to get a fair trial will not be taken seriously.  Also, contempt charges will be quite likely. 

While the media does cover serious cases, the coverage has generally been pretty neutral in Canada.

Can you write a book or get a movie deal?

No these deals would be considered profit or proceeds from crime.

Can you be forced to take the stand in Canada?

As a defendant, no.  11(c) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects against forced self incrimination (in America, it is called ‘‘taking the 5th’‘).

Interestingly enough, there are no real protections for witnesses who just don’t want to testify.

Does Canada grant bail to accused criminals?

Usually. 11(e) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that reasonable bail should not be denied without just cause.  In practice, this means unless the person is a flight risk, a threat to the public, or the offence is extremely shocking to the public, they can get bail.

However, if a person has a prior criminal record, it becomes harder to get bail each time.

Note: Bail hearings are usually done by J.P.s (Justices of the Peace).  They are not judges, but can make some legal decisions.  Bail decisions can usually be appealed to a judge,

Does Canada have the ‘Double Jeopardy’ law?

Yes and no.  Refer to 11(h) in the Charter or Rights and Freedoms.  It says that if a person is finally acquitted of the offence, or finally found guilty and punished, not to be tried again for the same offence.

The key word here is finally, as in, all appeals have been exhausted.

The appeal will likely be heard in the province’s court of appeals, the provincal ‘‘top court’‘.  Please do not mistake ‘‘provincial supreme court’’ as being the top court.  That is an American naming.  For example, a major case in Ontario will be tried in Ontario Superior Court, and if appealed, it will go to the Ontario Court of Appeals.

If a person is convicted, and chooses to appeal, that case will likely be heard by the provincial court of appeals.

Note: Notice of an appeal must generally be filed within 30 days of the verdict.  If no notice is filed, then the acquittal/conviction is considered final.

Note: It is possible, but very rare for a prosecution to appeal an acquittal, or to appeal a Provincial Appeal Court ruling.  Basically, the prosecution must prove that the trial court (or first appeal court) made fundamental and very serious legal errors.  It cannot just be a another shot at a conviction.  The Appeal Court can then do many things, including sending it back for a retrial, amending the sentence, or throwing out a conviction.  Or it can confirm the acquittal.

Does Canada have a plea bargaining system?

Yes, Crown Prosecutors and defence attorneys can sign what is called a ‘‘joint submission’‘, and give it to the judge.  This is an agreement of the facts and sentence.  While judges usually accept these submissions, they are not obligated to, and can reject them if far too lenient or harsh.

Can defendants testify or make spontaneous declarations?

They can testify (and must be sworn in), but they cannot make the kind of challenge free remarks like in Italy.

Does the short form trial exist in Canada?

As in the 1/3 deduction… No.  However, judges routinely give breaks for guilty pleas, or for some kind of remorse or contrition.

There is a diversion program, which is an alternative to going through the trial process (essentially getting treatment), but reserved for minor offences.  Sexual offences, or serious violent ones are not eligible.

Do defendants awaiting trial get psychologically assessed?

Sometimes, and it can happen for a few reasons

    (1) The defendant is pleading not criminally responsible (insanity)
    (2) The defence has applied for bail, but the judge has reservations about granting it
    (3) The defence wants to use it as a mitigating factor, or in sentencing
    (4) Prosecutors can request it, but this is rare
Can an Appeals Court increase a jail sentence?

This is extremely rare, but yes they can, if the opinion is that the trial judge simply went too soft.  A couple cases in Canada are these:

    Paul Coffin who pleaded guilty to 15 counts of fraud, related to the previous Liberal government.  He originally got house arrest, but it was overturned on appeal, and substituted for 18 months of real jail time.

    Graham James a notorious pedophile and infamous hockey coach who sexually abused his players.  He got 2 years at one trial, which the prosecution appealed, and had increased to 5 years (still very light though)

Much more common though, is that an appeal will either be dismissed, of the judges will knock some time off the sentence.  Full reversals are not the norm.

Do judges have to justify a conviction/acquittal and a sentence?

Yes, in a bench trial (trial by judge), the judge does have to explain how he/she came to these conclusions.

Yes, there are fairly rigid sentencing guidelines to follow, and (cc 718), follow these:

    (a) to denounce unlawful conduct
    (b) to deter the offender and others from committing similar conduct
    (c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary
    (d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders
    (e) to provide reparations for harm done to the victims and the community
    (f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgement of the harm done to victims and the community

Note: Many serious offences have mandatory minimum jail sentences, which limit the discretion available to the judge.

What is the punishment for killing someone in Canada?

1. First degree murder:

This is a premeditated murder, or happens during a sexual assault, or when the victim is restrained.

Punishment: A life sentence, with no parole for 25 years (or 15 years under the ‘‘faint hope clause’‘)

2. Second degree murder

This is when the act is intentional, but not planned out

Punishment: A life sentence, but the parole eligibility baseline ranges from 10 to 25 years.

3. Manslaughter

This is not an intentional killing, but happens while committing an illegal act

Punishment: No mandatory minimum, but can get prison up to and including life.

Note: There are other things, such as impaired driving causing death, dangerous driving causing death, criminal negligence causing death, and the punishments are severe, but they do not apply here.

(Quoted directly from the Canadian Criminal Code)


Classification of murder

231. (1) Murder is first degree murder or second degree murder.
Marginal note:Planned and deliberate murder

(2) Murder is first degree murder when it is planned and deliberate.
Marginal note:Contracted murder

(3) Without limiting the generality of subsection (2), murder is planned and deliberate when it is committed pursuant to an arrangement under which money or anything of value passes or is intended to pass from one person to another, or is promised by one person to another, as consideration for that other’s causing or assisting in causing the death of anyone or counselling another person to do any act causing or assisting in causing that death.
Marginal note:Murder of peace officer, etc.

(4) Irrespective of whether a murder is planned and deliberate on the part of any person, murder is first degree murder when the victim is
(a) a police officer, police constable, constable, sheriff, deputy sheriff, sheriff’s officer or other person employed for the preservation and maintenance of the public peace, acting in the course of his duties;
(b) a warden, deputy warden, instructor, keeper, jailer, guard or other officer or a permanent employee of a prison, acting in the course of his duties; or
(c) a person working in a prison with the permission of the prison authorities and acting in the course of his work therein.
Marginal note:Hijacking, sexual assault or kidnapping

(5) Irrespective of whether a murder is planned and deliberate on the part of any person, murder is first degree murder in respect of a person when the death is caused by that person while committing or attempting to commit an offence under one of the following sections:
(a) section 76 (hijacking an aircraft);
(b) section 271 (sexual assault);
(c) section 272 (sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm);
(d) section 273 (aggravated sexual assault);
(e) section 279 (kidnapping and forcible confinement); or
(f) section 279.1 (hostage taking).

    So, without even proving intent to commit murder, Knox, Sollecito and Guede would have been guilty of first degree murder.  Meredith’s death happened under cc 231(5)(c), which is sexual assault with a weapon, cc 231(5)(d), which is aggravated sexual assault, and cc 231(5)(e), which is forcible confinement.

    Note: While in the case of AK/RS/RG, the sexual assault charge was combined with the murder charge, in Canada, aggravated sexual assault, cc 273, is an indictable offence, punishable by up to life in prison, and those convicted are registered sex offenders for life upon release.

    Other Punishments

    While Canada no longer has the death penalty, we do have something called a dangerous offender designation.  The prosecution applies for it, after a conviction, and a judge may or may not grant it.  Essentially, it is a special title, saying that the person presents a high risk to the public and should be locked up indefinitely.

    Many killers have gone received life sentences without the dangerous offender title, but many (violent) criminals have gotten the dangerous offender title without killing anyone.

    We also have ‘‘long term offender’’ designations, which are meant to keep someone on probation for a long time (up to 10 years).  These are usually reserved for sex offenders.

    So To The Probable Scenario In Canada

    If Knox, Sollecito and Guede had committed this crime in Canada, all of the following conditions would probably apply:

    • They would be arrested, would have to be informed why, and could contact an attorney as soon as they reached the police station

    • Because the murder happened during a sexual assault, while Meredith was restrained, it would be 1st degree murder

    • Because of the sexual assault and restraint, premeditation would not be necessary to prove 1st degree murder

    • They could apply for bail (before a J.P.), but under the circumstances, would likely be denied

    • They could appeal to a judge for a review of the bail, but again, would likely be denied

    • Because of the serious nature, the trial would be in the provinces Supreme/Superior Court

    • There is no fixed time before a trial would start.  Murder trials have been known to start 2-5 years after arrest

    • Defendants could testify against each other, and prosecutors could make deals with them

    • The kind of antics that went on in the 2009 trial would not be tolerated

    • The defendants could testify under oath, and be cross examined, but free statements are not allowed

    • If found guilty, all 3 would receive life sentences, and MUST serve 25 years before parole eligibilty.

    • There is ‘‘faint hope’’ which is parole after 15 years, but a murder like this would definitely not qualify

    • Because of the sexual assault component, they would be registered sex offenders for life

    • They would be prohibited from owning weapons for life

    • If any chose to appeal, it would go to the province’s Court of Appeals

    • They could apply for ‘‘Appeal Bail’‘, but it would likely be denied

    • If the Hellmann Appeal is any indicator, the appeal grounds are so weak the appeal would be dismissed

    • They could try the Supreme Court of Canada, and likely get declined


    In Conclusion

    This a brief overview of how criminal law works in Canada and how it could have worked in Meredith’s case. Quite smilar to the U.S., but then both systems are based on English Common Law.


    Complete Listings

    1st post appears here:  An Overview.

    2nd post appears here:  Public Mischief and Perjury

    3rd post appears here:  Bail, Extradition & Other Crimes

    4th post appears here:  Canada v.s. the U.S.A. (Part 1)

    5th post coming soon: Canada v.s. the U.S.A. (Part 2)

    6th post coming soon:  Canada and our Family

    7th post coming soon:  Loose Ends, and Reader Request

    Posted on 01/14/15 at 03:21 PM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (9)

    Tuesday, January 13, 2015

    The Unsavory Company Knox Would Be Foolish To Aspire To: 160 Americans On The Run From Interpol

    Posted by Peter Quennell





    Meet eight American women on the run from arrest worldwide.

    They are all the subjects of Interpol Red Notices. Right now Interpol has 322 active Red Notices, some 160 of them for Americans, of which 51 are women.

    If they have not yet been to trial, they are considered innocent unless and until they are proven guilty. At the same time many have cash rewards on their heads and private citizens are warned not to apprehend them.

    None of those eight women above are charged with murder or already found guilty of murder - their alleged crimes include kidnapping, drug-smuggling, fraud and insider trading.

    Red Notices are sometimes issued for killers, but they very rarely prove necessary. Regardless of the status of mutual extradition treaties, countries who find they are harboring killers tend to regard them as hot potatoes, and most usually simply arrest them.

    Some on the list of 322 may be dead, and many will be living close to poverty. We posted here previously on Interpol and here previously on how the ex CIA chief in Italy Robert Lady was forced out of Panama by an impending arrest for a Red Notice.

    Robert Lady has lost everything. Seems better to face the music, and end the doubletalk.

    Posted on 01/13/15 at 09:05 PM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (3)

    The Scale Of Evil By Forensic Psychologist Professor Michael Stone Of Columbia University NYC

    Posted by Mark


    1. Who Is Dr Stone

    Dr Stone is increasingly on American TV and in American courts as demands for better answers to heinous crimes grow.

    He has published a lot and is a partner in a research clinic in New York. These are Dr Stone’s professional credentials as posted on Psychology Today.

    Dr. Michael Stone is a professor of clinical psychiatry at Columbia. His specialty is personality disorders - most especially “borderline personality disorder.” But in recent years he has concentrated as well on the extremes of personality, as shown by persons who show antisocial, psychopathic, and sadistic traits. This led to an interest in the kinds of people committing murder - spanning the spectrum from jealousy murders to serial killers and torturers. Recently he served as the host of the Discovery Channel show, “Most Evil,” for which he was sent around the country interviewing serial killers and murderers of other types.

    This experience, plus his research over the past twenty years, led to his writing The Anatomy of Evil (appearing in July of 2009). The book explores the “why” factor: what are the inborn and environmental factors that cause certain people to commit murder and, at the extreme end, to behave with uncommon cruelty toward their fellow man. Modeled after Dante’s Inferno, the book progresses from the least to the most “evil” crimes, and contains a chapter devoted to recent contributions from neuroscience toward understanding the mind of the psychopath.


    2. Interviews On Radio And TV

    In the video above, how Dr Stone explained his scale of evil on a Canadian interview show, and below how he explained it on American National Public Radio.

    Perhaps no surprises for Americans in the names of the killers in the examples. How they divide up confirms some postings we have had here before. For one thing, most don’t fit in the full-blown psychopathic group (Group 4). 

    Introduction

    Columbia University professor Michael Stone knows evil. He’s a forensic psychologist — the type of expert that provides testimony on the mental state of accused murderers when a declaration of insanity can mean the difference between life and death row.

    Inspired by the structure of Dante’s circles of hell, Stone has created his own 22-point “Gradations of Evil” scale, made up of murderers in the 20th century. “I thought it would be an interesting thing to do,” he says.

    His scale is loosely divided into three tiers. First are impulsive evil-doers: driven to a single act of murder in a moment of rage or jealousy. Next are people who lack extreme psychopathic features, but may be psychotic — that is, clinically delusional or out of touch with reality. Last are the profoundly psychopathic, or “those who possess superficial charm, glib speech, grandiosity, but most importantly cunning and manipulativeness,” Stone says. “They have no remorse for what they’ve done to other people.”

    Stone hopes the scale could someday be used in prosecutions. “The people at the very end of the scale have certain things about their childhood backgrounds that are different,” he says, from those who appear earlier in the scale. And because the scale follows a continuum of likelihood a killer will kill again, courts may be able to better categorize the risks posed by releasing a psychopath.

    Conspicuously absent from Stone’s scale are wartime evil-doers. “My scale is a scale for evil in peacetime,” he says. That’s because assessing wartime evil from a criminal-psychological standpoint is more complicated because of factors like culture, history and religion.”

    And in war, there are often two sides. Take Hitler, Stone says. “He thought we were evil, we thought he was evil.” But, he adds, “in that particular case, we were right.”

    The Scale Of Evil

    1. NOT EVIL

    1. Justified Homicide

    The least malevolent: Those who have killed in self-defense and do not show psychopathic features.

    Cheryl Pierson

    Long Island native Cheryl Pierson had been repeatedly molested by her father after her mother died. He was a domineering man with rigid and bizarre rules — for example, he insisted she eat three items on her dinner plate incrementally in a clockwise rotation; if she didn’t he would become violent. In desperation at age 17, she paid a classmate $400 to kill her father. She was sentenced to six months in jail for what was, in Stone’s words, “in effect a self-defense killing.”

    2. IMPULSIVE MURDERERS

    People who are not really psychopaths, not subject to routine unspeakable acts without remorse. “Ordinary people that get caught in some terrible situation,” Stone says.

    2. Jealous Lovers, Non-Psychopathic

    Though egocentric or immature, evildoers in this category committed their crimes in the heat of passion.

    Jean Harris

    School director Jean Harris led an exemplary life before she became romantically involved with “Scarsdale Diet” doctor Herman Tarnower. But when she found another woman’s panties in his dresser, she snapped. Harris shot her lover to death in a crime of passion — and was sentenced to 10 years in prison.

    3. Willing Companions Of Killers

    Still far from psychopathic, some have antisocial traits and an aberrant personality. They’re often driven by impulse.

    Cindy Campbell

    Jack Olsen’s 1987 book Cold Kill describes Cindy Campbell as a manipulative, chaotic woman. She claimed she was the victim of incest and was accused of enlisting her lover, David West, to kill her parents in their sleep. Both she and West were convicted of murder.
    Susan Cummings. Larry Morris/AFP/Getty Images i

    4. Provocative “Self-Defense”

    These people kill in self-defense, but they aren’t entirely innocent themselves; they may have been “extremely provocative” toward their victim.

    Susan Cummings

    A shy, tomboyish daughter of a billionaire arms trader, Susan Cummings fell in love with an Argentine polo player, Roberto Villegas. But after two years together, they fought: She was stingy and began to refuse sex; he would get angry and verbally abusive. Finally she shot him to death in her kitchen in 1997. Originally charged with first-degree murder, she was ultimately convicted of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to 60 days in jail.

    5. Desperate Measures

    These are traumatized, desperate killers of abusive relatives or others — but they lack “significant psychopathic traits” and are genuinely remorseful.

    Susan Wyche

    Susan Wyche was a topless dancer who married and had a child with Jeff Wright, a successful carpet salesman from Houston. He used cocaine, had affairs, gave Susan herpes and was physically abusive. In 2003, she reached a breaking point, and in a fit of rage stabbed him 193 times. Portrayed as a battered wife by the defense and a vicious seductress by the prosecution, she was given a relatively light sentence: 25 years. A new punishment hearing is set for October.

    6. Hot Heads

    Killers who act in an impetuous moment, yet without marked psychopathic features.

    Issei Sagawa

    Born in Japan, Issei Sagawa was pampered by his mother, but became highly irritable and prone to tantrums. In high school, he developed cannibalistic fantasies, and in 1981 he was accused of carrying one out in Paris. His victim: a Dutch student named Renee Hartevelt. He lured her to his apartment, shot her to death, sexually assaulted the body and then began eating her muscle tissue. He was declared legally insane in France and sent back to Japan, where he was released from a mental institution in 1986. He’s now a minor celebrity and has written books and magazine articles about his experience.

    7. Narcissists

    Highly narcissistic killers who are often possessive, not distinctly psychopathic, but “with a psychopathic core.” They typically kill loved ones or family members out of jealousy.

    Prosenjit Poddar

    In 1968, college student Prosenjit Poddar met Tatiana Tarasoff at a dance class in California. They dated briefly but she rejected him. Poddar then told his therapist about wanting to kill her. His therapist wanted to commit him to hospital, but Poddar convinced campus police he was not dangerous. In the summer of 1969, after she returned from a vacation, Poddar stabbed Tarasoff to death with a kitchen knife. Poddar was convicted and deported back to India after his conviction was overturned. Her parents sued the campus police for failing to warn that their daughter was in danger. This led to the famous Tarasoff decision, which ruled physicians now must warn potential victims of a psychiatric patient.

    8. Fit of Rage

    Non-psychopathic people, who live with an underlying, smoldering rage, then kill when that rage is ignited.

    Charles Whitman

    In 1966, ex-Marine Charles Whitman gunned down his wife and his mother, then ascended a tower at the University of Texas and began shooting people with a rifle. He killed 14 people and wounded 32, before being shot and killed by police. His early life was plagued by physical abuse by his father. A UT psychologist who met with Whitman before the murders described him as “oozing with hostility.” An autopsy revealed that he had a brain tumor, which may have contributed to his rage.

    3. SEMI-PSYCHOPATHS

    Those who show a “fair number” of psychopathic traits — grandiosity, superficial charm, or general lack of remorse.

    9. Jealous Lovers, Psychopathic

    The scale’s first foray into psychopathic territory, these killers are jealous lovers but with marked psychopathic features.

    Paul Snider

    Paul Snider “discovered” Dorothy Stratten when she was working at a Dairy Queen at age 17. He became her manager and steered her to Playboy magazine, where she became Playmate of the Year in 1980. They married, but their relationship soon deteriorated, and she became involved with film director Peter Bogdanovich. In a jealous rage, Snider lured her to his apartment and shot her to death with a rifle before killing himself. Bob Fosse made a film about her tragic life, Star 80.

    10. “In The Way” Killers, Not Fully Psychopathic

    Killers of witnesses or people who are simply “in the way.” These evildoers are egocentric, but not totally psychopathic.

    John List

    Born in 1925, John List was described as rigid, joyless, angry and a neighborhood crank. A failed accountant with poor executive ability, he kept losing jobs, yet bought a big house for his wife and three children — which he couldn’t afford. Caught between his indebtedness and his monstrous pride, he decided to kill his family. In 1971, he shot and killed his mother, wife and children, and fled to Colorado under an assumed name. He was at large for 18 years, until an image constructed by a forensic anthropologist was broadcast on America’s Most Wanted. He died in prison in 2008 at age 82.

    11. “In The Way” Psychopaths

    Psychopathic killers of people “in the way.” Premeditation is not usually a major factor in their killings.

    Jeffrey MacDonald

    An Army Green Beret doctor named Jeffrey MacDonald began showing signs of violence and hatred of women in his adolescence. In 1970, was accused of killing his wife and daughters, and then staging the scene to look like a cult slaying in the mold of Charles Manson. MacDonald was convicted of murder, but his case — the subject of the book Fatal Vision — has dragged on for four decades. In August 2010, his lawyers filed a brief in federal court asking for a new trial and claiming that DNA evidence could prove MacDonald’s innocence.

    12. Power-Hungry And Cornered

    Power-hungry psychopaths who kill when “cornered,” or placed in a situation they wouldn’t be able to escape with their power intact.

    Jim Jones

    Born in 1931, Jim Jones was attracted early on to a Pentecostal religious group that practiced “speaking in tongues.” He later became a charismatic leader of the Peoples Temple. Grandiose and fanatic, as well as psychopathic and paranoid, he gathered a large group of followers and moved with them to Guyana. In 1978, U.S. Rep. Leo Ryan and his entourage went to Guyana to investigate; he and four others were shot and killed. Cornered, Jones told his followers to commit group suicide. In all, 914 people died, 276 of them children. He also took his own life.

    13. Inadequate And Rageful

    Murderers with shortcomings that follow them throughout life, who also express psychopathic impulses and are prone to rage.

    Karla Faye Tucker

    Karla Faye Tucker was born the illegitimate daughter of prostitute and abused drugs since she was 9. She married at 16 — by which time she had already had a hysterectomy for pelvic inflammatory disease. She divorced at 20. In 1983, she and boyfriend Daniel Garrett invaded the apartment of Jerry Lynn Dean while the two were high on methadone, valium, heroin and alcohol. Tucker and Garrett killed Dean and the woman he was with, using a hammer and pickaxe. After 14 years on death row, she was executed in 1998. She was the first woman executed in Texas since the Civil War.

    14. Schemers

    Ruthlessly self-centered and psychopathic, schemers stop at nothing to deceive, con and steal.

    Sante Kimes

    Sante Kimes was born in 1934 and soon became a self-trained con artist. Briefly married to Lee Powers, she had a son, Kenny. Many more thefts followed, along with use of numerous aliases. She made her son into a kind of slave; the two became “grifters” — accomplished at stealing. In 1998 she and her son conned their way into the good graces of Irene Silverman, a wealthy Fifth Avenue widow in New York City. They got her to sign over her property and then killed her, disposing of her body. Kimes is a classic psychopath, and is considered responsible for other murders besides that of Silverman. She and her son are serving life sentences.

    15. Cold-Blooded Spree

    Murderers who kill multiple people calmly and with a psychopathic motive. Often pathological in their denial of guilt or inability to confront reality.

    Charles Manson

    Charles Manson was born in 1934 to a troubled family. At a young age, he began stealing, ending up in reformatories then jail and prisons. In his 30s he began to attract a following of waif-like women who were in his thrall. Then in 1969 he had his group invade the home of pregnant actress Sharon Tate, killing her, her unborn baby and four friends. Later they killed Rosemary LaBianca, scrawling “Death to Pigs” in her blood around the house. He received the death penalty, later commuted to a life term in Corcoran Prison in California.

    4. PSYCHOPATHS

    Fully psychopathic by every modern definition.

    16. Vicious Psychopaths

    Those who commit multiple vicious acts that may also include murder, rape or mutilation.

    Miyazaki Tsutomu

    Born in 1962 into a wealthy Japanese family, Miyazaki Tsutomu had a congenital hand defect, such that he was unable to hold his hands palm-up. He was ostracized as a child and began to lurk around young girls, stalking them. In 1989, he kidnapped and murdered four young girls, mutilated their bodies and drank the blood of one victim. When his crimes were discovered, his father committed suicide out of shame. Miyazaki coldly regarded that as “just punishment” for not raising him correctly. He was executed in Tokyo in 2008.

    17. The Sexually Perverse

    Serial killers with some element of sexual perversion in their crimes. In males, rape is usually the primary motive and killing follows to hide the evidence. Torture is not a primary motive.

    Ted Bundy

    Ted Bundy was born in 1946, performed well in school and was acutely shy. His sexual homicides began in earnest in 1974, near his alma mater, the University of Washington. He worked his way down to Florida, luring, raping and killing at least 28 girls en route. He escaped from a Colorado prison in 1977, and continued killing until identified and apprehended (thanks to bite marks that matched his teeth) in 1978. He was executed in Florida in 1989.

    18. Torturing Murderers

    Though psychotic, they do not typically prolong their torture. Murder, not torture, is their primary motivation.

    Gary Ridgeway

    Gary Ridgeway, a.k.a the “Green River Killer,” grew up in Washington state. He was troubled by his sexual attraction to his mother and of his feelings of lust and humiliation. He’s one of the serial killers showing the famous childhood “triad” of bed-wetting, fire-setting, and animal torture. He began serial killing of prostitutes in earnest after a third divorce in 1982. Some investigators believe he may have killed as many as 90 women, subjecting some to bondage or necrophilia. He’s now serving 48 life sentences plus 480 years.

    19. Non-Homicidal Psychopaths

    Psychopaths who fall short of murder, yet engage in terrorism, subjugation, intimidation or rape.

    Gary Steven Krist

    Gary Steven Krist had served prison time for robbery and fraud in three different states before he was 18. Out of prison in 1968 at age 23, he planned a ransom kidnapping. His victim was Barbara Mackle. Krist buried her underground, allowing her to breathe using a tube, while he awaited a $500,000 ransom from her father. She was rescued after 83 hours buried alive. He was sentenced to life in prison, but was paroled and later convicted of importing cocaine into the United States. He’s in a federal prison in Florida, with a planned release in November 2010.

    20. Murdering Torturers

    Psychotic (legally insane) and primarily motivated by their desire to torture.

    Joseph Kallinger

    From a young age, Joseph Kallinger’s foster family abused him so severely that at age 6 he suffered a hernia inflicted by his foster father. He was psychotic and schizophrenic, and when he married and had children, he was equally brutal. In 1972 he was held on charges of child abuse but was later released. In 1974, he and his 13-year-old son Michael began to break into houses in Philadelphia, Baltimore and New Jersey, where they terrorized and tortured four families, and then sexually assaulted and killed a 21-year-old nurse. Finally arrested, he was sentenced to life, and then sent to a mental hospital where he died in 1996 at age 59.

    21. Pure Torturers

    Not all torturers murder. These psychopaths (evaluated to be in touch with reality) are preoccupied with torture “in the extreme,” but never convicted of murder.

    Cameron Hooker

    Cameron Hooker was born in 1953. As he grew older he read pornography, particularly that which portrayed women being tortured. He married his wife, Janice, in 1975. He fantasized about having his own sex slave and allegedly reached an agreement with his wife that she could have a baby if he could have a sex slave. After the birth of their child, Hooker kidnapped 20-year-old Colleen Stan in 1977 and kept her captive for seven years. She was whipped, strangled, burned, electrically shocked and raped. For much of that time, she was locked inside a box for 23 hours a day. She and Hooker’s wife fled together in 1984. He was convicted and sentenced to 104 years in prison.

    22. Psychopathic Torture-Murderers

    Defined by a primary motivation to inflict prolonged, diabolical torture. Most in this category are male serial killers.

    Jeffrey Dahmer

    Born in 1960 in Milwaukee, Jeffrey Dahmer was sexually molested by a neighbor when he was 8. At 10, he was decapitating animals and mounting their heads on stakes in the backyard. At 17 he committed his first murder, a male hitchhiker whom he bludgeoned, strangled, dismembered and buried. After a failed stint in the Army, his serial killing began in earnest in the late 80s, ending up with at least 17 victims — all males, some homosexual, like Dahmer. Finally arrested in 1991, he was convicted the next year of 15 murders and sentenced to 936 years in prison. In 1994, another inmate at the Columbia Correctional Institution in Wisconsin bludgeoned Dahmer to death with a bar from a weight machine.

    Posted on 01/13/15 at 06:56 AM by Mark. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in Crime hypothesesThe psychologyThose who were chargedAmanda KnoxRaff SollecitoKnox persona hoax
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (3)

    Saturday, January 10, 2015

    From David Marriott’s Parrot: Latest Talking Points To Be Beamed At The Unbelieving

    Posted by Chimera





    Hello once again from somewhere in Seattle.

    David is out of office right now. He is sitting naked with Curt and Chris in the sauna, trying to lose that manic redness which is so telling.

    As our incessant jeering at Italy is losing so much traction, David has asked me to keep repeating these new talking points until even the dimmest bunny Karen Pruitt gets them..

    Talking points #31779

    For those of you who believe that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are sex killers, and who doubt that Rudy Guede did the horrible crime alone, or that Mignini was a dedicated prosecutor, I will fully explain all the discrepencies in the case.  Please bear with me.

    For those of you claiming that AK and RS are pathological liars, trying to evade responsibility for a horrible deed, you need to see things from their point of view, and keep an open mind.  Again, please be patient.

    If after reading these explanations, you are still convinced that AK and RS were involved in Meredith Kercher’s murder, then you are by definition too clueless to be helped and part of the problem.

    ********************************

    1. This should have been an open and shut case.  According to Amanda (May 2014 interview with Chris Cuomo), Rudy Guede was “known to police” for doing many burglaries where he climbed through second story windows, using a rock to break in, and wielding a knife.  It made no sense that he wasn’t the immediate suspect for Meredith’s murder, however, we have 3 alternatives that explain it.

    (a) Perugian police truly did not see any connection between second story break ins with knives and rocks, and second story break ins with knives, rocks, and a dead woman.  The logical connection was too simplistic to make.

    (b) Perugian police did know about Guede’s habit of second story break ins using knives and rocks, but thought it so minor they never bothered to write it up.

    (c) Perugia is filled with people who commit second story break ins using knives and rocks.  This is normal. It would take time to get around to Guede.

    However, I am not sure which explanation Amanda believes is true at this minute, or what is her best truth. Rotate the three of them. And blame the police.

    2. Serial ‘‘Spider-Man’’ burglar Guede chose his latest target well.  According to Sollecito (Honor Bound book), Guede “knew” that the 4 women in the upstairs part of the house would each have 300 Euros after the end of the month for the rent.  He also knew where Meredith kept her money, and he knew it would all be in cash.  He knew that the house would be empty for the holiday, and it would be a great opportunity to break in and steal the money around 8:00 pm when everybody is still around.

    You might ask how Guede had this inside knowledge, or how Sollecito knew it either, or how Sollecito knew that Guede knew.  After all, Guede and Sollecito did not know of each other, right? Though they lived 100 meters apart. And actually only one flatmate was out of town. Hmmm. And 8:00 pm is kinda an odd choice for a breakin time and Filoemna’s window the worst place. Label all such pesky points irrelevant and rush on to the next subject.

    3. Serial ‘‘Spider-Man’’ burglar Guede knew about marijuana growing in the downstairs apartments (Honor Bound book).  Guede was attracted to the house because he knew about the drugs.  And being a drifter and drug dealer (according to Knox, Sollecito and FoAK), it made sense to target the home.  After all, who would report their drugs stolen in a home robbery.

    So, the drug dealing serial burglar ignored the drugs in the bottom floor, climbed up to the second floor, but didn’t take anything.  He just took a dump without flushing, attacked Meredith, and then left. Label all such questions as irrelevant as Guede is obviously such a bad guy.  Again blame the police and move to the next subject.

    4. Serial ‘‘Spider-Man’’ burglar Guede really is Spider-Man.  For those of you who used to watch cartoons, you’ll know that Spider-Man would sometimes mutate into an actual spider, and would grow 4 extra arms, all with super strength.  That is how at one and the same time Guede kept Meredith restrained, kept her from screaming, held 2 knives at opposite sides, and from behind assaulted her.

    Pesky critics have wondered about this: few defensive wounds, no ligature marks (Meredith wasn’t tied down), no sign she was drugged or knocked unconscious as signs to be skeptical, no DNA.  However, they clearly did not watch the right cartoons when they were younger. Six arms is the answer to this.

    5. Rudy Guede got a break by testifying against Knox and Sollecito, and his false testimony was the bulk of the reason they were convicted.  It also got his sentence reduced from 30 years to 16.

    2008 - Guede gets 30 years (short form equivalent of life) from Judge Micheli
    2009 - Guede offers to testify against AK and RS, but prosecutors say no
    2009 - Sollecito and Knox get 24 years (with extra time for staging, theft and callunia)
    2009 - Appeals court reduces Guede’s time to 16 years (24 same as AK and RS, with 1/3 off deduction)
    2011 - Guede is finally called to appear at AK and RS 2011 appeal

    So obviously Mignini gives Guede the break for testifying, but doesn’t actually call Guede in 2009.  Or maybe he gave the break with action pending, hoping there would be an appeal in 2011 and that he might be needed. This is not rocket science.

    6. Even though Guede’s plan all along was to frame Knox and Sollecito for Kercher’s murder, he was so freaked out that he asked to sever his case, and go for the short form trial separate from their trial which then involved them framing him.

    Yes this does seem odd at first glance. Sollecito supposedly didn’t know Guede.  Amanda had no contact, despite once crossing paths (see December 2013 email to Nencini). Three people who don’t really know each other are all convinced the other is trying to frame them.  And they are so spooked, none of them agree to testify fully.  Really all such questions only for subtle minds and we have only a few of those to convince. Move on to the next subject. And blame the police.

    7. Amanda Knox was actually the perfect patsy for the crime.  Keep in mind that she had only been in Perugia for about 5 weeks, never did drugs, and was overwhelmed by the emerging events. She was 20 years old, but was ‘‘just a kid’’ (May 2013 interview with Diane Sawyer).

    Okay its true police officer Rita Ficarra seemed to contest this, saying that Knox spoke Italian, and during her interviews spoke to her only in Italian (2009 trial transcripts).  But be realistic, Knox is not a native Italian speaker, and being a 20 year old kid, didn’t know she was expected to cooperate fully, though actually she entered the conversation with Ficarra very eagerly to point her to seven other possible perps.

    8. Knox was also a target to blame for other reasons.  She was a foreign exchange student and her single language course would result in a full year of transfer credits (Waiting to be Heard book).  However, her mind is easily rattled (though not by use of drugs, dont mention them).  She is prone to having visions about vaguely remembering someone killing her friends (her 2007 statement), and isn’t sure if she is at home, or if her boyfriend is.  She also has trouble with her truth, her best truth, the real truth, the truth she thinks is closest to the truth.

    Yes depending on which pesky statement of hers you read, either she left Raffaele’s alone to meet Patrick, or she is not sure if Raffaele is with them.  And she thinks she remembers being outside Meredith’s room, with her hands over her ears to drown out the screams.

    Many people have accused Amanda of being a bullshit artist, and of being deceptive.  However, she is taking creative writing, and it teaches her to think in possibilities, and that her feelings are what matter not hard facts.

    9. Knox’s odd hygiene habits also made her a perfect target.  Apparently, she was in the habit of leaving her blood around the home (menstrual blood I assume. Ew.).  (read her November 2007 mass email).  However, this came back to haunt her as Rudy Guede left tons of Meredith’s blood throughout the upstairs floor, and some of the spots happen to be where Amanda left hers.  Ew, I know.  Hence the mixed DNA in several places.  But Amanda wasn’t a total slob, she liked to wipe everything down out of cleanliness, including her own lamp which, for some reason we forget the explanation of, ended up in Meredith’s locked room.  And of course, Rudy, being a man, took a large interest in a woman’s period habits.

    Police and prosecutors have claimed that mixed blood and absence of normal fingerprints are evidence of a struggle, and partial clean up.  They completely misconstrued Amanda’s quirky ways, and Rudy’s diabolical nature. Here again, blame the police. Foolish police.

    10. Much has also been made about the email that Amanda sent on November 4, 2007 to about 25 people.  It was a long, rambling, illogical message, and many of the recipients were learning for the first time Meredith was dead.  Both the tone, and content raised eyebrows.

    But really it makes perfect sense.  Her internet plan only allows her so much data, so she must use it wisely like this.  Besides, separately emailing all those people would take a lot of time, and hey, she had to get on with her life.  Besides, there was some Ooh-la-la with Raffy, and a ukulele that needed strumming, though no time for Meredith’s memorial.  Bottom line: just Amanda being Amanda may work here again.

    11. Sollecito made a great frame-up victim as well, due to his faulty memory.  There was the added bonus that he was the boyfriend of Knox, who also had memory problems.  Sollecito’s mind is so scattered, that to this day he has trouble remembering where he was when the murder ocurred.

    Pesky facts for us here.

    • RS claimed he was at a party (not sure which one)
    • RS claimed he was with AK at his apartment (AK isn’t sure if she read or made love)
    • RS claimed AK went out and asked him to lie for her (November 2007 statement)
    • RS refused to say where AK was (Massei 2009 and most of Hellmann 2011)
    • RS claims he has questions about her account (February 2014 interview)
    • RS claims he meant AK was only with him that “evening” and not “that night” starting at 9:00 pm (July 1, 2014 press conference)

    Obviously, claim what total sh*t Sollecito’s brain is.  What better person to blame this on, one who is too confused and lacks any real sense of time. Dump on him.

    12. Sollecito received a lot of attention for bringing a knife into the police station, and it was determined later that it could be one of the knives used on Meredith Kercher.  Raffaele, quite lucidly, wrote in his book (Honor Bound), what kind of idiot brings the murder weapon to the police station?

    Okay, normally we would agree with Amanda, that this case is actually not complicated.  However in this case, Knox is also right, things are actually more complicated than they appear (see her September 2013 Daybreak interview).  In this case we point out that Guede took Sollecito’s knife, on the offhand chance he would have to kill someone.  He then broke into Raffy’s girlfriend’s home, killed her roommate, cleaned the knife, and then returned the knife to Sollecito, all without Raffaele noticing.

    13.  On a related note, Sollecito also sees things that ‘‘his mind made up.’’  When asked about Meredith’s DNA on his knife, he envisions that Meredith came to his apartment to cook, and that she pricked herself.  Even though Sollecito realizes later that it didn’t happen, it still kind of comes up in his mind. 

    It is not proof of a coverup! RS and AK are just doing some hard drugs that make them vaguely remember or confusedly remember things. Both were on and off high right through to being arrested but we need to hide that. Amanda had a terrific drug source and a cash-free way of paying for them. So blame the police. It was really the pressure from the police, and the pressure of being in solitary confinement, that addled their brains.

    14. Guiliano Mignini was the prosecutor in the original trial.  He has taken flak in some U.S. circles for trying to railroad two innocent ‘‘kids’’ (in reality 20 and 23), when he should have focused on the 20 year old ‘‘man’’ who really, really did it.  Here is proof of this gross misconduct.

    • During the investigation of the house, Mignini told CSI’s to be careful collecting evidence that would incriminate Guede, but ordered them to mishandle evidence that would incriminate Knox and Sollecito.  Apparently Mignini is so wise, he can glance at evidence and know who it came from.
    • Mignini pressured Knox to incriminate Lumumba, despite his being at home right then.  (Read her November 6, 2007 statements).  Apparently, when he did come in, his mere presence was so overwhelming, that Knox proceeded to write out two more statements.
    • Despite what must be a very time consuming job as a prosecutor, Mignini apparently moonlights as Perugia’s Mayor (Waiting to be Heard book).

    • Mignini telepathically caused Judge Claudia Matteini and Judge Ricciarelli to decide Knox, Sollecito (and at the time, Lumumba), were such dangers that they should be locked up in preventative detention.  He also caused the psychologists to give bad reviews regarding AK and RS mental health, despite not being there.

    • Mignini caused Knox (December 2007 interview), to give wildly contradictory statements when he questioned her with her attornies squirming right there.
    • .
    • Mignini caused the Italian Supreme Court to agree (April 2008), with Judge Matteini that AK and RS should remain locked up.

    • Mignini caused Knox (see her June 2009 testimony), to behave in a cold, callous and deceptive manner, and get the Massei court to completely disbelieve anything she said.  Hey, blood is YUCKY, but AK only knew Meredith for a month, and good grief she just wants to get on with her life.

    • Mignini had the Italian Supreme Court (March 2013), annul the 2011 Hellmann verdict, despite not being present.

    • Mignini had the Florence Appeals Court (January 2014), confirm the 2009 conviction, despite not being present.

    • Mignini will likely cause the ISC to confirm Nencini’s ruling (coming in March 2015), despite not being present.

    • Mignini is as we all know omnipresent and all-knowing.

    So to summarize the main points here

    • Guede is known as a knife and rock using burglar, yet the police don’t suspect him.
    • Guede naturally had inside knowledge about the large amount of cash inside the home.
    • Guede is a drug dealer, but didn’t break into the room he knew had drugs.
    • Guede used his 5 or 6 arms to overpower and restrain Meredith.
    • Guede got a reduced sentence, for not appearing against Knox and Sollecito.
    • Guede tried to frame AK and RS, but feared they would frame him.
    • Knox is just a kid, who didn’t know how to behave properly or speak Italian.
    • Knox is scatter-brained, but only when asked pointed and direct questions.
    • Knox has the quirky habit of leaving blood around the house, and wiping everything else clean.
    • Knox just likes to get it all out, so she doesn’t have to repeat herself a hundred times.
    • Sollecito has trouble remembering even today where he was during the murder.
    • Sollecito’s knife was stolen, used in the murder, then returned to him.
    • Sollecito had a vision that Meredith pricked herself while cooking, it was caused by police pressure, in solitary confinement.
    • Mignini is apparently the Mayor as well, and has railroaded RS and AK, despite not being involved in the case for years.

    So there you have it. Proof to widely propagate that an evil prosecutor and evil police can team up with a serial super burglar, and the result is two completely innocent kids are railroaded for a murder they did not commit.

    FREE KNOX AND SOLLECITO NOW!!!!!

     

    Posted on 01/10/15 at 12:21 AM by Chimera. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (14)

    Wednesday, January 07, 2015

    Sound Familiar? Callous Attacker Who Smirked At Trial Turns Into A Whiny Victim

    Posted by Mark



    Above, shooting victim popular Yancy Noll, about to do a skydive; killer Dinh Bowman images at bottom


    Dinh Bowman has just been sentenced in Seattle. See the before-and-after images at bottom. This is from the KOMO News website

    A man who killed another driver in what prosecutors called a random thrill-killing was sentenced to nearly 30 years in prison Friday in King County Superior Court.

    The sentencing comes after Dinh Bowman was convicted last month of first-degree murder in the August 2012 shooting of Yancy Noll, 43, a wine steward who was driving home in Seattle. The jury reached its unanimous guilty verdict after deliberating for a little over one day….

    Before learning his fate, a sobbing Bowman asked the judge for mercy but didn’t ask his victim’s loved ones for forgiveness

    A student at the University of Washington, Bowman seems to have been to the Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito/Steve Moore Crime School.

    • He cleaned up the crime scene (his car)
    • He turned off his cell phone
    • He destroyed evidence.
    • He smirked repeatedly at his trial.
    • He thought he could fool jurors.

    He won’t have the opportunity to write a book explaining how he was so much smarter than the law, but he clearly fantasized violence as both Knox and Sollecito did. Again from KomoNews.

    The judge said he tended more toward the maximum sentence because of aggravating factors in the killing - what he described as the random nature of the crime, Bowman’s “utter detachment” from the devastation he caused and “absolutely no empathy” for the victim or his family.

    Noll was shot four times as he waited at a traffic light and was found dead with his hands still on the steering wheel. Bowman sped away in his own car after the shooting, but he was eventually identified and prosecuted.

    Senior King County Deputy Prosecutor Kristin Richardson said the case was “particularly frightening because Yancy Noll could’ve been any of us sitting at a stoplight on our way to work.”

    She presented evidence showing that Bowman was a student of murder who read manuals on how to kill and avoid capture.

    Richardson said the “Death Dealers Manual” was found on Bowman’s computer, which told how shooting someone in the temple could result in death. Noll was shot in the temple.

    Just three hours after the shooting, Richardson told the jury, Bowman was reading reference materials he stored on his computer on ways to avoid arrest. She said he was creating a false identity in the middle of the night after the shooting.

    The books failed him. Now the smug thrill-killer Bowman is whiny - and starting nearly 30 years in one of the US’s notoriously tough prisons.







    Posted on 01/07/15 at 05:40 PM by Mark. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (9)

    Sunday, January 04, 2015

    That Supposed Tsunami Of Leaks That Supposedly Hurt The Alleged Perps: Who REALLY Leaked?

    Posted by Peter Quennell



    Curt Knox spins the day in court; prosecutors are forbidden to correct him or explain “their side”

    1. How The Supposed Leaks Began

    On 6 November 2007 investigators into Meredith’s death thought they had caught a big break.

    That was when Knox herself snapped and claimed to be an eyewitness to Meredith’s killing on the night. From 1:30 am to about noon on 6 November Knox repeated that claim and staged her huge fright of Patrick Lumumba again and again. She proved hard to shut up though police did gently try.

    Three times in those ten or so hours Knox herself insisted on writing her claims down, including a claim that she did go out alone. She was repeatedly warned she should have a lawyer present first but pressed on.

    False claims to have witnessed a murder are rare, but not entirely unknown - there can be fame and big bucks in it, played right.

    But in Knox’s case this did not seem to apply - she snapped explosively under no pressure except that just placed upon her by Sollecito who had claimed she made him lie and she had gone out alone from Sollecito’s on the night Meredith died.

    And she had to some extent implicated herself - she said she saw a crime she did not report.

    On 8 November supervising magistrate Claudia Matteini reviewed police and psychology reports and what Knox and Sollecito had claimed (including Sollecito’s writing that he never wanted to see Knox again).

    Judge Matteini declared them both to be bad news. She ordered them to remain locked up. Judge Ricciarelli confirmed that that was all correct.

    In coming months Knox was given repeated opportunities to clear herself, to put the evil genie back in the bottle, but she failed every time. In April 2008 Cassation ruled there was plenty of prima facie evidence, and that Judge Matteini had done the right thing.

    Knox herself inspired these events of 6 to 8 November. They are what caused the voracious UK media and relatively mild Italian media to get their paid snoops to Perugia fast.

    All of them were lobbying to get an edge. Investigators had some difficulty performing their tasks because they were getting so many calls and being crowded in the streets.

    2. Did The Police Or Prosecution Ever Leak?

    The Italian rules are quite clear. Unlike the US, cases for and against the accused must be fought only in court, and when the prosecutor or judge speaks, it will mostly be in a document that has been cleared.

    How many proven examples do you think there are of police and prosecutors slipping reporters leaks and tips and inside tracks to advance their case?

    In fact NONE. Not one.

    Among the frustrations we picked up from the excellent Italian-speaking reporters who were actually there was how under Italian rules there was so little that police and prosecutors were allowed to share.

    In the UK it is also a bit like this. But in contrast in the US there would typically be daily press conferences and prosecutors (85% of them are elected in the US) appearing on the cable-news crime shows like that of Nancy Grace.

    And Dr Mignini himself famously never leaks. The few things he ever says are on the record and they always prove accurate, low-key, and very fair. From 2007 right up to today he continues to maintain that Knox had no advance intention to kill. A softer line than some of the judges settled upon.

    3. Did The Defenses And Families Leak?

    Sure. This case must have broken all records for defense-biased leaks. Finding themselves in a vacuum of police and prosecution information and pushback, the Knox PR grew to an angry and often abusive and dishonest roar.

    The sharp-elbowed Knox-Mellas presence was constantly “available” in Perugia and Burleigh and Dempsey among others got totally taken in. Ann Bremner and Judge Heavey and Paul Ciolino became more and more shrill. Heavey wrote to the president of the Italian Republic on his official letterhead. Senator Cantwell issued many unfounded claims. 

    And through 2008 and 2009 one can spot increasing leaks from each defense team, often to try to advantage their client against the other two. We were offered some of those leaks, among others “the truth” about the autopsy and “the knife”.

    The Perugia Shock blog by PR shill Francesco Sfarzo (now on trial in Florence for making things up, and wanted by police in the US) came to be a main conduit for defense lies and misleading information, possibly some from a disgruntled cop. 

    Here is one easily proven leak from the Knox defense that was intended to hurt the police and prosecution in the case.

    But putting police so overtly on the spot was a dangerous game. More often each perp and their defense team took whacks at the other two as a Rome lawyer showed here and we showed here.  In the past few posts we have been showing how many things about Rudy Guede were made up (more to come).

    4. Making Things Up For Profit And Fame

    In 2007 and 2008 various unsavory characters surfaced in Perugia, to try to win fame and make a buck. This quote is from our post directly below.

    Christian Tramontano, who had claimed someone threatened him in his house in the dark with a knife who looked like a shot of Guede in the papers two months later, was not even called, perhaps because at a hearing in October 2008 Judge Micheli denounced him as having made things up.

    Tramontano is right now a jobless bouncer, as the mafia was found to have some involvement in his club. Judge Micheli scathingly repudiated his tale as his story did not ring true - he made no police report about it at the time.

    But worse, he looked like one of quite a few around Perugia (and later in the US) who were seeking global fame and big bucks from the media for “inside knowledge” and claimed close connections to one or other of the alleged perps.

    Despite this Tremontano’s self-serving claims are repeated as gospel by the PR shills all over the place. Those claims appear as gospel in every one of their books.

    This is from Tom Kington of the Guardian in a report posted 27 September 2008:

    The trial in Italy of Rudy Guede, one of the three suspects accused of sexually assaulting and murdering British student Meredith Kercher, was thrown into disarray yesterday when a judge stopped proceedings after learning that one of the main character witnesses had allegedly tried to sell his story to Italian television.

    Abuker Barro, known as Momi, a Somalian acquaintance of Guede, was due in court in Perugia yesterday to repeat claims made to investigators that he had seen Guede rifling through women’s handbags in clubs in Perugia and making aggressive advances to women when drunk.

    But the judge, Paolo Micheli, blocked him from completing his testimony after lawyers for Guede showed a video of Barro meeting journalists to allegedly negotiate payment of €2,000 (£1,588) for revealing his testimony on Italian television. Micheli will ask magistrates to decide whether Barro should be prosecuted for abusing his role as a witness, which could exclude his testimony.

    The incident, described by Guede’s lawyer, Walter Biscotti, as ‘an assault by the media’, follows a series of leaks to the press of evidence and even jail diaries by suspects during the investigation into the brutal slaying of Kercher, 21… [bold added]

    Few real reporters were unethical or incompetent enough to accept and report biased and unconfirmed claims like Tramontano’s or Barro’s. But you can find those false claims hyped pervasively throughout the pro-Knox books as if they were gospel.

    Among others Dempsey’s, Burleigh’s, Moore’s, Preston’s, Hendry’s, Waterbury’s, and Fischer’s books come to mind.

    Posted on 01/04/15 at 08:30 PM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in Those officially involvedThe prosecutorsThe defensesThe wider contextsItalian contextN America contextReporting, media, moviesMedia newsKnox-Mellas teamSollecito team
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (10)

    Friday, January 02, 2015

    The Serial-Break-in Arm Of The Rudy Guede Hoax: Testimony In Court Far Short Of Smoking Gun

    Posted by Peter Quennell



    [Maria Del Prato in the inner courtyard in Milan from which her pre-school opens off]


    You might first like to read Miriam’s translations of trial testimony here and here. There are more images here.

    That trial testimony fell far short of providing Guede demonizers with all they now claim.  All the testimony about supposed break-ins by Guede was presented on 26 July and 27 July 2009.  These were two lackluster half-days for the defense. 

    Pre-school principal Maria Del Prato came across as understanding and fair. Lawyer Matteo Palazzoli, who encountered the break-in scene during a Sunday night visit to his office and who lost his computer did not elaborate very much and seemed glad to be gone. Lawyer Brocchi with the least involvement talked the most, but he could be read as pointing a finger away from what he really thought happened. 

    Christian Tramontano, who had claimed someone threatened him in his house in the dark with a knife who looked like a shot of Guede in the papers two months later, was not even called, perhaps because at a hearing in October 2008 Judge Micheli denounced him as having made things up.

    Maria Del Prato conceded that Guede probably had a key loaned to him by one of her staff which explained why no break-in charges were lodged.  Milan police did not just let him go, they checked his record with Perugia police (he had none and police knew little or nothing of him) and knew where he was for a possible later charge.

    Nobody in Italy is given precautionary custody simply for possessing several items none of which were reported as stolen which conceivably could have been passed to him by another perp.

    The French window one floor above the ground in the dark around the back would have been easy to break into on a Saturday night according to Matteo Palazzoli by simply climbing up the grill over the French window below and then using the balcony to break through.

    Hardly the scenario for breaking into Filomena’s window during Perugia’s late rush-hour on a weekday evening with a lot of cars and people still around, under a great deal of light from the street and the carpark above, while leaving no prints and no DNA, on a day when as far as he knew all four girls were in town (three of them were).

    Zero fingerprints were found in the lawyers’ offices though a great many items had been touched. What appear to be the tools of a habitual burglar were left at the scene. The burglar alarm dial-out had been disabled by someone who knew the special trick to doing that.

    The copier was switched on and some quantity of copy paper and several USB drives with legal data were gone. A front window had been opened and then not fully closed, perhaps to pass things through to someone waiting with a car.

    Payback or warning by a legal opponent? Such things are not unknown. Neither lawyer systematically reported a theft - Paolo Brocchi claimed he didnt know that his cellphone was gone and Matteo Palazzoli never gave the serial number of his computer to the police. Were they each anxious to just move on?

    Note that Guede was placed at a disadvantage here. Neither he nor his lawyers were there to cross-examine the witnesses or call more witnesses of their own and the prosecution did not ask even one question. Nobody asked what legal documents may have been involved.

    This has allowed supposition to grow unchallenged, though it looked like a red-herring by the defenses in the court.  Certainly no smoking gun, other than that Guede had some items later proven stolen.  For those he was recently sentenced in Milan to another 16 months.


    Thursday, January 01, 2015

    Guede Hoax: Translation Of Lawyers Testimony #2 On Breakin Shows No Concrete Connection To Guede

    Posted by Peter Quennell



    Exit route was via one of those windows; weeks later, Guede would come knocking at that door.

    1. Overview Of The Post

    This post provides the translated testimony of lawyer Matteo Palazzoli.

    He was the owner of a Sony Vaio computer stolen from his office, which was possibly the same one that Guede was found in possession of. The previous posts on this aspect of the Guede hoax showed:

    • How similar to the back balcony route to a forced break-in of Meredith’s house was the supposed route into the Perugia lawyers’ offices.

    • How the testimony from the lawyer Paolo Briocchi on the office break-in pointed as much away from Rudy Guede as it did toward him.

    There will be an overall assessment in the next post.

    2. Testimony Of Matteo Palazzoli

    Translation of the difficult language here and in previous posts was kindly provided by Miriam. MP stands for Matteo Palazzoli, the lawyer whose office was broken into. GCM stands for Judge Giancarlo Massei. LM stands for Sollecito defense lawyer Luca Maori. MDG stands for Knox defense lawyer Maria Del Grosso.

    The witness, admonished pursuant to Article 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code, reads the oath.

    General information: Matteo Palazzoli, born in Umbertide, province of Perugia, October 9 1974, resident of Perugia.

    GCM:  Please proceed.

    LM:  Lawyer Maori, for the defense of Sollecito.  What is your profession?

    MP:  Lawyer.

    LM:  Where is your legal office?

    MP:  At via del Roscetto no. 3, from Febuary 2007, if I am not mistaken.

    LM:  Together with lawyer Brocchi.

    MP:  Together with lawyer Brocchi.

    LM:  Before you, Lawyer Brocchi told us of this theft you were subject to on the night between the 13th and 14th of October 2007.

    MP:  Yes.

    LM:  Can you give us information of what happened in that situation?

    MP:  I was coming back on Sunday October 14, after being away from Perugia for 2 days, and before coming back… because I live close to the office, I keep the car parked with a subscription at the parking lot of Sant’Antonio [opposite Meredith’s house], therefore I walk down via del Roscetto regularly to return home, which is in via Imbriani [further down the hill behind the law offices]. In these circumstances, I sincerely don’t reacll the reason, I stopped at the office before returning home. I think it was 6:30, 7.00 pm, of Sunday afternoon, I don’t recall the exact time.

    I went to the office, and upon entering the office, I noticed right away that something was not right, because to begin with it was October, and it was rather warm, I remember, and strangely the heaters were turned on and it was rather hot inside the office. The heaters were turned on and I immediately noticed upon turning on the light that the bathroom light was on, the restroom of the office. At that moment I didn’t notice anything else.

    Then I turned my head to the right in respect to the office entrance , and I immediately noticed my jacket, a black jacket, and a jacket of Lawyer Brocchi’s laid out on the floor. Honestly I asked myself the reason for this. I went to the French window of the office that gives out to an inner courtyard of the building, and opening the inner shutters, I noticed the glass had been broken, and that the jackets had probably been laid on the floor to cover the broken glass.

    At this point I ran to my office, that is in front of Lawyer Brocchi’s , and I immediately noticed, cautiously, that the only thing that was missing… besides the binders being completely opened, and the dossiers, in there turn, also were opened with papers strewn throughout the office, I noticed that my computer was no longer there, it was not where it should have been, and that the window of my office that gives out to via del Roscetto [a window in the image at top] that at first glance appeared to be closed, in reality was open. Therefore, it had been reclosed but not completely closed, probably,  don’t know why.. whoever entered, exited through my window, not closing it completely on the way out, I honestly don’t know the reason.

    I did another round of the legal office, and I noticed again upon entering the restroom, the light on in the restroom. I went into the office of Lawyer Brocchi, and I remember that inside his office, on the desk of Lawyer Brocchi, there was a suitcase of his and on top were positioned, with a certain precision, certain objects, that I seem to remember were screwdrivers, I am frankly not sure if there were screwdrivers.

    After having gone into Lawyer Brocchi’s office I turned and went into the waiting room that is there close to the conference room, and I noticed that there was a small pile of glass, that I don’t know where it came from, because the window of the waiting room… that is, no other window, if I remember correctly,  of the office was broken, in the office the only window that had been broken was the French window that gives onto the inner courtyard.

    The window of the waiting room had not been broken and yet still, there was this small pile of glass, furthermore well arranged, in the waiting room. The copying machine was turned on, I don’t know for what reason,  several reams of paper of the copying machine were missing.

    LM:  The person who entered had drunk beverages that were in the legal office?

    MP:  Yes, I remember that it was a bottle of orange drink, if I am not in error, it was left in the waiting room.

    LM:  Listen, you spoke of this computer that was taken on this occasion. Can you tell us what type of computer it was?

    MP:  It was a Vaio, the outside cover was white. The distinctive trait is that differently… the distinctive feature of that computer is that it has a 16:9 screen that is high resolution.

    LM:  It’s a Sony.

    MP:  It is a Sony Vaio, that is a brand of Sony. It has a particular graphics, it is only one of a few computer that doesn’t change the type of color depending on how one roatates the screen. It was a laptop, in any case.

    LM:  This laptop did you have any news of where it was… was it ever found? Was it given back to you?

    MP:  In these days I have had ways to reconstruct, in my mind, the events and the only thing I have not had a way to… it happened in the succeeding days, I don’t remember exactly when, that while I was coming back from a client outside the legal office, Lawyer Brocchi called me to tell me that the police or carabinieri called from Milan saying that they had found our things, commenting: “you are always lucky, you lose everything, they steal everything, but you always recover everything”, “Okay”, I said.

    I arrived back at the office and he told me about the call in detail, that it was… the police station, I sincerely don’t remember, of Milan anyway, they had called and they had found us because on the cellphone of Lawyer Brocchi… which in the immediacy of the event, we had not noticed had been taken because it was an out of commission cellphone and not used by Lawyer Brocchi, thus probably he did not remember in the immediacy of the event it had been taken, he did not realize at that moment.

    Opening the cellphone, the message, if I am not in error,  “welcome Lawyer Brocchi” had appeared. Thus they were able to find us, and substantially tell Lawyer Brocchi that they had found his cellphone and my computer. Now, I said before, in these days before today’s judicial hearing I was able to gather my thoughts and furthermore I was never able to verify that the cellphone [note: he presumably means his laptop] that was found was effectively mine, because when Lawyer Brocchi and I went to the police station of Perugia to do the report, I did not have at hand, because my accountant had not given it to me, the invoice that indicated the specific model of the commuter. Thus, today I would not be able to say, if not…

    LM:  Anyway the computer was not given back to you?

    MP:  No.

    LM:  Before you spoke of this telephone call by the Milan police station.

    MP:  Made to Lawyer Brocchi.

    LM:  Do you know if those [investigators] attached to the police station in Milan had discovered the perpetrator of the theft?

    MP:  I sincerely don’t know, they certainly did not tell us. That is, we were told only that our things had been found, or rather, Lawyer Brocchi related to me that the police station of Milan had told him that the things we reported stolen had been found.

    LM:  Lawyer, do you know Rudy Hermann Guede?

    MP:  No.

    LM:  Have you heard of him?

    MP:  I have heard of him in relation to the renowned incident of this proceeding.

    LM: Do you know that Hermann Rudy Guede was found by the police station of Milan, a few days before these matters, with your computer?

    MP:  I don’t know that he was found with… or rather, at the time that Lawyer Brocchi related to me that the police station of Milan had called him, the police station did not specify the individual that was found with the computer. I think that in that circumstance they had specified that it was found on a boy that was committing a similar crime, if I am not in error, in a kindergarten in Milan.

    LM:  Was it related to you by your assistant Doctor Morini, I believe that is his name, and by Lawyer Brocchi of an encounter that took place on October 29 with this Rudy Guede?

    MP:  Yes, it was related… somehow in this case…when these things happen, unfortunately I am never there.

    LM:  You were not present, it was only related to you.

    MP:  It was related to me that a boy had come to the legal office, and a conversation had intervened between…

    LM:  What kind of boy?

    MP:  A colored boy, I gathered, had come to the legal office and held a conversation with Doctor Morini and probably even with Lawyer Brocchi, and declared himself absolutely extraneous to the matter and declared that he bought my computer legally , if I am not in error at the train station of Milan, I sincerely don’t know. This was related to me by my colleagues.

    LM:  In any case, you exclude having had your computer returned?

    MP:  No, absolutely.

    LM:  That, by your knowledge, is in Perugia?

    MP:  I think I remember having done a request of release [to Milan] that unfortunately was rejected.

    LM:  If you do it here in Perugia, probably you will have a better result. Another question, before you spoke of the fact that when you entered the legal office on the evening of October 14th you saw lights on. The light that was on, where was it situated?

    MP:  At the instant I entered the legal office, it was dark obviously, inside the office, and I had not yet turned on the light, I noticed the shining of the bathroom light on.

    LM:  Had the bathroom been used?

    MP:  The bathroom… honestly this I can’t tell you, that is I can’t know if it was used, from evident signs I think not, but, that is a simple supposition on my part , that does not have much value.

    LM:  Thank you.

    GCM:  There were no signs of it having been used.

    MP:  Yes, no signs of use, no odor.

    GCM:  This is what the lawyer was asking. Other questions? For the prosecution? There are no questions. Excuse me, probably just a peculiarity, the window that was broken, if you can give us a description? Are there inner shutters, outer shutters?

    MP:  It is a French window that gives out to a small terrace that overlooks an inner courtyard of the building, and below our window, right in alignment, there is a door covered with a metal mesh, so much so that we supposed that whoever entered inside the legal office, one of the possible hypothesis, climbed that metal mesh, because it is a mesh, with squares not more than fifteen centimeters, thus perfectly usable for this purpose. It is a French window that has inner shutters. It doesn’t have…I don’t remember, I think it has… because there was a period when our legal office, for reasons of restoration, eliminated all the outer shutters. So I don’t remember if in that moment it had or not the outer shutters, I think not, but I would say something I don’t remember exactly.

    GCM:  I also wanted to ask you, there were only the two jackets on the glass? Where there other items of clothing that indicated a search in wardrobes, or only these two jackets? 

    MP:  Honestly I would not be able to remember.

    GCM:  You remember of these two jackets, that one was yours.

    MP:  Yes because I don’t think there were other clothingsd in the office. I don’t remember if there were others… besides the toga of Lawyer Brocchi, but it was left…

    GCM:  I wanted to ask you, these jackets where [normally] were they? On a coat rack?

    MP:  They were on a coat rack that is to the right of the entrance to the legal office, they were on a coat rack, a bluish jacket of Lawyer…

    GCM:  Not in a wardrobe?

    MP:  No, no, not in a wardrobe, on a coatrack.

    GCM:  A coatrack.

    MP:  A coatrack, yes.

    GCM:  I also wanted to ask you, you spoke of a small pile of glass.

    MP:  Yes.

    GCM:  That is, what was it, a small gathered pile or scattered?

    MP:  A small gathered pile of glass.

    GCM:  Purposely put there?

    MP:  I don’t know that.

    GCM:  A little gathered pile, not scattered..

    MP:  Not scattered glass as the ones…

    GCM:  Not scattered glass but a small pile.

    MP:  A small pile of glass.

    GCM:  Originating from the broken window?

    MP:  Probably yes even because there was no other broken window if not that one and there were no other bottle or other things inside the legal office.

    GCM:  The computer, can you describe it? Seen as you said: “you gathered your thoughts” you remember something…

    MP:  If I can see it, I will be able to say if it is mine..

    GCM:  It’s not that the invoice has…

    MP:  No, my computer is a Sony Vaio with a white cover, but the model is not…

    GCM:  Okay.

    LM:  With regard to the question by the President…

    GCM:  Please proceed.

    LM:  In connection to the glass, the glass of the broken window, was this glass scattered?

    MP:  In part scattered, I gather, seeing as there weren’t others…that the others clustered inside the waiting room were from that glass, but not…

    LM:  So there was glass scattered both inside the room where the window was broken, and in adjacent rooms?

    MP:  Let’s agree that the scattered glass, covered by the jackets, was in the corridor that leads to the administrative office, which is to the right of the entrance and is in front of the French window from where the individuals had…

    LM:  So, in conclusion, there was a scattering of glass…

    MP:  Yes.

    LM:  … let’s say with enough range…

    MP:  More than where the jackets were located.

    LM:  Thank you.

    MDG:  May I, President, just one question?

    GCM:  Yes, please proceed, Lawyer.

    MDG:  Do you remember if you had inserted a password on your computer.

    GCM:  Okay, maybe the last questions, on the computer.

    MDG:  On the computer model, President.

    MP:  No.

    MDG:  It was not inserted?

    MP:  No.

    MDG:  Thank you.

    GCM:  The witness is excused.

    There are no other questions; the witness is dismissed.

     


    Sunday, December 28, 2014

    Meredith’s 29th: She Might Confidently Have Expected To Have Come Far By Now

    Posted by The TJMK Main Posters





    A kind stranger sees it. From John Kercher’s fine book Meredith:

    I had never heard of the ‘white feather’ phenomenon until some years ago. The story goes – or so I was told – that when somebody close to you dies, they occasionally send you a white feather to let you know that they are fine and thinking of you. Whether this was true or not, I could have no idea.

    In the days after we were allowed to bring Meredith home and bury her, I went to the cemetery alone and, when I returned to my car, a small white feather was fluttering by the driver’s door. Soon after, I visited Meredith again – and again I saw a single white feather. After this, it happened on several occasions – but I always thought that it was simply a coincidence.

    That was until, sometime later, Stephanie and I were sitting in the garden at a table, and as we talked, a pure white feather floated down and settled between us. I looked up into a clear blue sky. There were no birds. For the first time, I wondered if Meredith really was communicating with us. It was so easy to think that this was a stupid superstition, but I would not stop myself wondering if it was something more.

    Then, quite recently, I had a coffee in London with one of Meredith’s friends from Perugia, Natalie Hayward. We had been talking generally and about Meredith. When we left and stood outside South Kensington Underground Station, to my amazement a white feather suddenly floated down between Natalie and myself and settled on her hand. I looked up. Once again, the sky was pure blue and there was not a bird in sight.

    After Natalie left, I stood at that point for a full ten minutes, looking skywards, and not one bird appeared. Since then, I have heard and read of other people’s similar experiences. From this moment on, I like to think that, in some comforting way, Meredith truly is communicating with me. You may think me stupid or superstitious, but it is an experience I have never had before, and for every white feather I see, the feeling grows stronger.

    Sometimes other people can say things better than you can yourself, because you are too close to events. This was certainly the case when a complete stranger, a middle-aged American woman whose name we do not know, wrote to us and managed to capture the entire essence of the person Meredith was. Her message, unsolicited but so appreciated, was so poignant that it made us cry. Here is what this American woman wrote about our daughter, which I am proud to publish.

      Meredith was an exceptional young woman, who was intelligent, friendly and loving, beginning the adventure of a lifetime. She emerged into the independence of young adulthood with a remarkable ability to make good on all of the advantages that life had given her: a loving family, physical beauty and vitality, intelligence, grace and wit and a desire to excel.

      Along with others, I have felt drawn to learn more about this extraordinary young woman, who did everything that she could, it seemed, to be happy, to achieve and to create goodwill among everyone that she encountered. By all accounts, she was conscientious and generous, possessing a grace and sense of responsibility unusual for her age, while retaining a youthful joy and spontaneity.

      Over time, I became aware of another, deepening aspect of her story working through me. I thought about how beautifully Meredith moved through the world: her dedication to her studies and focus on future goals; her commitment to family and the value that she placed on all relationships. These were qualities that became a touchstone for me, qualities that I aspired to strengthen in myself. I felt drawn to her radiance as a guiding force for good in my own life.

      Most of us will never enjoy, in such abundance, or with such seeming ease, the beauty, joy and success that Meredith possessed and achieved in her short life. But what Meredith knew, what Meredith was, can become a universal lesson. What Meredith, the woman and her life, can teach us, and has certainly taught me, is the value of moving in the world from a place of light and joy. Meredith has set an example, a standard that challenges and inspires us to live in the world differently. Every time that I think of her, I am reminded of this. For those of us who open ourselves to receiving the gift of her radiant beauty, she can serve as a source of inspiration, and a light toward which we can strive.

    Upon reading this, I was overwhelmed. I wondered if this lady was clairvoyant, for she had somehow captured the essence of Meredith so perfectly. I could not have written anything better.

    It is moments like this that make me believe that it is right that, as a family, we still vow to get justice for our Meredith – who, in death, has somehow changed the lives of so many people, without them having even known her. How these people are so perceptive about her, I do not know, but the fact that she has touched so many unknowns means that, in some way, she still goes on.




    Posted on 12/28/14 at 07:36 AM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in Concerning MeredithHer memoryHer family
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (14)

    Friday, December 26, 2014

    Guede Hoax: Translation Of Lawyers Testimony #1 On Breakin Shows No Concrete Connection To Guede

    Posted by Peter Quennell



    Christmas in Milan where Rudy had an ambiguous encounter in a pre-school in October 2007


    Our previous post showed the giant scale and surreal flavor, and the hard facts left out of the innuendo, of the crackpots of the Knox-Mellas campaign.

    Innuendo will get them precisely nowhere. All the courts that have processed the case have warned about this, except for the hapless Judge Hellmann’s, and in March 2013 Cassation was especially sharp in warning that unless there is EVIDENCE to the contrary the hard facts presented to the panels of judges must be respected.

    For evidentiary reasons exclusively, Rudy Guede has never been charged with breaking and entering. Guede got no breaks, ever, contrary to myriad claims.

    The one questionable location where he was found was the nursery school in Milan. As he apparently used a key from one of the staff, any breakin trial would have been dead on arrival. No law required that he be detained. (He was however later charged with being in possession of stolen property,  and just a few days ago his sentence was extended by 16 months.)

    The previous post in this series showed how similar to the BACK BALCONY route to a forced break-in of Meredith’s house was the supposed route into the Perugia lawyers’ offices. It had nothing in common with Filomena’s window, contrary to myriad claims.

    This post and the next in this series show how the evidentiary proof that it was Guede (and not someone with a grudge or a trial opponent) who broke into the Perugia lawyers’ office is ambiguous and contradictory. Some signs point away from Guede, not least that photocopies apparently made of legal documentation (the copier was on and copy paper missing) would have required the use of a car.

    This post is on the testimony of the lawyer Brocchi (owner of the cellphone) and the third post is on the testimony of the lawyer Palazolli (owner of the Sony Vaio computer). Brocchi was quite talkative, despite his minor role, and so we will hold our highlights and interpretation for the next post.

    The extensive translation of the difficult language here and in the post still to come was kindly provided by Miriam.

    The witness, admonished pursuant to Article 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code, reads the oath.

    General Information: Paolo Brocchi born in Rome, March 2, 1968

    GCM: Please proceed.

    LM:  Good Morning, lawyer Maori, for the defense of Sollecito.

    PB: Good morning.

    LM: It is an unnecessary question, but I must ask it. The first question is this: what profession do you hold?

    PB: Lawyer.

    LM: Where is your legal office?

    PB: In via del Roscetto no.3 in Perugia.

    LM: Did your office undergo a burglary in 2007, in October 2007?

    PB: Yes.

    LM: Can you tell us how this burglary took place, how the thieves got in, and what was taken?

    PB: Certainly, the burglary was discovered by my colleague lawyer Palazzoli, the owner of the office, he told me about it on a Sunday afternoon, because the theft took place….. It was done between the night of 13th and 14th of October 2007, a night between Saturday and Sunday. The burglary was discovered by my colleague, the lawyer Palazzoli, on Sunday afternoon, because he entered the office to look for a professional file, and upon entering he discovered the burglary. The person or persons that entered inside the office, from what we were able to reconstruct together with members of the Squadra Mobile that intervened for us at the office, they entered through a window situated in the secretary’s office that was subjected to broken glass, the glass of this window was broken with the aid of a piece of porphyry, a big rock that we found there at the spot. The window was broken, then these persons or person turned the handle. The glass clearly was spread everywhere, because it was a rather thick glass. After which, on top of these pieces of glass we found our clothes. For the most part the glass was scattered on the floor and on top of the glass were our jackets, mine and my colleague’s Palazzoli, that had been hanging on the clothes hanger in the corridor right in front of the window.

    LM: Excuse me if I interrupt you, to reconstruct the dynamics of the event exactly . It would seem   that the 13th of October was a Saturday.

    PB:  From what I remember, yes.

    LM: Your colleague had remained in the office until….........

    PB: No, I stayed in the office. Saturday I remained in the office because I had a client on Saturday   afternoon, that was something anomalous, but it was for an urgent discussion. I called for a meeting that Saturday morning, then he arrived in the afternoon, and I left the office at 8.30 pm that Saturday.

    LM: 8.30 pm that Saturday and after, the following Sunday, the evening…...

    PB: The day after, Sunday, I was called on the telephone by lawyer Palazzoli, who told me “Look somebody came into the office, I have already called the Carabinieri”, who then because of the jurisdiction of the old town center, as we found out, alerted the Squadra Mobile of the State Police.

    LM: Does your office have an alarm?

    PB:  The office was fitted out with an alarm, but that evening it was not activated, because, as I reconstruct the event, it had just been installed. That evening I left at 8.30 pm. I remember perfectly that I did not activate the alarm system. The strange thing that I can highlight in connection here is that I noticed the alarm system the next day, when we entered, was not damaged, the bright light was functioning even if it was dis-activated, and the person or persons that entered did not damage the alarm, they only dis-activated the telephonic combination, thus with this they manifested a minimum confidence, a certain competence in the subject matter of alarms, of electronics, because to dis-activate a telephonic combination without damaging the alarm, I would not be capable, even being the owner, thus I would not have this competence.

    LM:  One other thing. You spoke then about a window that …..

    PB:  Yes, apparently

    LM:  Was that the only break in?

    BB:  Yes

    LM:  Is it a window that gives onto the main street or onto a private court yard?

    PB:  No, this window gives out to a private court yard that is than protected from the public street by an exterior gate. So it is probable…. I don’t know if can be possible…. because close to that window there are other windows of other apartments, there are… there is a window that is about one meter from the balcony of my office, so everything is possible. But this person or persons if they came from the public street would have to open a gate that gives on private property and then, with the help of I don’t know which tools, climb up for three, four meters on a vertical wall to then arrive to the terrace ,where was located my office, where it is still located, first up to this window and then through this window enter inside my office, if this was the way in.

    LM:  However this break in took place in this window, three/four meters high.

    PB:  More or less

    LM:  Did you find a ladder close by?

    PB:  No

    LM:  Did you find other tools?

    PB:  No. I remember that we inspected with the Squadra Mobile crew. I should say that the property below us has a door, an armored mesh and a particularly able person could have climbed up. Could have, I don’t know, this is just an assumption.

    LM:  Anyhow it was not easy to climb up.

    PB:  Absolutely not.

    LM:  Before, you spoke about this rock, this porphyry..

    PB:  Yes

    LM:  Where was it found, inside or outside?

    PB:  Strangely, right on the little terrace, evidently the person or persons that entered with the help of this very heavy porphyry because a double glass had to be broken, it was not a thin glass, but it was that type of glass utilized mainly for thermal insulation, certainly not for security reasons, evidently it needed a heavy impact in order to somehow succeed in the intent, otherwise a small piece of rock would evidently have been sufficient.

    LM:  What was taken from inside the office?

    PB:  So, at first we noticed that the office was in a state of general disarray : all the archive was turned upside down, all the files of the offices were piled up in a heap. But from the first inventory that we did there at the moment, this was missing: a new computer belonging to the lawyer Palazzoli, a note book the brand of which I absolutely do not remember [actually a Sony], a USB flash drive used to save data, a portable Canon printer which was mine, and then a few days later, when I was contacted by a crew of the Police of Milan, agent Spesi Rita, I realized that they had also stolen a cell phone, that anyhow was not working properly, that furthermore was included in the process of investigation (SDI) of the Police Force. Therefore there was also this cell phone, that beforehad I had quit using and didn’t even remember about, that was in the drawer of my desk.

    LM:  Lawyer, were money and checks stolen too?

    PB: No, there were none.

    LM: On this I have to challenge, that you on the complaint of the burglary indicated also checks from the Banca delle Marche [were stolen].

    PB: No I will explain the reasoning. Those checks at the first moment appeared to us not present. There was a block that was finished, but then after checking with the bank, those checks had been annulled, so in reality they hadn’t been stolen. The verification that we did at the bank the Monday after, highlighted that I had annulled those checks and the bank had trace of it, so nobody took anything.

    LM:  Another thing before speaking of the recovery of the computer, you told us of the small havoc done inside your office.

    PB:  Yes.

    LM:  You spoke of the ransacking, in addition to, as you said before, of the broken glass with your clothes on top. Was also the photo-copy machine utilized?

    PB:  I am not able to say that. It was easily usable because it was not code protected, but this I am not able to…

    LM:  Did they turn on the heating?

    PB:  Yes, when we entered the heating system was on, as matter of fact there was a torrid temperature inside the office, because it remained on, I think, more than 24 hours, in a month, October, that was not particularly cold. Furthermore I noticed that this person or persons that entered inside my office even made use of drinks that were in a cabinet, leaving…. they even opened the cabinet of the first aid meticulously looking for everything that was inside, but more than anything else disinfectants and blood pressure gauge, this type of things, but they really did an accurate selection of the material present inside the first aid cabinet.

    LM: Returning to the computer, the property of…..

    PB: Of the lawyer Palazzoli, yes.

    LM: Was it discovered at a later date?

    PB: Well, we never saw it. I say, that the 27th of October 2007, around noon, it was a Saturday, I was in the office in a anomalous way because generally I had the first 3 hours at school and the last 3 hours are normally always….. making 6 hours Saturday morning. But that morning I left early and I was in the office. A telephone call came in on the land line, a call from the police station Venezia Garibaldi from the Milan Police, the agent Rita Spesi, who told me that they had found an individual, of whom I was not given general information, nor the gender, I was only told that certain goods were on this individual, that if I remember correctly they were found inside a kindergarten, a school, an institute of learning, and in this instance, among goods that were in possession of this individual or better held by this individual, this person also had this cellphone. Turning it on, my name appeared, and from here the police officer by way of a search of the SDI system of investigation, saw my complaint of theft of October 15th 2007, and so she asked me if proveably those goods were my property.

    LM:  Therefore the telephone and computer?

    PB:  Telephone without doubt, the computer was described to me, it was not mine, I manifested doubts in the sense that…... well I had never seen it, or used it, because it was my colleague’s, who had just bought it, a short time ago he had just bought it. On the computer I manifested doubts. On the telephone, on the telephone however by way of the names of the address menu, the clients and friends of mine, I was able to confirm with certainty that at least my SIM card was on that phone.

    LM:  It is a Sony model…..no excuse me…..

    PB: No, the telephone is a Nokia.

    LM: It is a Nokia, model 6310.

    PB: Nokia, for sure, the model now not….....

    LM: Like this one, so to….....

    PB: Yes, exactly.

    LM: 6310.

    PB: It is the same color, if I remember correctly.

    LM: However this is not yours, it is mine.

    PB: No, fine.

    LM:  Was the name of the person that was stopped given to you by agent Rita Spessi?

    PB:  No, absolutely not.

    LM:  Did you then find out the name of this person?

    PB:  No, this happened on October 27th when the police officer calls me. All ends with this telephone call in which I stated I recognized at least the cell phone. On October 29th, a Monday afternoon I am in the office and on the phone with some clients. October 29th, I may be mistaken, but I believe I mentally reconstructed the facts in this way, I did not take notes, I must be honest. October 29th my attention - I was on the phone - my attention was drawn by a commotion in the lobby, the common reception area outside the office. I hear voices in the corridor, I am still on the phone, afterward I get closer to see that an assistant of the office, Dott. Luciano Morini, is speaking with someone. Before I can realize what is happening, he tells me “Look Paolo, here is a person that says that he was found with merchandise, goods, objects that were reported stolen by you and your colleague Palazzoli, but that he bought them in Milan close to the train station in central Milan”. At which I go to the corridor and I see, at the entrance of the lobby, a colored person that has a basketball in his hands and is dressed in sport clothes. These things surprised me, because we were at the end of October and it was kind of cold, it struck me quite a bit seeing this person in sport clothes, a tank top like those used by basketball players, and a basketball. I recognized the basketball because I played basketball for twenty years, so I know how to recognize one.  At that point I say: “Look I don’t know who you are”, he answered: “I don’t know who you are either”, I replied: “ Look we are only interested in having our belongings returned” and that was all. At that point I went back to the office. I don’t know if the person stayed in front of the office, and anyhow I close the door and there it ended. A few weeks later, may be a month later, I’m not sure, some time later I see on the newspapers photographs of a person that was associated with the matters of this proceeding, from which I recognized the person that presented himself that afternoon on October 29th, before the matters that brought to this proceeding, at the office to say that, yes he was found at that location in Milan by the crew of the Squadra Mobile, of the police station Venezia Garibaldi, that he did not…. tell me but tell to my colleague Morini, that he did not take anything from anybody but those things he obtained by purchasing them.

    LM:  Who is this person? Can you give us a name and surname?

    PB: Doctor Luciano Morini that…....

    LM: No, no, I say…....you told us of your assistant. You said that this colored person that you did not know, that you saw for the first time October 29th 2007, then at a later stage had the means to see by the newspaper who it was.

    PB: Yes.

    LM:  Can you give us the name and surname of this person?

    PB: I believe that I recognized in that person this Mr. Rudy Hermann Guede, that is not a defendant   in this proceeding, but is involved in the other one…..

    LM: Always in reference to October 29th , at the moment this person came to your studio, you said : “This person arrived , and spoke with my colleague Morini”.

    PB:  Yes.

    LM: And he told you: “I do not know you”. These are the exact words that you said before?

    PB: When I was on the landing, I said….....

    LM: That which Guede said to you.

    PB: That which I said to him, because I spoke first and said: “Look I do not know who you are”. He responds: “ I don’t know who you are either”, furthermore in a perfect Italian, with a Perugian accent, something that surprised me, because been a person…… but everything is possible. To which I told him, “look let’s cut it short we are not interested. We are only interested in getting our goods back ”, end.

    LM:  But naturally you knew the subject of the discussion between….

    PB:  Because a moment before Dr. Morini related to me “look there is a person outside that says that he bought goods that you and your colleague reported stolen, he bought them in Milan”.

    LM:  One last thing. Concerning the computer of your colleague Pazzoli, do you remember the brand, the model?

    PB:  No, I’m not able to answer.

    LM:  Thank you.

    GCM:  Please proceed.

    LG:  Excuse me Lawyer Brocchi, I am Ghirga. Your office is on which street?

    PB:  Via del Roscetto, 3.

    LG:  First…. You already told us the height, can you repeat it?

    PB:  The office is on a raised floor, technically, it is not a first floor, is a raised ground floor, that means that from the entrance of the building you go up ten steps to enter the condominium, then on the left end side there is the entrance to the office.

    LG:  An what about this terrace window?

    PB:  It is on the other side of the building.

    LG:  From the outside how much can it…

    PB:  Let’s say that are a few meters, may be three, four, but I am not able …..because I never measured it.

    LG:  But you were speaking of an access from another street that intersects Via del Roscetto?

    PB:  Exactly there is an intersection, Via del Lupo, going downhill.

    LG:  Via del Lupo

    PB:  Via del Lupo, if I remember correctly, it goes down till you reach a dead end, it comes to a courtyard behind the building and then there is another courtyard that is private property enclosed by a gate. If these person or persons entered through here they would have had to open that gate to get inside to what I described before to get into the office.

    LG:  Thank you, I wanted to clarify that.

    GCM:  Mr. Prosecutor, please proceed.

    PM:  (unintelligible - no microphone) ?

    PB:  In effect I don’t know. Seeing as I was alerted to these happenings by agent Rita Spessi of the police station Venezia Garibaldi, sometime later, together with my colleague, we filed an application for the repossession of these goods at the central penal record office of the Procura di Milano, via Manara. After 24 hours an agent, an operator, or a clerk of the central penal record office, calls me on the telephone and tells me: “Look, Lawyer, we saw the application of release, but to us form 21, does not result in any procedure”. To which I said: “How can it be that no form 21 procedure shows up ? The agents would have done a CNR, or not? At least by the end of their duty, having found a person in possession of stolen goods should have reported…”, “Look , there are no results of this procedure”

    PM:  (unintelligible - no microphone) ?

    PB:  Form 21, subject known, in the sense that in the Procura della Repubblica there are various forms, 21, 45, 44, relative documents, etc.

    PM:  (unintelligible - no microphone) ?

    PB:  No, I looked for it as a form 21, but even then they…..I even asked: “Be patient, I will look for it on the other forms”, to which he said: “We cannot find it”. Given that some time had passed this caused me some surprise. That’s it.

    PM:  But they notified you (unintelligible - no microphone) ?

    PB:  No, never.

    PM:  So then this procedure in any case is not a charge (inaudible - outside the microphone)?

    PB:  This I don’t know. I only say that the application of release, I filed it, and that the central penal record office of the Procura called telling me that they could not find the application filed by me and my colleague as the offended parties and no other relative documents regarding this procedure.

    PM:  When did this happen?

    PB:  2008, last year in the spring, months and months after…..

    PM:  Did you by any chance verify if there was (unintelligible audible-outside the microphone)?

    PB:  No, no.

    PM:  (unintelligible - no microphone) ?

    LM:  I oppose this question by the Public Prosecutor because I would like to make it known to the court that we know that there is a penal proceeding, the Public Prosecutor D’Amico in Milan even has it. We asked for the acquisition, and we have right here……

    GCM:  Excuse me lawyer, what is the motive for your opposition?

    LM:  Because the Public Prosecutor is asking if there is a penal proceeding, when in reality……

    GMC:  Excuse me Lawyer, but the Public prosecutor is asking questions to the witness on what he knows. That if evidences comes out from other sources, they will be acquired. The objection is rejected. Please Public Prosecutor.

    PM:  (unintelligible - no microphone) ?

    PB:  Yes, it is a palace of the 15 century

    PM:  Do you know, by chance, which was the path (unintelligible – no microphone)?

    PB:  I can presume it, having found the glasses in the inside, that….

    Note: in this moment the PM microphone is turned on

    PM:  Therefore before I could not be heard.

    GCM:  The answers have been…

    PM:  The answers were…

    GCM:  Yes.

    PM:  I understand.

    GCM:  The other questions… excuse me, the Public Prosecutor was asking if something to you results…

    PM:  If there is a proceeding, and you say there is not one.

    PB:  No, I don’t say there isn’t one, It does not result from me because the the central penal record office of the Procura di Milan, calling me on the telephone, referred to me the day after, that up to that date there was no registration. Now, everything is possible, that they it registered it later, I don’t know.

    PM:  You did not have any news, in any case…

    PB:  Never, never.

    PM:  Did you receive an extension of the investigation?

    PB:  Never, never.

    PM:  Let’s go back to the position of this… then this office is on the ground floor…

    PB:  Raised ground floor.

    PM:  … raised ground floor. From what point do you arrive?

    PB:  On via della Roscetto there are 2 windows on the raised ground floor, on the street front, that are the rooms of my colleague Palazzoli and mine. Then there are…

    PM:  What is the distance from the ground?

    PB:  From via della Roscetto it is minimum 3 meters, yes 3 meters, because I am tall… well it’s 2 or 3 meters. Then going down via del Lupo, there is a slope, until this public courtyard, because via del Lupo is a dead end. Thereafter, from this side the height increases, let’s say, it increases slightly after this small slope, therefore the ground goes up and there is an internal court yard that is accessible from the public courtyard through an iron gate. Going through this gate you arrive at this private courtyard, than there is an armored door with a mesh, so that one with the mesh is on the ground floor, looking up you see this balcony, this little terrace that is outside is my office, that is situated ….. more than three meters, between three and four meters from ground level.

    PM:  So, this door with the mesh is a door and not a window.

    PB:  No, it is a door

    PM:  Therefore all the way to the ground.

    PB:  Yes

    PM:  How high is it?

    PB:  More than two meters for sure.

    PM:  So after this door, there is another meter to arrive… or a meter and a half, two meters?

    PB:  I presume at least another meter.

    PM:  Another meter to arrive to the balcony.

    PB:  At least.

    PM:  Where was the porphyry rock found?

    PB:  On the balcony, on the outside.

    PM:  You said that inside … can you describe what you found? How was the…..

    PB:  The situation.

    PM:  So the rock was outside.

    PB:  The rock was outside, the glass was inside, the glass of the window in part on the corridor and they were covered with our clothes, mine and those of Lawyer Palazzoli, placed right on top of the glass.

    PM:  They were on top of the glass.

    PB:  On top of the glass, and the thing surprised us, “maybe” we said “to not make noise passing over them”, I don’t know, it is only a supposition. After which they were in the room of the photocopier other pieces of fragments of glass always coming from that window, the only one broken, they were situated on a small rug that was right in front of a workplace, a computer. Then right in front of this there were drinks, real close, open, partially consumed. Then we went into the other room, where the filing cabinet is, it was completely turned upside down. All the drawers were open, all the files were taken and the papers all mixed up on the floor, there were a mountain of paper, an entire archive practically mixed up, that many things we were never able to find, some later, some first, others later. Therefore this was the situation. Then inside my room, on my desk, there was a leather suitcase belonging to me, on top of this suitcase in a very orderly way were placed some screwdrivers, pliers, a hammer, facing the window, all perfectly aligned and facing the window. Even here all the papers in disarray. A chest of drawers was opened, inside were files, all the records of the law practice funds, all the annual quotas of the inscriptions, all things that we found eventually with a lot of effort, mixed one on top of the other. Even here was another filing cabinet of my dossiers that was opened and all the papers mixed up. Then inside of the administrative office there were, there are all the folders with the contracts of the intensity bills, with the deed to the office, all upside down. There was the placement of the [printer] that was… let’s say there had been activity, because we found receipts scattered close to the machine, so there had been…at the least this person or persons had gone to satisfy themselves of what that instrument was. This was…

    PM:  Listen, was the cell phone given back to you?

    PB:  No, I asked for the release, I deposited …

    PM:  So it is in possession of the police or the procura?

    PB:  Office of the body of evidence, I presume.

    PM:  Fine. I don’t have any other questions.

    GCM:  Questions from the civil parties? None, President. The defense can complete it’s questioning.

    LM:  I would like to deposit a record that naturally is in the dossier of the Public Prosecutor and on the basis of this record then ask questions of the witness.

    GCM:  Maybe put this record at…

    LM:  It’s about.. this can be useful to the lawyer because the number of the penal procedure that charges Rudy Guede is indicated and a warning effected on February 1, 2008 by the Procuratore della Repubblica, the assistant D’Amico, that is carrying out the investigation with regard on Rudy Guede for the crime of theft, receiving stolen good, and for the crime of carrying an illegal weapon, law 110 of ’75. This information was also given to the Procura della Repubblica of Peruga, to Dr Mignini, with communication via fax.

    PB:  When was the procedure registered? Ah excuse me,I can’t…

    GCM:  Let’s see the document. So the parties have seen this document?

    LM:  There is an error in the writing of Dr Mignini (“Dr Minnini”) but it can be understood that it is his fax and and it was even addressed …

    GCM:  Even the defense of Knox knows this…?

    LG:  (unintelligible no microphone) ?

    GCM:  The question in relation to this document?

    LM:  The question is this, Doctor D’ Amico makes aware that all of the confiscated material and thus the computer and the Nokia cell phone, had already on the date of February 1, 2008, prior to February 1, 2008, been passed on to the police station of Perugia.

    PB:  So it is in Perugia.

    LM:  The question is this, I would like to know, did you request in the first days of the year 2008 to the police station the return of…

    PB:  No, I did so to the Procura di Milan, believing that it was held in the body of evidence of the Procura di Milano, because those people told me they were found in Milan and that it was probable evidence of a criminal activity. Therefore, I thought to make a request of release to the Procura di Milano.

    LM:  Reading the letter sent by Dr D’ Amico , for the Procura di Perugia, both the computer and the cell phone are indicated. Can you recognize the computer, property of your colleague?

    PB:  I say that the cell phone without doubt was a Nokia; the 27th of October 2007 is true because it was Saturday; the Sony Vaio I cannot be certain of the brand, because I absolutely don’t remember it, because it was not even mine, , therefore I don’t know. The attempted aggravated theft, 56, 624, 625, 648…

    GCM:  Only on the objects.

    PB:  Yes. No, the objects… I can only say about the cell phone.

    GCM:  So only the cell phone.

    LM:  I ask for the acquisition so as to demonstrate that, indeed, there is a penal proceeding.

    GCM:  Agreed. Other questions?

    PB:  So it is pending in Milan. The strange thing that I can say to the president is this…  I see that it includes the form 21/2007. So I don’t understand why the Penal Central Record Office told me that it was not pending…

    GCM:  Excuse me layer, let’s go back to the testimonial questioning, therefore on the circumstantial facts.

    LM:  Let’s go back to the reconstruction of the entry path in your office by the thief. To the question by the Public prosecutor you explained, as you explained to me, that this window is at the height of about 3/4meters from the ground floor.

    PB:  From via del Lupo, yes

    LM:  Then you refer to a door, an iron door which is close…

    PB:  Yes, I confirm.

    LM:  And this iron door at what distance is from the window?

    PB:  It is perpendicular just under the window.

    LM:  So therefore there were, let’s say, coarseness on this door that could allow an eventual…

    PB:  A fit person, not I; a fit person, not someone like me, could have climbed up with the risk of plummeting to the ground, because there is clearly no protection, there is nothing but a vertical wall.

    LM:  I do understand. One last thing, the window from which the thieves entered as you indicated, is higher than the other windows?

    PB:  No, because the office is on the same level and it is exactly…you mean compared to the office or as per the window height?

    LM:  Compared to the street level and the other windows.

    PB:  No, at this point, when you get to little terrace you are practically at the level of the other windows.

    LM:  One last thing, when that man on the 29th of October that man, Rudy Guede, came to your office…

    PB:  No, not in the office, he was on…

    LM:  On the landing?

    PB:  Not even, he was in the entrance… on the steps between the street and the entrance of the office…part of the lobby. He did not enter the office.

    LM:  His intention was to come inside the office, to come to you?

    PB:  I don’t know. As a matter of fact he didn’t know who I was, because, when he rang he rang on Legal Office, because evidently somebody had told him that those goods had been… but I repeat, I did not speak with him, therefore no… they are all things told to me by Dott. Morini, so they are not of my direct knowledge.

    LM:  Thank you.

    GCM:  When did this take place?

    PB:  This happened Monday afternoon around 5, late afternoon on October 29th 2007

    GCM:  So how many days after the theft?

    PB:  The theft was October 13th, this on the 29th .

    GCM:  If there no other question the witness is excused.

    There are no other questions; the witness is dismissed.

    GCM:  The communication from the Procura della Repubblica, Tribunale Ordinario of Milano dated the 1st of February 2008 is acquired in order to be used. Who is next?

    LM:  Lawyer Palazzoli



    Tuesday, December 23, 2014

    Calling Planet Knox: Maybe Chris Mellas And Bruce Fischer Need To Rein In Their Crackpot Brigade

    Posted by Peter Quennell





    Above is Chris Mellas with Curt Knox, who we are told maybe thinks the way-too-rabid Mellases now damage the prospects of Knox. 

    Here is some chest-thumping babble on the reliably dishonest website GroundReport by one of Chris Mellas’s crackpot gang, the singularly foolish crackpot Jay.

    Today I examine the role of the Italian judiciary in the framing of Amanda Knox and Raffaelle Sollecito for the murder of Meredith Kercher, the skillful way Giuliano Mignini used the Italian media to hold the entire judiciary hostage to his career ambitions, and why I believe the Italian judiciary may finally be ready to fully exonerate Amanda and Raffaelle of any involvement in the murder of Ms Kercher.

    This case has been out of the hands of Dr Mignini for over five years - if it ever was fully in his hands. He initially took a decidedly mild stance against Knox, who he thought, through drugs and mental problems, had got in over her head and Meredith’s death was not planned.

    In fact from the day after Knox’s arrest the no-nonsense Judge Matteini and Judge Ricciarelli led the case all the way to trial. They got all their information directly from THE POLICE. In light of hard evidence and a psychological report they insisted a potentially dangerous Knox be kept locked up. In April 2008 Cassation very strongly agreed.

    Pretty bizarre to see a Mignini witchunt in this, or a judiciary about to reverse itself on years of meticulous work.

    At the time of the Meredith Kercher murder on November 1, 2007, the Italian judiciary was was locked in a struggle with the Perugian prosecutor Giuliano Mignini. Mignini was facing charges for abuse of office, relating to his ‘Narducci Trail’ investigations.

    This is more chest-thumping babble by the crackpot Jay. Dr Mignini rarely even talks to the media and he is regarded by good reporters as especially careful with the truth. The Italian justice system is not only one of the world’s most careful and most pro-victim-rights, it is very popular and trusted in Italy second only to the President who is also the Justice System’s top dog.

    Dr Mignini’s past caseload as a prosecutor was quite mundane as Kermit’s meticulous and powerful Powerpoint showed. Perugia and its region of Umbria are among the most prosperous and least crime-ridden in Italy toward which the very popular Dr Mignini contributed a great deal over the years.

    Dr Mignini rose to his present seniority of Deputy Prosecutor-General in Umbria because on his merits he consistently excelled. He is often on national TV (among other things ridiculing conspiracy theories and the too-ready blaming of crimes on satanism) and has high-level professional friends and supporters throughout Italy, not least in Florence where he has known senior colleagues since law-school.   

    Mignini and his colleague Michele Giutarri had both been indicted after Mignini had Mario Spezi arrested and briefly imprisoned, in connection with the Monster of Florence crimes. Spezi was released just three weeks later, after an intense media campaign by his writing partner the American author Douglas Preston.

    But rather than back off of his satanic sect Narducci trail investigations, Mignini instead plowed ahead with still more satanic sect cases. At the time of the Kercher murder, Mignini had a case unravelling in Florence against a pharmacist and friend of Spezi’s named Francesco Calamandrei.

    When the Calamandrei case was dismissed in 2008, Mignini pressed his next ‘satanic sect’ case against the 20 innocent people in Florence, including Spezi and members of the Narducci family. Mignini had also tried at first to link the Kercher murder to “rites related to Halloween”.... It is these two convictions, these two false convictions, which the Italian judiciary is in my view trying so desperately to protect.

    More chest-thumping babble by the crackpot Jay. The vast majority of Italians believe the truth of the Monster of Florence case is as set out in the exceptional book Il Mostro by Michele Giuttari in which there really was and is a shadowy group. It was for proving this that a desperate Florence prosecutor took Mignini and Giuttari to court.

    We have shown repeatedly that the fading fiction-writer Preston often does not tell the truth. After his near-arrest for falsifying evidence to seek to make Spezi and himself world-famous for “solving” the MOF case,  Preston took off out of Italy like a terrified rabbit and has tried to prove he actually has a backbone ever since.

    Italians know that in his one brief formal interview with Dr Mignini Preston melted down. He blubbered and wailed while he lied and lied, and was considered so incompetent and naive he might as well be given a break.

    Here from a public document arguing for custody of Mario Spezi (the “brains” of the two, if that is not a stretch) is a conversation between the publicity-hungry Inspector Clouseaus (through public sources we have also obtained the tapes) thinking here that they have made the cops look like foolish dupes:

    [The word “passeggiata” (leisure walk) in the context of these statements makes little sense literally; in fact, it is a code word by which both Spezi and Preston mean the police visit to Villa Bibbiani that Spezi and Zaccaria are plotting to trigger by way of a letter they wrote reporting false incriminating testimony, and by way of which they expect the police to find the false pieces of evidence contained in six boxes that they are going to place in the villa. Preston is aware of this intended fraud, and he is happy about it, because he presumably expects that from such an operation their “Sardinian track” theory would gain visibility as a media scoop and he and Spezi would become world-famous from it, sell a lot of books, and make a lot of money out of it. So “passeggiata” is really the police eating their bait, going there, and finding their forged false evidence in the house.]

    In conversation n. 17077 of Feb. 18. 2006, PRESTON calls Mr. SPEZI, who informs him, expressing satisfaction:

    “We have done everything.. I mean… we went and we did it…  you know my telephone is ugly [sic]…”

    and Mr. PRESTON, still in a chummy and allusive tone:

    “Oh yes, I understand perfectly, yes, hey… the… the… the ‘passeggiata’ isn’t that… isn’t that… we have …  someone has done the ‘passeggiata’?”

    and the journalist pointed out, interspersing that with chuckles of satisfaction: “No, no, no, but… they are going to do it!!”

    and Mr. PRESTON: “Yes, yes… but… isn’t that interesting wow….”

    and Mr. SPEZI: “…. We told them to do it !”

    At PRESTON’s question about when they would be going to do the ‘passeggiata’, SPEZI answers: “Well… I don’t know but I hope soon” and at a further question by PRESTON, he says: “In.. within.. within the 24th”

    SPEZI again answers: “I hope yes”, laughing.

    Then, Mr. Preston adds: “It’s fantastic!... Oh the end maybe, I don’t know but…”

    and Mr. SPEZI: “That would be beautiful!” still sniggering, and Mr. PRESTON agrees enthusiastically.

    After his charging, in conversation n. 17231, Mr. PRESTON calls SPEZI and tells him that they need to speak about it in person.

    The criminal operation stands out even more egregiously in conversation n. 16950 of February 13. 2006, between Mr. SPEZI, the deviser of the plot, and his right hand man Nando Zaccaria; and when RUOCCO gives Mr. SPEZI “information” about the name of the person who allegedly attended the villa, Mr. SPEZI himself calls Mr. ZACCARIA, and, while making him understand that Mr. Gianfranco Bernabei had already been contacted and the report-complaint had been given to him, he adds: “So he called me.. not him Gianfranco… the other guy, we have an appointment at 2:30pm, because he knew about the name”; and ZACCARIA cries out: “Beautifullllll!” with satisfaction.

    In conversation n. 17095 of February 19. 2006, Mr. SPEZI calls Mr. ZACCARIA again and urges him to explain him (to the Flying Squad chief) thoroughly about the “six small boxes”, that is to convince him that the objects are related to the murders. Mr. ZACCARIA tells him that he already explained it to the other guy and says: “If they go there they must look very well.. at everything…”, and Mr. SPEZI: “What I mean to say… if he finds a hairpin this doesn’t mean anything to him…”, making him understand that he will need to “work” him out.

    Mr. ZACCARIA adds in the end: “Then I told him, well while we go… when it’s… when you are going… he says anyway he advises us”. Mr. SPEZI says he agrees and Mr. ZACCARIA reassures him saying he [Bernabei] doesn’t know anything about the case and never dealt with it, then he complains about that the nowadays officers are incapable of doing their job. Thus the chief of the Flying Squad, Dr. Fillippo Ferri, will need to be led by “malicious” Mr. ZACCARIA. Then Mr. SPEZI asks Mr. ZACCARIA to advise him when he goes there (to the Villa). Anyway we remand to the unequivocal content of the conversation, at pages 6, 7 and 8 of request n. 114/06 G.I.De.S.

    Back to analysing more from the crackpot Jay.

    And Mignini, by continuing to file ‘Narducci trail’ cases, and invoking the same ‘satanic sect’ conspiracy theory, was holding the judiciary hostage to his unprincipled career ambitions.  The challenge Mignini presented to the Italian judiciary, was how to stop Mignini’s witch hunt of innocent citizens, without also discrediting the ‘satanic sect’ convictions of Vanni and Lotti in the Monster of Florence cases.

    The task of acting as a kind of judicial baby-sitter to Mignini, fell to Judge Paolo Micheli [who] presided over Rudy Guede’s fast track trial in 2008 – which was also the pre-trial hearing against Amanda Knox and Raffaelle Sollecito, to certify the case against them as warranting a full trial. The challenge for Judge Micheli, was to walk Mignini back from the edge, but without so completely devastating Mignini’s reputation, that the public might begin to question the validity of the satanic sect theory which had been used in the convictions in the Monster of Florence murders.

    This is 180 degrees wrong. Judge Micheli is believed to have been leaned on but ultimately the courts at all levels came round to confirming that Dr Mignini had no choice but to act and he acted quite right. The notion of a satanic sect goes way back and Dr Mignini was more doubtful about it than most.

    Judge Micheli’s ruling was scathingly overturned by Cassation, and some of the cases against malicious meddlers were resumed. Spezi has been in court after court - just a couple of weeks ago, he lost yet another defamation case brought by Michele Giuttari.

    But Judge Micheli allowed Mignini’s case against Knox and Sollecito to go forward to trial. Had Judge Micheli simply done his job, properly heard and investigated Mignini’s case, the only fair outcome would be full dismissal. What Mignini has pulled off is a kind of blackmail. Mignini wanted his promotion at all costs, and was willing to convict and imprison dozens of innocent people to get his way. Amanda and Raffaele are only two of Mignini’s more recent victims, but there are scores of damaged lives left behind in the wake of Mignini’s lust for career advancement.

    The crackpot Jay has defamed American prosecutors too? Probably not. Typical of the cowardly Mellas-Fischer gang he writes in English in the United States in a language and from a distance which makes him feel safe. Dr Mignini has zero record of overzealous or wrongful prosecution, and very, very few cases reversed on appeal, and nobody at all in Italy would buy this defamatory crap.

    After Michelli dismissed the case against the Florence 20 in 2010, Judge Hellman’s appeal court fully acquitted Amanda Knox and Raffaelle Sollecito for any involvement if the murder of Meredith Kercher in October of 2011.

    Hello?! Hellman’s verdict was ANNULED for terrible law, and for illegally trying to repeat the complete trial (absent the witnesses, who he ridiculed) instead of sticking to the few points that had been appealed. Cassation annuls very, very few cases, and reversing this corrupted overstretch was universally seen in Italian law circles as right.

    Extraordinarily, Judge Micheli waited over one year to release his motivation report, only doing so about two months after the Hellman court released its motivation report in favor of acquittal. Motivation reports in Italy, are normally due in 90 days. I believe Judge Micheli’s delay in releasing his motivation report, was to allow him the opportunity to conform his report to that of Judge Hellman.

    Good grief. What is the crackpot Jay on about here? Judge Micheli was leaned on, and he knew he had got the law wrong, and he presumably expected to be overturned - which Cassation very scathingly did. No wonder his homework was not handed in on time; he feared losing his job and serving time.

    The Narducci trail case of the Florence 20, was sent back down absent the element of criminal conspiracy among the defendants. In essence, the case was rigged for dismissal, a fact confirmed by Michele Giutarri in a magazine interview earlier this year. Whereas the case against Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito was rigged for conviction.

    A previous cassation ruling against Rudy Guede in his fast track process where Guede’s defense waived the right to challenge the evidence, determined that Guede had killed Meredith along with others. Cassation ruled that Knox and Sollecito’s trials should be bound by that finding, which is grossly and patently unfair.

    There was nothing unfair. This is a foolish meme. Cassation simply ruled that two others had been involved and that had been proved. It was proved in the 1/4 of the trial that was held behind closed doors where two recreations connected all the dots of the vicious 15-minute taunting attack on Meredith. Both defenses without argument accepted this.

    As irrational as the cassation ruling overturning the Hellman acquittal may seem, there may be a deeper reason behind it. In an article from CBS news earlier this year, Doug Longhini writes: “Following the verdict, judge Hellmann didn’t pull punches.  He declared: “the evidence was nonsense.”  Suddenly, several prosecutors and judges became the targets of criticism claiming they had mishandled the case from the beginning.” ...

    For his part, Berlusconi and his party were at war with Italy’s prosecutors and judges.  The Prime Minister was trying to reign in their investigative powers.  Prosecutors, for their part, were trying to put Berlusconi in jail.”  Seen in this light, the court of cassation reversing the acquittal of judge Hellman is not an act of judicial wisdom, but one of self preservation. To avert a political investigation among their own members, Italy’s court of cassation had to reverse Judge Hellman’s acquittal.

    The addled Doug Longhini is consistently out to lunch both on the excellent Italian system and the Perugia case as have been the entire CBS team - no wonder they have said very little for several years.

    The courts at all points have simply done the right thing and public opinion has been very solidly behind them. Almost every Italian knows that RS and AK carried out the attack. The courts are not in self-preservation and charges against the toothless Berlusconi still stand.

    One can sense the political pendulum swinging first in favor of conviction, then back towards acquittal, then back again towards conviction. And events that unfolded just this year, cause me to believe that the Italian judicial-political pendulum is once again swinging back in favor of acquittal. Giuliano Mignini has received his promotion. In his new role, he will never again prosecute a case or lead an investigation, he is only allowed to sit with other judges on appeals courts. So the judiciary can be confidant there will be no more Mignini led witch hunts.

    Only recently in the past few weeks, the last of the criminal charges against Mignini have been allowed to languish, due to statute of limitations. So Mignini is out of legal jeopardy.  Despite the fact that the only trial on the merits resulted in a conviction and jail sentences for both Mignini and Giutarri, neither will be going to jail, or being held accountable for the crimes they were found to have committed at their first level trial. In the end, it may be said that the Italian judiciary found it easier to promote Mignini, then to jail him

    More babble. Dr Mignini was NEVER in legal jeopardy as everyone in Perugia knew - a judge had signed the wiretap of the prosecutor who unwittingly confirmed a Florence cabal and Dr Mignini and his boss and all his colleagues KNEW he would overturn the spurious conviction on appeal.

    Dr Mignini did overturn the verdict in Florence on appeal - the appeal judge’s ruling was the hardest-line “there is no case” - and as with ex-Judge Hellmann, both the rogue prosecutor and the rogue trial judge are now out.

    Dr Mignini commendably kept pushing back and he won and won and won against the malicious meddlers in the MOF case. On 3 December the great reporter Andrea Vogt posted this:

    Those following the side trials that have spun off or become entangled in the Amanda Knox trial might be interested to know that the now infamous and often-cited abuse of office investigation against Perugia prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, which once made such big headlines in the U.S. and UK media, has officially resulted in no charges, and the investigation has been closed.

    An initial conviction stemming from 2006 wiretaps and the Monster of Florence investigation was overturned and annulled in Florence on appeal [in 2011]. The court ordered that the case be transferred to Turin for any future investigation. Earlier this year he was acquitted of nearly all the accusations.  The Turin court on Tuesday chose to shelve the last remaining question regarding the wiretapping of a La Stampa journalist earlier this week, ruling it was time barred.

    The court’s ruling finally settles the long debated question of Mignini’s record: He has no abuse of office conviction, and there is no longer any active investigation into such allegations.

    The other protagonist, Mario Spezi, on the other hand, still has quite a few problems on his hands. His 2006 arrest eventually resulted in the high court (cassation) ruling No. 865/2013 deeming that the following crimes occurred: aggravated interfering with public investigation from Febuary 2004 to summer 2006, aggravated attempted judicial fraud between February and May 2004 and aggravated slander and defamation for naming Antonio Vinci as linked to the Monster of Florence homicides in 2006.

    For this last charge, Spezi could be held liable in civil court. But he will never be sentenced for any of these crimes, because after the cassation sent it back down for trial at the appeal level, the appeals court in Perugia shelved the case, ruling that the statute of limitations had passed for any further prosecution. And once again, true justice grinds to a halt, caught up in the gears of Italy’s slow and messy system.

    In the meantime, Spezi’s faulty thesis on the Monster of Florence case has landed him in court in several other jurisdictions, where ex-Florence homicide cop Michele Giuttari has been pressing forward with slander and defamation charges related to accusations made about him in his now discredited Monster of Florence yarn that Spezi and his American co-author, Douglas Preston made into a bestseller, pinning the blame on an innocent man in the process. [Bold added here]

    And so the plot thickens.  Giuliano Mignini was made into a convenient media villain when a high-profile American was being tried across the courtroom from him . . . on trumped up allegations that have since fallen unceremoniously to the wayside. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, who Mignini initially prosecuted, await the decision of their final appeal before the court of cassation in March 2015.

    Back to analysing more from the crackpot Jay.

    In short and to sum things up: Mignini has gotten his promotion which he valued above the liberty of the innocent; Mignini’s Narducci Trail investigations are over for good; the Monster of Florence convictions against Vanni and Lotti claiming their participation in a non-existent satanic sect are safely in the past; and the war between the Italian judiciary and Burlesconi is in a state of a truce.

    For all of these reasons, I believe the pendulum of Italian politics has again swung in the direction of acquittal, and the Italian judiciary is once again in a position to finally recognize, and exonerate, Amanda Knox and Raffaelle Sollecito.

    It may be a good idea for the crackpot Jay to not hold his breath on this. Cassation and the Florence appeal court have been the most hardline on this. And it was Judge Matteini with the police not Dr Mignini who drove the case forward in 2007 and 2008. As explained above, Dr Mignini had almost no guiding hand, and on 17 December 2007 gave Knox a real break. A shot to get herself off - which she herself tanked.

    Prior to that long conversation with Knox on 17 December at her request, where Dr Mignini played eminently fair and she had to be stopped as she was incriminating herself, they had barely spoken any words. Once briefly at the house on the day of the crime, once briefly when Knox was shown the knives, and once briefly when Dr Mignini presided over the reading of her rights on 6 Nov. That was it. From the post directly below, see also this:

    In a move serially misinterpreted by the dimwits of the Knox brigade, the prosecution, suspecting she was both mixed up and high on hard drugs, in effect offered Knox and her team a way to a lesser count, when they said that the murder could have been a taunting attack which spun out of control.

    As explained near the top here, from 7 November it was Judge Matteini and Judge Ricciarelli, not Dr Mignini, in the saddle, and they got all of their information directly from the police. Prior to the Guede and Knox/Sollecito trials Dr Mignini did not guide the process, impossible though that seems for the Mellas/Fischer crackpots to believe.

    These facts, and in conjunction with the ECHR soon to take up the conviction of Ms. Knox for Calumnia in the European Court of Human Rights, provides the Italian Court of Cassation, in March of 2015 when they hear the appeal from conviction of Knox and Sollecito, with the opportunity and incentive to quietly discharge the case, and reinstate the verdict of Judge Hellman, finding that Knox and Sollecito are innocent of any involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher, and innocent of the crime of ‘staging a crime scene’ because the crime does not exist.

    Reinstate Judge Hellmann?! He is being investigated for his suspect role in bending the 2011 appeal right now! Again, it may be a good idea for the crackpot Jay to not hold his breath on this.

    The appeal to the ECHR in Strasbourg is dead in the water because Knox herself made up all the claims of the supposed violations of her human rights. She has ZERO case. Read this series here.

    By the way, for his wild defamations and his contempt of court, Crackpot Jay opens himself to the exact-same charges Knox and Sollecito and Knox’s parents and Sforza all still face. 


    Friday, December 19, 2014

    The Dangers Of Not Extraditing Convicted Felons Labeled An Explosive Threat To Other People

    Posted by Peter Quennell



    Above: Sydney moslems leaving wreaths- for the non-moslems killed

    1. Lessons From Australia

    It looks like several Australian judges may have wrecked their careers for allowing Man Haron Monis to be at large even though police said he should be denied bail.

    Man Haron Monis was the former Iranian who took 17 hostages in downtown Sydney and caused the death of two others and himself. Coming to light is how many times previously the Australian justice system had treated him with kid gloves for major crimes.

    Reporting from NBC:

    Iran tried to extradite the gunman behind Sydney’s deadly hostage crisis years ago, Tehran’s top cop said, amid questions over how the self-styled cleric had found his way to Australia but not onto a watch list…

    Monis grew up in Iran as Mohammad Hassan Manteghi. In 1996, he established a travel agency, but took his clients’ money and fled, Iran’s police chief, Gen. Ismail Ahmadi Moghaddam, told the country’s official IRNA news agency Tuesday.

    Australia accepted him as a refugee around that time. The police chief said Iran tried to have Monis extradited from Australia in 2000, but that it didn’t happen because Iran and Australia don’t have an extradition agreement.

    Australia’s Prime Minister Tony Abbott said he wanted to know how Monis had been granted permanent residency and why he had been receiving welfare benefits for years, despite being able-bodied “if not necessarily of sound mind.”

    Monis had a gun licence, a rarity in Australia - and he walked free after being charged for writing letters of hate to families of dead Australian soldiers, and for having a hand in the killing of his wife.


    2. The Relevance Of This To Knox

    Regardless of extradition treaty situations, countries almost universally extradite convicted murderers. They dont want dangerous people to have another chance to cause deadly havoc in their own midst.

    Knox is already a felon for life. If Knox is confirmed guilty of murder next March she will be a DANGEROUS felon for life.

    The Italian-US extradition treaty gives a US judge no wiggle room other than to check if the paperwork is in order and then send her on her way.

    But another bent judge could again throw a spanner in the works.

    How dangerous is Knox?  Our psychologists generally think that, untreated,  she is not good news. Not a latent serial killer, or one who sits around and plots, but one who could again explosively hit back when she imagines or exaggerates slights.

    More than anyone in Perugia, Meredith tried to get along with Knox. But Knox showed no sign of a learning curve. The very heavy drug use went on, the sleeping with a drug dealer went on, the dirtiness and laziness around the house went on, and the noisy sex episodes with strangers through paper-thin walls went on.

    She really was the housemate from hell.

    For a month or two after Meredith died, Knox was highly erratic about her role in that death, and showed an extreme eagerness to talk with the prosecution which resulted in the long session with Dr Mignini on 17 Dec.

    In a move serially misinterpreted by the dimwits of the Knox brigade, the prosecution, suspecting she was both mixed up and high on hard drugs, in effect offered Knox and her team a way to a lesser count, when they said that the murder could have been a taunting attack which spun out of control.

    In her book, Knox describes how the family and lawyers worked hard on Knox to destroy all elements of trust. By the summer of 2008 she was in a mood of full-blown paranoid mistrust, and all chances of a lesser charge were gone.

    At trial in 2009 Knox was daffy and uncomprehending, making irrelevant interventions and really shooting herself in the foot when she took the stand. Raffaele Sollecito and Patrick Lumumba, almost the last two in Perugia to still give her the time of day, both said she was very odd.

    Knox was mentally tested in Capanne Prison and apparently scored high on the psychopathic chart. The four courts hardest on Knox all knew this - the Matteini court, the Ricciarelli court, Cassation, and the Nencini court - which was a major reason why Cassation did not allow bail in April 2008.

    Assuming she killed once, in what was an exceptionally barbaric attack, Knox may or may not kill again. She is certainly inciting or condoning a massive amount of dangerous hate toward Meredith’s family and toward the Italian officials of the court.

    One unhinged attack has already occured - that of the disturbed Michele Moore against Dr Mignini in the Perugia court - and the British resident David Anderson has screamed at meetings and runs an incessant campaign to stir up hate. Court officials have received messages of hate, and there is a small mountain of false and dangerous accusations against them on the web.

    Left untreated and unpunished, a convicted but not extradited Knox would be a killer walking loose on American streets and could continue to condone or incite violence for the rest of her life.

    If Knox killed and remains loose, could she kill again or cause others to kill? Any extradition judge needs to ask as the Australian judges did not:

    Do we REALLY want to find out?















    Tuesday, December 16, 2014

    The Knox Interrogation Hoax #17: Sollecito April 2008 Before Supreme Court Again Coldsholdered Knox

    Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



    Media outside the Cassation back entrance waiting for news of the ruling

    1. Where This Series Stands

    Dozens of people have very aggressively gone to bat for Knox over her “interrogation” and still do.

    They trust that one or other of her versions of the 5-6 November 2007 police-station session is right.

    We have been demonstrating the rock-solid evidence that Knox and her supporters have lied and lied and there will be more evidence of this to come.

    We’ve shown in this series that Knox insisted on being there; she was merely helping to build a list; she was treated kindly and taken for refreshments; she was the only one overheard by anyone to raise her voice, when she screamed about Lumumba “He did it!”; it was Sollecito not the police saying that she had been lying and had made him lie; and there is documentary evidence that the police investigators who sat with Knox told the truth.

    Coming soon, we are going to post hundreds of very nasty claims by Knox shills, all sparked by and never reigned in by Knox.

    2. The Pre-Trial Hurdles Knox Failed

    Do you know how many major opportunities before her 2009 trial started Knox was given to get the murder charges dropped? This is not something Knox supporters trumpet about, if they even know.

    In fact there were six, and Knox dismally failed them all.

    In 2007 there were (1) the Matteini hearing and (2) the Ricciarelli hearing in November and (3) the Mignini interview in December.  And in 2008 there were (4) the separate Knox appeal and Sollecito appeal to the Supreme Court in April, and (5) the first Micheli hearings in September, and (6) the second Micheli hearings in October, which dispatched Knox and Sollecito for trial.

    In all six instances Knox’s team also had the opportunity to get the charges against Knox for calunnia against Lumumba dropped.

    3. Sollecito’s appeal to the Supreme Court

    In Knox Interrogation Hoax #16 we described the fourth pre-trial hurdle Knox failed to make. That was her appeal to the Supreme Court against the Matteini and Ricciarelli rulings that much evidence pointed to her and for the safety of others she needed to be kept locked up.

    Knox hadnt really lifted a finger to deflect suspicion away from Sollecito and the same thing applied in reverse from 2007 right through to 2014 with the one bizarre exception of Sollecito’s book.

    Catnip kindly provided this translation below of Cassation’s ruling on Sollecito’s appeal in April 2008 that much evidence pointed to him too and for the safety of others he also needed to be kept locked up.

    If Sollecito had not fingered Knox at his own interrogation on 5-6 November 2007 which set her fireworks off, here was his second chance after his memo to Judge Matteini to set things straight and get her off the hook. 

    So did he? No. He again left Knox dangling in the wind. 

    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


    Friday, December 12, 2014

    Even More Reasons Why NOBODY In Italy Now Is Claiming Innocence Of RS And AK

    Posted by Peter Quennell




    1. The Knox-Sollecito State Of Play

    On average we get an email or two from readers in Italy every day.

    Maybe half are from Italians and half are from foreigners who are resident there. This is from an appreciative American who is married to an Italian and now lives in Milan.

    I go back to Perugia and my friends there as often as I can - everything there is very special to me. Perhaps this sounds a little strange but, to me, the city seems to have lost it’s innocence with Meredith’s murder. I still haven’t met anybody in Italy - from North to South (or from Switzerland either) who believes that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent.

    No-one in Italy any longer seems to believe that AK and RS or of course Guede were not involved. The courts have made their case.

    There has simply been too much documentation, too much commentary broadcast on TV, too many disturbing facts coming to light like Knox having sex for drugs with a drug kingpin right up to the night of her arrest.

    The incessant bickering of the two has become a bore. Trials against Sforza, Aviello, and Sollecito proceed and more charges against Amanda Knox and Curt and Edda Mellas remain.  Since this time last year neither of the two has won even one point.

    2. More Proof Undermines The Guede Hoax

    Can you figure out what the image at the top depicts?

    This is the north end of the massif from the east. Right at the center is the law office of Dr Paolo Brocchi, whose office was burgled and whose laptop turned up in the possession of Rudy Guede in Milan. Meredith’s house is visible at top-right and Patrick’s bar, the English girl’s house and the courts are all off to the left.

    At the bottom of the image below in the center is a narrow dark ally. Whoever broke in seems to have done so via that ally and a narrow balcony on the second floor of the law offices. 






    The killer-groupies refer to Rudy Guede as the FORGOTTEN killer though there is no logical reason why. He doesnt hog the limelight but he is convicted and he is doing his time.

    The killer-groupies claim Guede was a drug dealer (untrue), a petty thief (unproven), a knife wielder (untrue), who threatened a man (untrue), a police snitch (untrue) who killed Meredith alone during a burglary which went wrong (untrue). Quite a list of false claims. 

    There is in fact zero evidence proving Guede acted alone. Meredith’s missing money was equivalent to money Knox could not explain.  Read the 45 posts here for all the proof the killer-groupies ignore.

    Absolutely key to the verdict of the trial court were the TWO recreations of the attack on Meredith. Each pointed to three attackers. Both were presented in closed court. 

    Please follow the images below to see how a burglar broke into Dr Brocchi’s office two and a half weeks before Meredith was killed.

    The front door of the law office is at street level. Because the ground slopes down at the rear, the law office is one level above ground level. That is where the glass in the French doors was broken and the break-in may have occurred. 




    Above and below: images of law office at the street level from the front,






    Whether it was Guede or not (there are good reasons for thinking it was not) he or she broke in around the back, up that alley, in the dark, where there is a quite easy reach up to the floor of a narrow balcony outside the French doors.



    Above and below, law office from back, balcony is at hard left not visible here





    Above and below, law office from back, balcony is visible one floor up from ground level





    Above law office from back, balcony is visible one floor up from ground level



    What does that climb resemble? See the final image below. It fairly precisely resembles the climb in the dark onto Meredith’s balcony, also at the back, a route which two separate sets of burglars used in 2009.

    It does NOT resemble at all the climb into Filomena’s room, much higher, in bright light, which to this day not one person has been able to emulate, and which would actually resemble a climb to the office windows at the front in bright streetlight . 

    Those who claim that climbing into Filomena’s window was anyone’s known “modus operandi” are not telling the truth.




    Above, Meredith’s house from the east with balcony used by burglars at the back


    There were no fingerprints in the office and to this day nobody can say for certain what the burglary was really about.

    Only that certain legal papers had been accessed and it is held probable in Perugia that someone was trying to interfere with a legal case. Two other offices at the back were bypassed. 

    Neither Dr Brocchi nor Ms Maria Del Prato who encountered Guede in her nursery school in Milan pressed charges against him for assault or theft. Their testimonies at trial were low-key and puzzling but certainly did not leave Guede in a worse light. Neither had an axe to grind with him.

    So the Milan police and courts finally acted against Guede merely for being in possession of a couple of items of stolen property. Nothing more.

    If Guede had no already been convicted he would have served no prison time.

    But as we recently reported he gets an additional 16 months in prison and his work-release is denied.  Guede’s final appeal to Cassation has just been turned down.

    The killer-groupies should move along. Demonizing Guede with false claims and lying to justice departments (their new angle) will never ensure Knox remains free.

    Posted on 12/12/14 at 06:52 AM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in Those officially involvedRudy GuedeKnox book hoaxesSollecito book hoaxesItalian justice hoaxGuede good guy hoaxItalian system
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (38)

    Wednesday, December 10, 2014

    The Victim As Seen Through The Eyes Of A Past Abuser: Insights From Dr Sam Vaknin

    Posted by James Raper




    1. Overview Of This Post

    My past posts here have been from the perspective of a lawyer, commenting on aggregations of evidence and how justice systems perform.

    If there are to be any gains at all from this sad affair, both wider understanding of policework and law and also wider understanding of the relervant psychology should definitely be among those gains.

    I dont have formal qualifications or expertise in psychology but several years ago I drafted a post on the psychology of perpetrators and then shelved it as it seemed then that our knowledge of the sciences and the perps in this case were both still lacking.

    This is the post revisited, modified and upgraded to contribute to all the new knowledge we have been acquiring.

    I want to concentrate on the work of Dr Sam Vaknin and especially his respected book Malignant Self Love (see Amazon reader rating below) which has helped many to understand why some people inflict pain.

    2. Essentials Of Dr Vaknin

    It transpires that in fact he also has no academic qualification (or anything approaching it) in psychology.  Indeed he is a colourful, controversial character and, it seems, an inveterate self publicist. Rather like, say, Hampikian? Aha.

    There is a Wiki page on Vaknin. He has twice been diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder and has also been found to be borderline schizoid.  He has accepted the diagnosis.

    Who better, however, to write on the subject of narcissism than someone who has both extensively done the research and himself been the subject of an accepted diagnosis? His output has been enormous.

    In any event his book gave me what I have considered to be helpful (if not authorative) conceptual and investigatory tools or windows on the subject and I have found these to be invaluable.

    So this post concerns narcissism in its many forms and consists of direct quotes from “Malignant Self Love“ with my own observations and some tentative conclusions. However (and given that I am just an amateur), I have to leave it to the reader to draw his/her own conclusions.




    3. Insights For Our Case

    Primary Narcissism

    “Primary Narcissism, in psychology, is a defence mechanism, common in the formative years”

    Pathological Narcissism

    “Secondary or Pathological Narcissism is a pattern of thinking and behaving in adolescence and adulthood, which involves infatuation and obsession with one’s self to the exclusion of others. It manifests in the chronic pursuit of personal gratification and attention (narcissistic supply), in social dominance and personal ambition, bragging, insensitivity to others, lack of empathy and/or excessive dependence on others to meet his/her responsibilities in daily living and thinking.”

    We do not know as much as we should know about Amanda’s childhood and adolescence. Unfortunately much of what we are told comes from partial observers which provides a picture of relative normality. This contrasts sharply with the picture as it unfolds once Amanda leaves Seattle. Immediately we see an Amanda in chronic pursuit of personal gratification and attention (sex and drugs etc), freed from what may have been excessive dependence on her parents. Not uncommon with adolescents but the word “chronic” does seem an apt part of the picture.

    Amanda does not like not being the centre of attention. Witnesses report that when conversation leaves her in the background she starts singing loudly in protest.

    The constant strumming of the same chord on her guitar to annoy others (again when she is being ignored) is another comically classic case of narcissistic supply.

    She also knew (insensitively) how to make Meredith feel awkward, even humiliated “Me and Giacomo get on really well …. But I’ll let you have him”.

    When things start to go wrong with her narcissistic self image she retreats into a dependency on Raffaele, - quite excessive in it’s intensity, - and the relationship is belatedly paraded at the cottage in what may have been an attempt to re-establish, if not social dominance, at least social equality.

    The phone calls to mother when the postal police arrive at the cottage can be interpreted (amongst other things) as a need to re-establish a dependency, or mutual dependency, to see her through the uncertain events ahead.

    Pathological Narcissism is at the core of Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

    “Research shows that most narcissists are born into dysfunctional families. Such families are characterised by massive denials, both internal (“you do not have a real problem, you are only pretending”) and external (“you must never tell the secrets of the family to anyone”). These families may encourage excellence, but only as a means to a narcissistic end. The parents are usually themselves needy, emotionally immature, and narcissistic and thus unable to recognise or respect the child’s emerging boundaries and emotional needs”.

    “Pathological narcissism wears many forms;

    • classic or malignant narcissism

    • appropriative (e.g histrionic)

    • schizoid, and

    • aggressive destructive”

    The foregoing forms are arbitrary categories, helpful to investigative analysis. As with all psychology the labels that are used describe mental conditions inferred from behaviour and language.

    The foregoing forms of pathological narcissism represent solutions, adopted by the subject, to the ongoing gap between fantasy/the false self, and reality/the true self. They are not, as categories, mutually exclusive but can overlap as circumstances dictate.



    Above: an online poster for one of Dr Vaknin’s recent presentations

    (1) The Classic Narcissistic Solution

    “This dissonance - the gap between grandiose fantasy and frustrating reality - gives rise to the unconscious “decision” to go on living in the world of fantasy, grandiosity and entitlement.”

    “Thus the true self is replaced by the false self.”

    “The Schizotypal Personality Disorder largely belongs here because of it’s emphasis on fantastical and magical thinking. The Borderline Personality Disorder is a case of a failed narcissistic solution. In BPD the patient is aware that the solution is failing. This becomes a source of separation anxiety (fear of abandonment). This generates identity disturbance, suicidal ideation and action, chronic feelings of emptiness, rage attacks and transient paranoid ideation”.

    The Schizotypal PD is a mixture of Schizoid and Narcissistic Solutions. Amanda, for me, is not schizoid but I think her use of drugs, and an ego in free fall, tipped her behaviour into the schizotypal, if that is not a contradiction in terms.

    Of more interest is Borderline Personality Disorder as I believe her behaviour in the lead up to Meredith’s murder is indicative of a case of failing narcissistic solution.

    I think that Amanda’s perceptions were that she had little in common with Filomena and Lauretta, that she was probably regarded as little more than “trash” by the boys downstairs, and that she was “dumped” by Meredith on Halloween night. She perceived that Meredith was clearly now preferring her english friends to her, and furthermore was very likely going to supplant her at Le Chic. There was no one to reinforce her (deteriorating) self image/false self other than Raffaelle and the manipulated Rudy.

    Bringing Raffaelle to the cottage on the morning of the 1st November was probably in part an attempt to establish some social dominance (or at least equality)  vis a vis Meredith but perhaps also in part an attempt at a sort of peace offering, both of which seem to have backfired. Meredith spent much if not all of the morning in bed and then was off again to see her friends. It is perfectly possible that whilst Meredith was no doubt polite she pretty much ignored the two of them. Again Amanda may have felt demeaned.

    I do not know what Raffaele actually told her about his mother’s death. There is some suspicion that it may have been suicide and he may have told her that. In any event she talks of “her suicide” and the thought of that may have affected Amanda though there seems to be nothing to suggest that Amanda herself has ever thought of suicide.

    I am also interested in Amanda’s “fascination” with Harry Potter. The boy who as a child survives a murderous attack on his parents by an evil wizard and is “marked” (like Cain) but who discovers his own magical powers with which to confront the evil wizard. The fascination even extends to picking a boyfriend who looked like the actor who plays the hero in the films and she even claims to have been reading a Harry Potter book on the evening of Meredith’s murder. These are elements of fantasy, grandiosity and entitlement to reinforce the False Self.

    “Narcissistic rage is not specifically a reaction to stress - it is a reaction to a personal slight, insult, criticism or disagreement. It is intense and disproportional to “the offence””.

    (2)  The Appropriation Solution

    “This is the appropriation of someone else’s self in order to fill the vacuum left by the absence of a functioning Ego.”

    ““Appropriators” misjudge the intimacy of their relationships and the degree of commitment involved, they are easily suggestible and their whole personality seems to shift and fluctuate with input from the outside.”

    Here I am thinking again of the brief intensity of her relationship with Raffaele.

    I am also thinking of Amanda’s ability to change her persona like a chameleon (from the little girl lost routine, to earnest and sympathetic co-operation, to help me if you please charm). This is a skill derived from somewhere.

    Meredith’s murder is the ultimate appropriation of another’s self.

    (3) The Aggressive Destructive Solution

    “These people suffer from hypochondriasis, depression, suicidal ideation, dysphoria, compulsions and obsessions and other expression of internalised or transformed aggression directed at a self which is perceived to be inadequate, guilty or disappointing. Many narcissistic elements are present in exaggerated form. Undulating self esteem is transferred into impulsiveness and failure to plan ahead.”

    A sexual humiliation of Meredith may have been pre-conceived as an act of revenge when she was at a low and feeling inadequate and this may have temporarily raised her self esteem as a consequence but quite obviously without any planning ahead as to the consequences.

    Impulsive behaviour is common to the above categories and the misuse of alcohol and drugs is common.

    Psychopathologies ( in adolescence and adulthood)

    “Psychopathologies are adaptive mechanisms”.

    “The (narcissistic) mechanism is three-phased:-

    (1) The person encounters an obstacle

    (2) The person regresses to the infantile narcissistic phase

    (3) Thus recuperated, the person confronts the obstacle again.”

    Vaknin terms this mechanism The Psychopathological Default; a perfectly natural mechanism and being the only option an individual - even a perfectly rational, balanced,  and mature individual - has when confronted with some personal trauma or major life crisis with which he can not cope. The Pathological Narcissist will have the Default pre-set at a lower threshold to address any attack on the False Self.

    “While in step (2), the person develops childish, immature behaviours. He feels that he is omnipotent and misjudges his powers and the might of the opposition. He underestimates challenges facing him and pretends to be “Mr Know All”. His sensitivity to the needs and emotions of others and his ability to empathise with them deteriorates sharply. He is pre-occupied with fantastic, magical thinking and daydreaming”

    Perhaps here we can consider Amanda’s behaviour at the police station. The forthcoming questioning and the actual questioning being seen as obstacles to be encountered. There are the cartwheels and splits, the behaviour with Raffaelle and the appallingly insensitive remarks about Meredith and her death in front of M’s friends. The overconfidence under questioning suddenly breaks down and all too rapidly becomes the dreamlike incident at the cottage with Lumumba attacking Meredith.

    “Whenever we experience a major life crisis (which hinders our personal growth and threatens it) - we suffer from a mild and transient form of Narcissistic Personality Disorder“…..(but)….“the contrast between the fantastic world (temporarily) occupied by the individual and the real world in which he keeps being frustrated, is too acute to countenance for long without a resulting deformity”.




    4. Some Tentative Conclusions

    The defining attribute of the psychopath is that he has no moral conscience and he is highly skilled at fooling people and carrying off the appearance of being perfectly normal.

    Amanda, by contrast it seems, only fools those who are easily fooled and furthermore, particularly because of what she says and does, merely draws attention and suspicion to herself.

    In nearly all her statements, verbal or written, Amanda has had two different narratives before her. One narrative is the true version (the obstacle) and the other is the false version (the way through or around).

    She has struggled to cope with the narratives when she is subjected to examination. The result has been the lying and the spider’s web of confusion and deceit, and the childlike, sympathy-seeking, performances to which we have become accustomed.

    This is the narcissistic psychological default. Since being suspected of and charged with Meredith’s murder Amanda has been stuck in the default position because this time the obstacle - the evidence -  has always been in her way and, until the court case has final closure, will continue to be in the public domain and in her way. In this context the default position became critical and primal with the accusation of Patrick Lumumba and has continued playing out, but with some modification since her release from prison, ever since.

    Since her release from prison her life has been organised for her in a manner that ensures that she receives the constant ameliorating narcissistic supply that is required to sustain her ego, in this case the False Self, and this has partially empowered and enabled her. It has come in the form of the publication of her “Memoir”, and interviews on TV. In the public domain she is a celebrity, even if that book and the TV appearances were not the success for which she and her managers would have wished.

    She has also had narcissistic supply from (as might be expected) her family and close friends, but also from those outsiders in the PR campaign devoted to “demonstrating” her innocence. Vaknin talks of “inverted narcissists” - those whose egos obtain sustenance from providing the “supply” the narcissist feeds on. Or, as we put it in this case as regards the outsiders, white knights charging to the rescue of a damsel in distress.

    Both the narcissist and the inverted narcissist have an unhealthy symbiotic relationship with each other.

    I think that psychologically it will, without help, be impossible for Amanda to tell us about her involvement in Meredith’s murder. Incarceration would be preferable to a public demolition of her False Self.

    I do believe that she is at least a pathological narcissist and as such has Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Her condition at the time of Meredith’s murder was probably exacerbated by alcohol, drugs and an ego which was in free fall. At the same time her False Self probably tipped sharply towards the Aggressive Destructive Solution.

    “Narcissistic rage is not specifically a reaction to stress - it is a reaction to a personal slight, insult, criticism or disagreement. It is intense and disproportional to “the offence””.

    On the night of Meredith’s death, as a result of some event, or something said, or as the culmination of a series of events, (in which she had colluded - or which, far more likely,  she had instigated), and probably as a result of all three happening,  Amanda may well have flown in to an uncontrollable rage at the cottage. That would fit with a Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

    Posted on 12/10/14 at 02:58 AM by James Raper. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in Crime hypothesesThe psychologyPondering motive
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (11)

    Saturday, December 06, 2014

    Boiling Frustration Leads Many To Kill: The Possible Parallels Of The Lord Lucan Case

    Posted by Odysseus




    1. Introduction

    End of one’s tether: thoughts on humiliation, crises and the wounded ego.

    Out-of-control anger and violence may be an offloading of the violence experienced in traumatic births and violent and abusive pregnancies. Whatever we may think of this, people’s anger has deep roots and a current conflict is usually a trigger for a reservoir of buried emotion to surface.

    It’s a perpetual battle for the ego to stay in control in the face of unconscious emotions that threaten its precarious existence. When the emotions are threateningly close to the surface it can seem that one’s very identity is at stake, and social humiliation close at hand.








    Above: Lord Lucan when he was young (and first diagnosed) and getting married

    2. Case Of Lord Lucan

    John Bingham, the 7th Earl of Lucan, is generally believed to have bludgeoned the family nanny to death in Belgravia, London, 1974, probably mistaking her for his wife in the dark.

    Those with deeply suppressed emotions are more-or-less unwittingly engaged in a life-long battle to keep the feelings from arising into consciousness. Thus for example they can be driven to activities that require intense mental concentration e.g.,  in Lucan’s case,  bobsleigh and powerboat racing, and high stakes gambling on games that require skill (as distinct from those of pure chance) which helps keep emotions suppressed, or to drug taking which can perform a similar function.

    Lucan’s life in the period leading up to the murder was beginning to unravel and he undoubtedly feared humiliation - a sure sign that the false self is under siege. His financial problems were coming to a head (his gambling losses were said to exceed $10 million) and when a friend suggested filing for bankruptcy he demurred, saying he didn’t want the humiliation.

    His wife had also just been awarded custody of the three children following their break up - also humiliating since it was now clear and made public that the court took the view his occupation (professional gambler) made him unsuitable to raise children.

    In fact his desire to have custody of the children seems less motivated by his love and concern for them than by the need to keep up the display of the sober, responsible adult when all the evidence and his lifestyle was pointing in the opposite direction -  towards social humiliation.








    Lord Lucan with wife and three children and lower floors of his townhouse now


    This kind of crisis is more than can be borne by the ego mind. Psychotherapy usually resolves such issues but unfortunately it’s the case that only those who have exhausted ways of denial seek such a route.

    Gambler “Lucky Lucan” still thought he had a good hand to play. Murdering his wife would at a stroke (or blow) enable him to sell the family home thus resolving his financial problems and also enabling him to gain custody of the children, restoring his status as a responsible parent.

    The parameters of a false self in Lucan’s case were already evident when he was diagnosed as having an attachment disorder on his return to England after wartime evacuation to the U.S in 1939, at four years of age,  though its origins may well lie in a primal, birth or pre-natal experience. From his surviving wife’s website:

    “Upon his return from the USA in 1945, the future 7th Earl suffered from emotional problems which caused his parents to seek professional help from a leading psychiatrist of the day — a Dr. Winnicott.

    As a result of the consultations the eleven year old boy was given a dog called Deirdre [can we infer from this that his mother chose/named the dog?] in the hope that it might help him overcome these problems. The 7th Earl of Lucan’s emotional problems were never fully resolved and he continued to suffer frequent headaches, nightmares and insomnia throughout our life together…”

    After the bludgeoning Lord Lucan disappeared, leaving a borrowed Ford Corsair with bloodstains and what appeared a duplicate weapon (a length of pipe with the same kind of tape around one end to hold it firm) at a port on England’s south coast, and has never for sure been seen again.








    The murdered nanny Sandra Rivett and a car similar to that found on the south coast


    Ripple effects in this case have gone on and on. Havoc was wrought on so many lives.

    The wife and three small children struggled terribly with poverty and the psychological impact. They have all fallen apart and apparently don’t talk, all with theories of their own.

    The nanny Sandra Rivett (image above) appears to have been the mother to two babies she gave away who grew up to be quite startled to find who they were.

    Books and artilces continue to be written and a TV movie was made. And a reporter who pursued the notion that Lord Lucan’s rich and powerful gambling friends helped in his escape was hounded in court. 

    3. Case Of Amanda Knox

    It seems likely that humiliation was a major factor in the events leading up to the murder of Meredith. TJMK has carried various posts summarising why so many suspect this.

    It would have been undoubtedly humiliating for Knox to find that her housemate Meredith was more popular with, and attractive to, both men and women in their social circle, as well as being more mature, intelligent and just more present than her (i.e. less driven to desperately act out unconscious emotions).

    Then to cap it all off, on Halloween Knox found herself left out of the group that partied till the early hours. Plus of course there was the looming humiliation of Meredith taking over her job at the Le Chic. Was her money also running out? If so the loss of a job, however small, would be threatening, and she might well have anticipated the humiliation of asking her parents for a loan or of returning home before the end of her course.

    So it seems that the stage was set for the night of the “prank” when the plan (if that’s the right word. Jokey impulse, more likely) was for Meredith to find out just what it’s like to feel humiliated. And the prank got out of control, as pranks often can when drugs and/or alcohol are involved.

    Again the origin of Knox’s suppressed emotion and false self construction might lie in her parent’s explosive separation or earlier in primal events. In either case she was probably destined to become a suitable (but unfortunately not an actual) case for treatment.

    Knox’s narcissism has of course been much discussed. At bottom narcissism is an inability to just be, in the present. An inability to stay with one’s core self (Jung’s “The Self”). The narcissist’s attention is constantly directed to how they look to the world, from the outside, not on how the world appears to them from the inside looking out. They are really not fully born, literally and metaphorically.




    Above Italian master Caravaggio’s version of Narcissus staring at his image in a pond


    Knox was apparently given to loudly strumming a single chord on a guitar when she was in a group and insufficient attention was directed her way i.e. when suppressed negative emotions surrounding being wanted and needed were threatening to come into awareness.

    With the group of friends gathered at the police station in Perugia it seems on the one hand she wanted to impress the others with her inside knowledge of the victim’s wounds but on the other hand she had to keep a lid on it in case it became obvious she knew too much.

    This dilemma (a perennial one probably for those criminals who are unconsciously driven to seek attention) no doubt led to the weird acrobatics and gymnastics (the police had to tell her it wasn’t appropriate) as a way of acting out and relieving the tension.

    Her relatives of course are quick to dismiss all this as “Amanda being Amanda” (i.e. “quirky”), to which the proper reply could be “so she always acts like this whenever she’s in a dilemma and trying to cover something up,  does she?”


    Below Knox thrilled with herself at her 2009 trial in the notorious “all you need is love” teeshirt

    Posted on 12/06/14 at 06:08 AM by Odysseus. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in Crime hypothesesThe psychologyPondering motiveOther legal processesOthers elsewhere
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (16)

    Saturday, November 29, 2014

    The PMF/TJMK Master Evidence List: First Of Our Projects To Make The Final Picture Whole

    Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



    High-achiever Meredith Kercher was born less than one mile south of this famous London landmark


    There are really three pictures, not just the one, still to be fully made whole.

    • That of Meredith. We believe a family site will soon add to the fine book published by Meredith’s dad.

    • That of all of the evidence the court acquired in 2009, which is the sole picture the Italian citizenry takes seriously.

    • That of the misleading campaign by the Knox and Sollecito PR shills, leaving some in the UK and US misled.

    The Master Evidence List is a key part of the second picture and there are several other media-friendly pages still to come.

    The new page is here and it can also be permanently accessed via the new button in our column to the left.

    Many posters on the two PMF websites and on TJMK helped to create the master list, which is divided into 25 areas with links in the column to the right.

    To aid in emailing and tweeting the new page, it not only has its own address, also each of the 25 evidence areas also has its own separate address.

    Much appreciation to those who built this list.


    Monday, November 24, 2014

    Italian Media Spotlighting The Perversion Of Killer Groupies Of Alleged Murderer Of 38 Patients

    Posted by Peter Quennell


    1. Alleged Nurse-Killer Attracting Deviant Males

    Convicted killers and alleged killers facing trial often attract deviant support with sexual undertones.

    Why the case of Nurse Daniela Poggiali, arrested a month ago in north Italy, is capturing so much attention is not only the seeming extent of her crimes - some 38 patients in her care died mysteriously - or her bizarre selfies exulting over one dead patent.

    It is also the astonishing volume and and rabid lust of the fanmail now arriving at the place where she is awaiting trial, and the increasing numbers of Italian killer groupies emerging online and jostling to head her parade, Italian Knox groupies such as Luca Cheli maybe among them.

    Here is a UK report and a translated Italian-media report will follow.

    Italian nurse who took photos of herself with patients she had murdered is flooded with fan mail in prison – including marriage proposals

    An Italian nurse who took photos of herself with dead patients she had murdered is being flooded with fan letters from male admirers, including some containing marriage proposals.

    Daniela Poggiali, 42, from the town of Lugo, in the Emilia-Romagna Region of central Italy, was arrested after police investigating the mysterious death of a 78-year-old patient stumbled upon 38 other unexplained deaths on her shifts.

    Rosa Calderoni, 78, was admitted with a routine illness but died after being injected with high levels of potassium - the compound used in lethal injection executions in the U.S.

    Nurse Daniela Poggiali from Lugo, in central Italy, has been sent fan mail and wedding proposals while she awaits trial in relation to 38 unexplained deaths on her shifts

    Further investigations revealed that over a three month period, 38 out of 86 patients under Poggiali’s care at the Umberto I hospital in Lugo had all died mysteriously.

    Now awaiting trial at a prison in Forli, a city in central Italy, Poggiali is being inundated with fan mail from admirers calling her ‘good looking’.  A prison spokesman said: ‘Over the last few weeks since she was placed here there has been a steady stream of letters from males.

    ‘Most of them say how pretty and good looking they think she is, and one or two have even contained proposals of marriage.’ Prison officials said Poggiali has received a steady stream of letters from men calling her ‘good looking’

    According to investigators the nurse had found the dead patients ‘annoying’ or that they had ‘pushy relatives’. During their investigations they discovered pictures of Poggiali grinning alongside the dead bodies.

    The lead magistrate investigating the case, Alessandro Mancini said: ‘We believe she is sound of mind, but simply took satisfaction, and real pleasure in killing.

    ‘The photos reveal an unbearable cruelty that I have not seen in 30 years on the job.’

    A spokesman from the hospital where she worked said: ‘She always came across as being a very cold person. ‘But she also used her charms to flirt with male doctors if she thought she could get favours from them.’

    Poggiali has denied killing any patients and says she is being framed by jealous colleagues.


    2. Killer-Groupies Get More Media & Research Attention

    The growing fear in justice circles is that killer groupies are helping to elevate murder rates.

    They are certainly elevating anger levels, and making potential killers feel competitive and jealous of the media coverage of others. They are damaging professional careers and sparking death threats, making law-abiding people more distrustful, making police-work and convictions more difficult, and distracting hard-pressed politicians and populations from looming world-wide problems.

    All of which comes at a high cost and puts all of us in a great deal more danger. So the spotlight upon killer groupies is intensifying. Here is one media report.

    A look inside the bizarre world of serial killer groupies

    If you type the phrase “serial killer addresses” into an Internet search engine, you’ll get some disturbing results.

    A number of websites list the prison addresses of convicted killers, and police investigators told FOX 12 there are plenty of people — serial killer groupies — writing to convicted serial killers.

    Portland police homicide detective Jim Lawrence said he once investigated a Portland man who corresponded with two convicted serial murderers.

    Lawrence showed FOX 12 some of the correspondence, including a letter he said the Portland man wrote to serial killer Douglas Daniel Clark.

    Clark and a partner were known as “Sunset Strip Killers.”

    The pair were convicted for a series of killings in Los Angeles. The letter to Clark included an illustration of a hand with the phrase,  ”Who knows what these hands will do, what they’ll do 20 years from now.” 

    “He really seemed to put a kind of hero worship behind this serial killer, and it was a kind of morbid fascination,” Lawrence said.

    Lawrence also showed FOX 12 violent artwork the man received from serial killer Ottis Toole, convicted of killing six people in Florida in the 1980s. Police believe Toole also killed 6-year-old Adam Walsh in 1981. The sketch depicts a decapitated head.

    Criminal psychologist Dr. Frank Colistro said serial killers often radiate a perverse charisma that groupies find attractive.

    “A lot of them get caught up in the drama that’s associated with these people forever,” Colistro explained.

    And the list is long for love behind bars, for killers who’ve been married in prison.

    I-5 killer Randy Woodfield, who was convicted for murder and attempted murder and suspected in dozens of other crimes in the early 1980s, has been hitched twice at the Oregon State Penitentiary.

    Charles Manson, Ted Bundy and Scott Peterson all have had loyal female followers.

    “The Night Stalker” Richard Ramirez, convicted of 13 brutal murders in California in the 1980s, had groupies who called themselves, ‘the women in black,’ who attended his trial.

    “You do get a lot of inadequate, insecure women,” Colistro said. “In a sense, they’re the perfect boyfriend, the perfect husband. In a sense, you can do a relationship light, so to speak.”

    Then there are groupies who want to befriend the notorious. Lawrence said some write to convicted killers for profit, to potentially sell the letters online. He said others have a bizarre admiration for the killers.

    Lawrence said he interviewed the Portland man who wrote the detailed, expletive-filled letters after out-of-state police discovered the man’s relationship with killer Ottis Toole.

    “So they contacted us and I had a little chat with him,” he said.

    He said it turned out the man was trying to get letters and artwork from Toole to sell online.

    Colistro, however, said there are some people hoping to become copycats.

    “They’ll study the M-O of the offender and they’ll start to duplicate it,” he said.

    Posted on 11/24/14 at 02:21 PM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in Crime hypothesesThe psychologyThe wider contextsItalian contextKnox-Mellas teamSollecito team
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (9)

    Tuesday, November 18, 2014

    The Knox Interrogation Hoax #16: The Fourth Opportunity Knox Flunked: The Supreme Court

    Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



    Media outside the Cassation back entrance waiting for news of the ruling

    1. Where This Series Stands

    Dozens of people have very aggressively gone to bat for Knox over her “interrogation” and still do.

    They trust that one or other of her versions of the 5-6 November 2007 police-station session is right.

    We have been demonstrating the rock-solid evidence that Knox and her supporters have lied and lied and there will be more evidence of this to come.

    We’ve shown in this series that Knox insisted on being there; she was merely helping to build a list; she was treated kindly and taken for refreshments; she was the only one overheard by anyone to raise her voice, when she screamed about Lumumba “He did it!”; it was Sollecito not the police saying that she had been lying and had made him lie; and there is documentary evidence that the police investigators who sat with Knox told the truth.

    Coming soon, we are going to post hundreds of false claims made by Knox shills, all sparked by and never reigned in by Knox.

    2. The Pre-Trial Hurdles Knox Failed

    Do you know how many major opportunities before her 2009 trial started Knox was given to get the murder charges dropped? This is not something Knox supporters trumpet about, if they even know.

    In fact there were six, and Knox dismally failed them all.

    In 2007 there were (1) the Matteini hearing and (2) the Ricciarelli hearing in November and (3) the Mignini interview in December.  And in 2008 there were (4) the separate Knox appeal and Sollecito appeal to the Supreme Court in April, and (5) the first Micheli hearings in September, and (6) the second Micheli hearings in October, which dispatched Knox and Sollecito for trial.

    In all six instances Knox’s team also had the opportunity to get the charges against Knox for calunnia against Lumumba dropped.

    As you will have seen in previous posts, Knox’s team pussyfooted about without conviction in the few brief instances when the 5-6 November session was discussed. In the Mignini hearing of 17 December 2007 they eventually advised her it would be in her best interests to shut up.

    This post covers the third hurdle, specifically why in April 2008 the First Criminal Section of the Supreme Court ruled that for reasons of evidence and psychology Knox and Sollecito should remain locked up and the judicial process against them should go forward.

    Please consider this meticulous (and for the pair, damning) statement, which denied their release, in light of a couple of explanations which follow in Part 4 below.

    3. Catnip Translation: Gemelli Report On Knox

    The Judgment

    REPUBLIC OF ITALY
    IN THE NAME OF THE ITALIAN PEOPLE
    THE SUPREME COURT OF CASSATION
    FIRST CRIMINAL DIVISION

    Comprised of the Most Honorable Justices
    Dr Torquato GEMELLI – President
    Dr Emilio Giovanni GIRONI – Member
    Dr Maria Cristina SIOTTO – Member
    Dr Umberto Zampetti – Member
    Dr Margherita CASSANO – Member

    has pronounced the following

    JUDGMENT

    on the appeal lodged by AMK born on X

    against the Order of 30/11/2007 Liberty Tribunal of Perugia

    having heard the relation [legal analysis] made by the Counsellor [Judge] Margherita Cassano

    having heard the conclusions of the Prosecutor-General Dr S Consolo who has prayed the rejection of the appeal

    HAVING FOUND IN FACT

    1. With the order of 30 November 2007 the Perugia Court, as constituted under Article 309 Criminal Procedure Code, rejected the submission to review lodged by AMK and, as a consequence, confirmed the precautionary prison custody measures disposed in her matter on the 9th November 2007 by the GIP of the same Court in relation to the offences of aggravated wilful homicide in company and in sexual assault by a group, committed on the day of 1 November 2007 against MSCK.

    2. According to the reconstruction put forward by the judges of merit, on the 2nd November 2007, around 12:35, the State Police, to whom had been signalled the discovery in the garden of a house of two mobile phones, both resulting to be in the service of the American [sic] citizen MSCK, intervened at an apartment in Via della Pergola in use by Ms K and AMK and two Italian women. At the place were found AMK and her boyfriend RS, the which declared they were expecting the arrival of the Carabinieri, called by them after having discovered that the window of one of the rooms of the habitation presented with broken glass.

    The crime scene inspection immediately carried out inside the apartment led to the discovery in the bedroom occupied by Ms K, locked under key, of the body of the woman, which, at the level of the head, was immersed in a lake of blood, was dressed only in two tops pulled above the breast and was covered with a blanket. Beneath this latter was found the print of a shoe in haematic material, collected, besides in the room of the offence, also in a small bathroom adjacent to the same. In a second bathroom, used by the two Italian lessees of the apartment, were found faeces and other natural biological residues. The autopsy immediately carried out permitted the establishment of the cause of death, collocatable around 22 hours of the day of 1st November 2007, to have been due to a haemorrhagic shock from vascular lesions to the neck from an edged blade and that the instrument used to restrain her was constituted of a pointed instrument capable of penetration and with a sharpened profile capable of cutting tissue.

    The victim’s body did not present unequivocal signs of sexual assault even though there were found things of some medico-legal interest, in the sense of the observed anal dilation of two-three centimetres, the discovery of minute ecchimoses on the posterior part of the anal ring (otherwise compatible with situations of constipation) and, above all, mauvish marks on the inner face of the labia minore, suggestive of a sexual rapport carried out with haste and occurring a little before the death.

    3. The Court had found that grave indicia of guilt as against the suspect were constituted by the following elements:

    (a) the autopsy results and the medico-legal report;

    (b) the discovery of a knife with dimensions of 14cm for the handle and of about 17 for the blade, seized from inside a drawer of cutlery located in the kitchen of the home of S, carrying, on the handle, traces of DNA referable to Ms K and, on the blade, traces of DNA ascribable to the victim;

    (c) statements made by persons informed of the facts, FR and LM, housemates of the victim, who without contradiction excluded that the seized knife were part of the their apartment’s endowment and made mention that Ms K, on the day of the fact, was wearing a top, which has not yet been found;

    (d) outcome of the technical tests carried out on a pair of shoes, N brand, size 42.5, property of S, evidencing a perfect correspondence between the aforesaid footwear and the print found at the location of the homicide, as well as on the door of the Via della P apartment which did not present signs of forced entry;

    (e) results of technical tests carried out on the palm print found on the pillow on which the victim had been placed and resulting as belonging to RHG, a citizen of the Ivory Coast, nicknamed ‘the Baron’, known to AMK;

    (f) presence of RHG’s DNA on the vaginal swab taken from the cadaver during the autopsy and on the fragment of toilet paper taken from inside the larger bathroom of the apartment, where faeces had been found, resulting as being from G;

    (g) outcome of biological tests carried out on the blood found in the apartment’s small bathroom, in use by the victim and Ms K, which permitted the establishment that to the victim were attributable the bloodstains present on the mat, to Ms K those found on the washbasin, and to both of the women the blood traces found on the bidet;

    (h) statements made by the American [sic] citizen RCB, the which, having returned home to her country a few days after the fact, referred to the Authorities that Ms K, while waiting to be interviewed by the Police on the morning of the 2nd November 2007, had told her of having seen M’s body on a wardrobe (or reflected on a wardrobe) with a blanket on top of her and of having seen her friend’s foot after a police officer had opened the door, circumstances conflicting with the modality of intervention at the apartment;

    (i) statements made by the friends of MSCK, the which without contradiction said that the woman had spent the afternoon of the 1st November 2007 in their company and had left their house in the company of SP, who, reaching her own domicile in Via del L around 20:55, had parted from the victim, whose apartment in Via della P was less than 10 minutes’ distance from Via del L;

    (l) statements made by FR and PG, contacted by A after ascertaining that the front door of their house was open, that there were blood stains and that the window of MSCK’s room presented with broken glass

    (m) statements made by S on the 2nd, 5th and 6th November regarding his movements both alone and with AMK between the day of 1 November 2007 and the following 2 November, in regards to what was found inside the Via della P apartment, to the call for help to law enforcement, not to mention the reference to the search for strong emotion contained in various of his writings posted on his blog;

    (n) statements made on 6 November 2007 at 1:45 by Ms K which indicated L, entranced by M, as the author of the murder after a sexual relation with the victim;

    (o) spontaneous statements made by Ms K on 6 November 2007 at 5:45 from which it emerged that L and M had gone to her room, that, at a certain point, M had started to scream, such that A, so as not to hear, had put her hands on her ears, that maybe S was also present in the house;

    (p) contents of the account written by Ms K which repeated having heard M scream, to having removed herself into the kitchen and of having blocked her ears with her hands so as not to hear her friend’s scream and of having seen blood on S’s hand during the dinner that had taken place around 23:00 hours on the day of 1 November 2007 in S’s apartment;

    (q) contents of a recorded conversation in prison on 17 November 2007 relating to a discussion between Ms K and her parents in the course of which the woman, amongst other things, said “It’s stupid, because I can’t say anything different, I was there and I can’t lie about this, there is no reason to do it”;

    (r) tests carried out on the computer and on the mobile phone used by S, from which it emerged that, contrary to the defensive stance of the suspect, his computer had not been used during the night and had been activated only at 5:32 on 2 November 2007 and that, likewise, his mobile phone also had been off during the night and had been first used at dawn on 2 November 2007.

    The Re-examination judges concluded recognizing, for continuing the precautionary custody measure, the continuance of all the typologies of precautionary requirements mentioned under Article 274 Criminal Procedure Code.

    4. Against the cited order there has been submitted an appeal to Cassation, through her lawyers, by AMK, the which, also by means of a defence memorandum, alleges:

    (a) violation of Article 309 paragraph five Criminal Procedure Code with reference to the omitted transmission to the Re-examination Court of the statements made by the suspect RHG arrested in Germany in the execution of a European Arrest Warrant, constituting, contrary to what was adopted by the Re-examination Court, an element favourable to the suspect, relevant for the indication of the author of the offence, identified as an individual of the male gender and, contrary to what as held by the Court, fully usable, given the basis of their acquisition into evidence under Articles 22 and 28 of the law on international judicial representation in criminal matters of 23 December 1982;

    (b) Violation of Article 250 paragraph seven, and 357 paragraph two, Criminal Procedure Code, being placed at the foundation of the custody order and of the subsequent provisioning by the Re-examination Court, which indicative elements, the statements made by Ms K on 6 November at 1:45, without defence safeguards, the “spontaneous statements” made at the time of 5:45 hours, are not classifiable as such, given the procedural status invested on her in the meantime, all acts fully non-usable inasmuch acquired in patent violation of Article 63 Criminal Procedure Code;

    (c) Violation of law, deficiency and manifest lack of logic in the reasoning with reference to the picture of circumstantial gravity, having regard: (a) to the personality of the suspect, a young foreigner with unblemished record, with a perception of reality altered by cannabis use, a substance which also may have been influencing her excessive and dreamlike behaviours; (b) to the seriously lacunose character of the translation of passages of the suspect’s hand-written account, analysed in a partial manner; (c) to the not unambiguous reading of the contents of the recorded conversation of 17 November 2007 between the suspect and her parents in prison; (d) to the non-probative nature of the DNA traces found on the seized knife, of the suspect’s blood stains on the mat and basin in the small bathroom of the apartment occupied by, amongst others, the victim and Ms K;

    (d) Lack and manifest illogicality in the reasoning with reference to the considered circumstantial value, as against the suspect, of the results of tests carried out on the vaginal swab and on the knife in custody, with an un-reasoned devaluation of the considerations put forward by the defence;

    (e) lack and manifest illogicality of the reasoning, distortion of the fact with reference to the considered presence of the suspect on the location of the fact and to her contribution purportedly made to the consummation of the offence;

    (f) violation of law, deficiency and illogicality of reasoning as to the configurability of the precautionary requirements, given: (1) the absence of a specific danger in evidentiary acquisition even in the light of investigative developments which have evidenced Ms K’s extraneity to the commission of the offence and have allowed the acquisition of statements by fellow-suspect G; (2) the lack of an objective risk of flight in the light of international cooperation between Italy and the USA which would permit, once the suspect’s responsibility has been definitively ascertained, full judicial cooperation; (3) the lack of danger of repetition of the offences.

    Observes as of law.
    The Appeal Is Unfounded.

    1. With reference to the deduced violation of Article 308 paragraph five for omitted transmission to the Re-examination Court of elements appearing favourable to the person placed under investigation (in the type of statements made by G to the German Judicial Authority in the ambit of European Arrest Warrant procedure), this Bench observes as follows.

    For “elements in favour of the person placed under investigation” must be understood to mean those objective results, of probative value, suitable for being of positive influence in the evaluative complex of the custody picture (Cass., Sez. IV, 22 giugno 2005, rv. 231749) and in the concrete usable for exculpating the suspect (Cass., Sez. I, 26 settembre 2000, Corrente, rv. 217611) and not information that resolves itself into mere reformulations of the prosecutorial hypothesis or in the advancing of alternative hypotheses (Cass., Sez. Un. 26 settembre 2000, Mennuni).

    In line with this interpretative stage there are to be excluded from the enumerated elements appearing favourable and as a consequence obligated to be transmitted to the Re-examination Court, under Article 309 paragraph five Criminal Procedure Code, statements made, as in the case under examination, in the ambit of an extradition procedure against the fellow-suspect who limits himself to giving his own defensive version and to affirm his own extraneity to the facts, without however releasing the other accused subjects from the same crime. It is, therefore, under this profile that the defence petition does not merit granting, it is rejected, rather, by the Re-examination Court on the basis of the erroneous assumption that RHG’s statements were unusable through omission with respect to due process, in reality assured by the German Judicial Authority, which – in conformity with the principles contained in the decision-framework of the Council of Ministers of the Union of 13 June 2002, relating to European arrest warrants and the handover procedure between member States (2002/584/GAI) – have, amongst other things, pre-emptively made the suspect informed: (1) of the European arrest warrant and its contents, even to the ends of allowing him to consent, if necessary, to the handover; (2) of the right to legal and interpretive assistance during the procedure.

    2. With reference to the second appeal ground by the defence, the Court observes that circumstantial statements are characterized by a different usability regime under a subjective aspect. In the case in which these originate from a person against whom there already is sustained circumstantial evidence as regards the same crime, that is to a crime connected with or tied to the one attributed to a third party, the same cannot be used not only against themselves, but neither in relation to co-accused in the same crime (or of those accused of connected or related crimes).

    The regime of absolute unusability under Article 63 paragraph two Criminal Procedure Code is, instead, to be excluded in the case in which the declarant, whether called to respond, in the same or another matter, for a crime or for crimes attributed to others, which have no procedural ties with the one for which they are being proceeded against, with respect to which the person assumes the character of witness.

    In fact, in the first case, due to the close connection and interdependence between the fact itself and the other one, there arises the necessity to also safeguard the declarant’s right to silence; in the second case, the declarant’s extraneity and indifference with respect to the facts in cause renders them immune to possible sanctions carried out by the investigative bodies (Cass., Sez. Un. 13 febbraio 1997, Carpanelli).

    On a par with these principles, the statements made by AMK at 1:45 on 6 November 2007, – at the end of which the interview was suspended and the woman was placed at the disposition of the relevant judicial Authority, revealing circumstantial evidence against herself –, are usable only contra alios, while the “spontaneous statements” from 5:45 are not usable, neither against the suspect nor against other subjects accused of participation in the same crime, inasmuch as they were made without due process safeguards by a person who had formally assumed the status of suspect.

    On the contrary, the account written in English by Ms K and translated into Italian is fully usable, under Article 237 Criminal Procedure Code, since it is a document originating from the suspect, who had been its spontaneous material author for a defence purpose. The disposition under examination allows attribution of probative relevance to the document not only as regards it and its representative contents, but also in the strength of its particular ties, which tie it to the suspect (or accused), thereby illuminating the review of admissibility which the judge had held to be in operation.

    3. The fourth, fifth and sixth grounds of the petition also lack merit. The circumstantial evidence picture specifically concerning AMK is based, in the first place, on the autopsy results, evidencing multiple contusions and ecchimotic areas on various parts of the body (nose, lip, oral cavity, cheek, mandibular and sub-mandibular region, upper and lower limbs, inner face of labia minore, abdomen, dextral latero-cervical region), an ample dilation, in the order of two to three centimetres, of the anal ring with the presence of small ecchimoses, a large wound, disposed obliquely, in the caudal-lateral sense, fully diastased, with sections of underlying tissue right to the cartiliginous layer in the left latero-cervical region, the complete sectioning of the upper right thyroidal artery, the fracture of the hyoid bone in proximity of the left median. The medico-legal tests, carried out after the necroscopic examination of the body of the victim, permitted the confirmation that the cause of death, around 22:00 hours on 1 November 2007, is ascribable to meta-haemorrhagic shock from the vascular lesion on the neck from an edged blade, occasioned by a pointed implement, capable of penetration, and with a sharpened edge able to cut tissues. The anal dilation, the observation of minute ecchimoses on the posterior part of the anal ring and, above all, the mauvish marks on the inner face of the labia minore, are suggestive of a sexual rapport carried out hastily, before the victim had had time to produce adequate lubrication, occurring in a time period proximate to that of the observation, but in any case before death, by reason of the ecchimotic lesions and their colour.

    The impugned provision highlights that the complex of these medico-legal conclusions assumes a particular evidential value, in the event that place in correlation with other elements: (a) the statements made by the friends of MSCK, who without contradiction stated that the woman had spent the evening of [1] November 2007 in their company, had started to dine with them from 18:00 hours onwards and had left the house in company with SP, who, reaching her home in Via del L around 20:55, had parted from the victim, whose apartment in Via della P was less than ten minutes’ walk from Via del L; (b) the outcome of the search effected at the house of RS, romantically linked to AMK, which permitted the discovery and seizure in the apartment’s kitchen, from the cutlery drawer, of a knife, having an approx. 14cm long blade and 17cm handle. The knife, not forming part of the inventory of the house occupied by AMK, MSCK and two Italian women (cf on the matter, the statements made, as persons informed of the facts, by FR and LM), presented traces of DNA on the handle attributable to AMK and on the blade traces of DNA ascribable to the victim.

    Weighing against the suspect, in the opinion of the judges, there are, in addition, even in their mutability, statements by RS, who, after firstly having claimed to have remained home all evening and night with his girlfriend, stated, afterwards (cf. Interviews of 5 and 6 November 2007) that, at a certain time, Ms K had left and had come back to his house at only around one in the morning.

    The judges of merit have underlined the strict correlation found between the interviews given by S on 5 and 6 November 2007, and the following further elements: (a) statements made by citizen RCB, who, returning to her country of origin, referred to the relevant Authorities the confidence received on 2 November 2007 from AMK regarding the position of the victim’s body and its condition, circumstances that, contrary to the stance of the suspect, she could not have been able to perceive on the occasion of the intervention by the police at the apartment, an intervention that unfolded in a way irreconcilable with the version furnished by Ms K to the friend; (b) statements made by persons informed of the facts FR and LM, who said that Ms K, the day of the fact, was wearing a top, which has not been found since.

    The impugned provision, with logically reasoned argumentation, observes that the content of these declarative acts appears even more significant when evaluated also in the light of the written account produced by the suspect, containing relevant references to M’s scream on the night of the fact, to her reactions, consisting of huddling in the kitchen with her hands over her ears, to the presence of a man, to traces of blood noted by her on RS’s hand during the dinner that took placed at 23:00 on 1 November 2007.

    Under the same lens appearing imbued with unequivocal circumstantial value is the contents of the recording, effected on 17 November 2007 inside the prison where Ms K found herself restricted to and between the woman and her parents, in the course of which there was pronounced by the accused the following words: “It’s stupid, because I cannot say anything else, I was there and I cannot lie about this, there is no reason to do so”;

    These elements must, in their turn, be inserted into a larger circumstantial evidence context, cross-correlated by the identification of a print left in haematic matter present on the scene of the crime from a sports shoe, held to be compatible, by its dimensions and configuration of the sole, with the type of footwear brand “N” used by the suspect and by the failure of the alibi put forward by the young man, being demolished by the technical investigations that were carried out, by which, as he asserted, he had interacted with his computer in the hours in which, according the medico-legal reconstruction, the criminal fact would have occurred, just as also remained demolished that the young man had received a phone call from his father at 23:00, it resulting, instead, said call had occurred at 20:40.

    From the same perspective, light has been shone, with precise and logical reasoning, on the circumstance that in the course of the evening of 1 November 2007, almost at the same time, telephonic traffic for AMK and RS ceased, after the latter had received a call on his mobile phone from his father at 20:40, of which reference has been made earlier and, in addition, that S, contrary to what was by him stated, did not spend the night of 1 and 2 November 2007 sleeping, it having been ascertained that the computer and mobile phone at his disposal were reactivated at dawn on 2 November 2007.

    The judgment reasons, further, on the concourse aspect of the consummation of the homicide and sexual assault, on the basis: (1) of the outcome of the technical tests carried out on the palm print found on the pillow on which the victim had been placed, and it results as belonging to RHG, known to AMK; (b) of the presence of RHG’s DNA on the vaginal swab taken from the cadaver during the autopsy and on the fragment of toilet paper collected from inside the larger bathroom in the apartment, where there had been found faeces, resulting to have been G’s; (c) of the outcome of biological tests carried out on the blood found in the smaller bathroom of the apartment in use by the victim and by Ms K, which permitted the finding that the blood stains on the mat were referable to the victim, those found on the basin to Ms K, and to both the women the blood traces found in the bidet.

    The Court, with thorough and logical reasoning, has illustrated, with full reference to the factual circumstances – inasmuch such are unreviewable in this seat of legitimacy – the reasons for the attribution of pregnant circumstantial value to the elements above recalled, proving the presence on the scene of the consummation of the homicide and sexual assault of AMK, RS, RHG (these last two both known to Ms K), has explained, with articulate and logically correct reasoning, the reasons for which they cannot find agreement with the defence deductions in terms of erroneous interpretation and reading of the recorded conversation of 17 November 2007, of the account written by Ms K on 6 November 2007, of the results of biological and medico-legal tests, of the unreliability of the technical investigations carried out on the computer and mobile phone belonging to S, and has at length examined, including in the light of aspects formulated by the defence, the entire case file, explaining the reasons of its unequivocal value.

    So, the argumentative development of the judgment reasoning is founded on a coherent critical analysis of the circumstantial evidence and on its cohesion in an organic interpretative framework, in the light of which the attribution to said elements of the requisite of gravity appears supplied with adequate logical and judicial plausibility, in the sense that they have been considered drivers, with a high level of probability, with respect to the theme of investigations concerning the responsibility, amongst others, of AMK, as to the crimes put against her.

    From which, given the evaluation carried out the Re-examination Court on the level of inference of the circumstantial evidence and, therefore, on the more or less demonstrative character of the same in terms of probabilistic qualification of guilt even if not of certainty, it has to be highlighted that the impugned order exceeds the threshold of legitimacy demanded by this Court, whose bench cannot hold itself back from a checking of the respect of rules of logic and of conformity with legal canons which govern the appreciation of grave indicia of guilt, as prescribed by Article 273 Criminal Procedure Code for the ordering of provisions restricting personal liberty, without being able to draw on the intrinsic consistency of the evaluations reserved to the judges of merit.

    4. Unfounded, finally, are the censures formulated by AMK’s defence, on the matter of custody requirements, the Re-examination Court having correctly evaluated them, with reference to the parameters to which letters (a), (b), (c) of Article 274 Criminal Procedure Code apply the extreme gravity of the crimes carried out, having had regard to their nature and their method of consummation, the negative personality of the suspect, which emerges from the outcomes of the investigations and from the served case conduct, the specific and binding requirements relevant to the investigations in relation to the clear and present danger for [evidence] acquisition and probative genuineness, considering the necessity for completing the testing and of proceeding with the gathering of other means of declarative proof, the outcome of the handover to Italian authorities, of RHG, as well as allowing corroborations to be made, also permeates the current contrast between the different versions so far furnished of what happened, the clear danger of flight, taking into account the foreign citizenship aspect of the suspect and of the penalty of more than two years’ imprisonment, impacting on the outcome of the recognition of her criminal responsibility.

    5. Refusal of the appeal leads in law to the appellant ordered to pay procedural costs.

    The Registry will provide for its carrying out as prescribed by Article 94 paragraph 1-ter, and actuating provisions Criminal Procedure Code.

    FOR THESE REASONS

    Rejects the appeal and orders the appellant to pay procedural costs. Disposes transmission via the Registry a copy of the provision to the Director of the penitentiary institution per Article 94 paragraph 1-ter, and actuating provisions Criminal Procedure Code.

    So decided in Rome, in Chambers, 1 April 2008.

    DEPOSITED IN THE REGISTRY 21 APRIL 2008


    4. Catnip Translation: Gemelli Report On Sollecito

    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

    5. Highlighting Of Relevant Hoax Points

    Shown in bold in the statement on Knox are:

    (1) the defense appeal against the use of Knox’s 5-6 November statements framing Lumumba (reason given was ONLY no lawyer being present - a need which Knox herself had shrugged off when she herself insisted on writing out the 1:45 am and 5:45 am and noon statements) and there is zero mention of abuse;

    (2) Cassation’s reasoning why the first 2 Knox statements (the 1:45 and 5:45) can indeed be used, in the “sub-trial” addressing the calunnia against Patrick, and the third (scribbled around noon) can be used in the main trial.

    In neither statement is there any ruling of “illegal” regarding any actions by any interrogators. The Knox shills often falsely claim there was.


    Saturday, November 15, 2014

    The Status Of The Various Computers In The Case #2 New Developments

    Posted by Sallyoo





    Please first see my previous post and my several updates in the Comments thread.

    There has been a new flurry of interest in Raffaele’s computers following the publication, on iip, of a report prepared by Prof. Alfredo Milani. It is available in both in Italian and English, (translation prepared by iip.)

    The report isn’t dated, but it was prepared after the Massei report had been published, and it was taken into evidence at the Hellmann appeal. Milani credits another defence computer expert, D’Ambrosio, with a lot of the content.

    There have been (to my knowledge) three ‘defence computer expert reports’ prepared. The first, signed by Angelucci in March 2008, is concerned primarily with the damaged hard disks of the Asus of Sollecito, and the computers of Meredith Kercher and Amanda Knox. This report was commissioned by Dalla Vedova and has not (as far as I can determine) ever been taken into evidence, or even mentioned in court.

    The salient point in this document is that the data was recovered from the disks of Sollecito’s Asus and Meredith Kercher’s computer.

    Then we have D’Ambrosio testifying at Massei (available), accompanied by a report written by D’Ambrosio and Gigli taken into evidence (not available).

    At Hellmann we have the Milani report. Raffaele mentions Alfredo Milani in his book as one of his professors.

    There isn’t a lot of (strictly computer) information in it which goes beyond D’Ambrosio’s testimony, although the tone is very different. While D’Ambrosio was relatively generous to the police computer analysts, appreciating the procedural retrictions which they worked under, Milani gets close to being offensively insulting to those tehnicians. (Compare with the Conti/Vecchiotti tactics…)

    Milani attempts to make us believe that two ‘grave methodological errors’ committed by the postal police have concealed data which would provide an alibi.

    Firstly he spends much time outlining the MacOS, 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 of the operating system renders their analysis unreliable. This is impossible to acept 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 this archive is not overwritten. The archive isn’t very simple for an ordinary user to search, but such a search is certainly within the capabilities of an ‘expert computer consultant’. If Milani had discovered anything - such as a use of the Samba utility via the Asus which would have been recorded - he would have told us about it.

    He also includes some gratuitous comments - which are rather fun - so we can move onto those now!

    Milani has trawled up a keyboard interaction (on Sollecito’s Mac), at 22.04 on November 5, when he assures us that Sollecito was in the questura. Well, every other piece of evidence has Sollecito not arriving at the questura that evening until at least 22.30 - but Raffaele has always claimed to have been eating with a friend when he received the phone call at 21.30 asking him to attend the questura. Was Sollecito at Riccardo’s? Did he nip home (why) before going to the questura? We shall never know, but Milani has given us reason to speculate.

    He also offers us the playlist of the music tracks both listened to and skipped between 05.40 and 06.20 (approx) on the morning of Nov 2 - which for some reason he erroneously asserts that the postal police failed to identify as an interaction. You can form your own opinion on the musical taste of the listeners, Nirvana and Bon Jovi feature.

    Additionally we learn that one of the films ‘recently viewed’ was Suicide Club, a Japanese cult movie, which can charitably be described as Extreme Fantasy. We also discover that in the CD drive was music from Blind Guardian - a German heavy metal band who used fiction/fantasy themes in their lyrics. (I am left with the impression that Sollecito and Knox were determined not to live in the real world during this period).

    A further couple of snippets, the first from an intercepted conversation in prison between Raffaele, his father and his stepmother, Marisa Papigni:

    FS:....have nothing to do with [rude in italian] ... and they understood ... now this morning or Monday there will be also the checking of your computer ... they have already cloned the hard disk .. ”

    RS: “… my concern of the computer is basically that if I came ...”

    Marisa Papagni: “Hey ... there is a monster on your computer ... there is a monster ... ”

    RS: “Forget it ... the fact about the computer is if I have spent much time with Amanda ... there is not all this time I have spent with the computer ...”

    FS: “If Amanda was home ... if she was out, wtf were you doing? ... were you at the computer?” .....

    And from Honor Bound:

    Papà told him about the data from my computer….but still Maori was skeptical. “Why don’t you let me see it?” he asked.

    My father didn’t have the data with him, but he said his brother, Giuseppe, could fax it over.



    Below: Professor Milani; Perugia University School of Mathematics & Computers


    Friday, November 14, 2014

    In A New Italy Case Involving A Foreign Student The UK Media Is Not Reporting The Full Facts

    Posted by Peter Quennell



    Above: Serena Bowes seen taking a selfie

    Overview Of The Case

    Rape is a devastating crime and if someone DID rape Serena Bowes in Florence he must be put away.

    Apart from this the UK media seems to be reporting her claims cautiously and unemotionally. But if they had checked with the Italian police, or even checked out Italian media reports, they would have found that Serena Bowes is leaving out key facts.

    The Claims By Serena Bowes

    The Daily Telegraph reported what Serena Bowes claims.

    The incident unfolded when Miss Bowes, who is in the second year of her fashion course, joined other students on a trip to Florence.

    She explained how she and a group of friends had been in a local nightclub when she began chatting to a man.

    She alleged that they had been heading to the VIP area when she was guided towards the unisex bathroom where the attack happened.

    Miss Bowes alerted staff from Newcastle College who accompanied her to the police station and to the local hospital.

    After returning to the UK she attempted to put the incident behind her as no one was charged in relation with the alleged offence.

    When she received a letter in Italian from the Florence Police she assumed it was an update on the case, but when she got it translated, was stunned to discover that she herself was facing charges.

    She said: “I thought it was done with and I could get on with my life. I didn’t think he was going to get prosecuted so I just wanted to get on with my life but this has brought everything back.

    “It doesn’t feel what actually happened is the problem anymore – it feels like that has actually been forgotten about.”

    The Daily Mail report additionally added this.

    ‘I will never go back to Florence because of what happened, never mind going to prison there.  ‘If I receive a prison sentence somewhere between four and 12 years my life will be over.’


    Real Facts In Italian Media

    The Italian media seems much further down the road and more fully informed.

    They have reported the details of the case the police have put before the supervising magistrate, and they have done some poking around of their own.

    The police are said to have investigated the allegations very diligently, but so far it is only his story that is holding up and not at all hers. CCTV cameras throughout the club (even apparently in the restroom) show no sign of her fighting off an attack.

    He is seen inside and exiting a restroom, but she does not appear to be in that room or at that same door with him. Many staff and customers in the club were interviewed, but none of them seem to have backed up her report.

    Medical examinations apparently showed no physical evidence on either of them of an attack.  And DNA swabs apparently showed none of his DNA on her or her DNA on him.

    Serene Bowes’s reasons for not going to a mere hearing to explain the question marks above do seem pretty lame. She has placed a big cloud over the guy who she fingered who has been in suspect status ever since.

    But now she shrugs off further help to the Italian police to nail him or clear him as being inconvenient or risky merely to her?

    “I just wanted to get on with my life.” Where have we heard that before?

    Update By Popper On The Rules

    Popper in a comment now explains this, which even more suggests that Serene Bowes would be advised to head back to Florence, that the letter she received (still not released) said nothing about 4-12 years, and that foreign press are too gullible or worse.

    On the case of Serena, we certainly need more details.  Simulation [of a crime] and calumny [accusing someone you know innocent of having committed a crime] are serious matters.

    If she is investigated magistrates have elements that obligated them to inform her of their suspects, it is an act for her protection. If video material exists I fear it must be explicitly against her version, but we do not know enough to be able to give an informed opinion.

    Version presented by some UK papers is uninformed and biased, as we have seen often in MK’s case.  Worst of all, it is exaggerated. An investigation is not a conviction, and if I were Serena [and a victim] I would certainly go there with a lawyer and explain the facts to exculpate myself and get the guilty convicted.

    In any case, the risk she ends up in jail is quite low.  It is fairly likely that, even if convicted for the above crimes [after a trial and 2 appeals], her sentence will be suspended, if statute of limitations does not kick in first.  It follows that her justification for not going back to explain herself to a judge is ridiculous.

    If she is lying and is guilty of simulation and calumny, it will be one of many cases, certainly not a surprise or uncommon.  Unfortunately many crimes are simulated every day, which makes more difficult and expensive the prosecution of real crimes.

    Posted on 11/14/14 at 09:21 PM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in Other legal processesOthers elsewhereReporting, media, moviesV bad reportingItalian system
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (14)

    Tuesday, November 11, 2014

    The Case For More Observation And Firmer Action As Psychopaths Among Us Do Enormous Harm

    Posted by SeekingUnderstanding



    Above: The murdered teacher Ann Maguire and convicted killer Will Cornick


    Here is an example of the much tougher action to protect society which judges worldwide are inclining toward.

    In Leeds in the UK a 16-year old boy has been sentenced to 20 years.  He has also been publicly named, unusual for one so young,  and an image released, to hopefully protect the public from him for the rest of his life. The judge warned him that he may never be released.

    The more you read about Will Cornick the worse it gets.

    He slashed a popular teacher in front of a whole class. She escaped wounded and terrified but he followed her to another room with glass panes and tried to push in. Another teacher kept him out but Ann Maguire was too far gone.

    Grim clues are still coming to light. From one of the latest reports. 

    Cornick attacked Mrs Maguire after boasting to friends that he was going to kill her. He also said he was going to murder other teachers, including a pregnant woman ‘so as to kill her unborn child’.

    He later told doctors: ‘I said I was going to do other stuff but I never got the chance, other murders. It was a triple homicide.’

    After the murder the teenager told psychiatrists that he ‘couldn’t give a s***’ and added: ‘Everything I’ve done is fine and dandy.’...

    Far from having an unhappy upbringing, Cornick comes from a middleclass background and his parents have been described as loving and supportive…

    Cornick’s former girlfriend believes Mrs Maguire, who has been called the ‘mother of the school’, was killed because she was being tough on the intelligent teenager in a bid to unlock his potential…

    Friends had started to think of him as a ‘loner and weirdo’ and ‘disturbing’ aspects of his personality became apparent.

    He spoke openly about murdering his teacher, messaging a friend on Facebook about brutally killing her and spending the rest of his life in jail. But no one - including his former girlfriend - believed he was capable of carrying out such psychotic threats.

    After the murder it was revealed that he had numerous images of knives on his mobile phone. The teenager used a picture of the Grim Reaper for his Facebook profile.  He also had a keen interest in ultra-violent video games, including Dark Souls II, in which players hack zombies to pieces.

    Players devour the souls of their fallen enemies to the sound of cries of agony. Disturbing images include a character made up of hundreds of human corpses. It was voted one of the ten Most Violent Video Games of 2014.

    One pupil recalled Cornick saying disgusting things at a party. He said: ‘He was saying twisted stuff like “imagine jumping on a pregnant woman and seeing the baby come out”, and saying horrible stuff about cancer and stuff like that…

    The teenager later confessed to a psychiatrist that the killing had been on his mind for three years, and one expert said he had engaged in a ‘considerable amount of fantasy’ about killing Mrs Maguire.

    And so the debate on psychopathy and what to do about it ratches up anothert notch.

    The word ‘psychopath’, like ‘narcissist’,has become known in common usage. This is both good and bad,- good if we understand more, yet bad if we assume wrongly or more superficially.

    One assumption too frequently made is an association with only adulthood. Surely a child can’t be psychopathic? Unfortunately the answer is Yes.

    Another assumption : surely if a child were to be nurtured correctly - with all the optimal nutrition and healthy lifestyle, and love possible, with encouragement and guidance from the parents - any tendency towards psychopathic traits could and would be overcome?

    We want to believe this is so. It hurts us, on a fundamental human level, to be informed that,

    ‘No, this is not the case’.

    A child from what is considered a ‘good background’ CAN nevertheless have a psychopathic personality. (This is also what the judge said in the Cormick trial).

    With the advance of new technology - in particular MRI studies of the brain- we are beginning to explore and discover the structural differences in people’s brains (at every age). We are also recording the differences in our responses to varying events, stimulation, and emotion.

    Our brains do not react in the same ways, not at all. Even introverts and extraverts are physiologically different, with regard to the amount of stimulation they can take, and also what might be called ‘method’ pathways.

    In the more normal mind, it is a customary impulse to respond to pain, humiliation etc by lashing out oneself. The ‘taking it out on others’ scenario.

    But, from when we are very young,this impulse is moderated by an awareness of what the pain we would be causing would feel like. In other words, we feel like pinching our sister very hard, say because she has stolen something small, but we remember how that severe pinch would feel, and bruise etc, and so we restrain.

    As we continue to grow, this restraint to the impulse becomes a strong and immediate inhibition. Hence we become socialised and civilised. We feel each others’ pain, literally. It is a function of imagination, memory and neurology.

    There is growing evidence from advancing research that in the truly psychopathic mind, this inhibition does not happen, because the first stage - of feeling for others - is absent. Perhaps some of the pathways are missing or diminished; the amygdala is different, perhaps, or other brain structures.

    Such people therefore are able to impose violence and pain upon others with impunity. Hence we observe and say they are ‘cold’.

    One important difference between this type and the more normal type of mind, is that they are like this irrespective of whether they have been loved or not. Of course disadvantageous and dysfunctional upbringings make the situations a whole lot worse.

    Experiments have been done, and are still being explored, to define the extent of these differences, with some accuracy. It will take some time, as of course the neurology in the brain is highly complex, and subtle, and a single event will involve several or many pathways and several ‘hubs’ -as one might describe them.

    So far, Baron-Cohen has identified about twelve ‘centres’ that will be involved in high or low empathy circuits in the brain. There may be more. Also, he and other distinguished researchers (many of whom have spent their life’s work on the subject) are examining what the genetic components are that underlie psychopathic traits.

    Unfortunately, all this worthwhile work meets some resistance, and therefore delay (and difficulty in funding of course). Sadly such resistance comes from both left and right, ( leaving the researchers treading a fine line down the centre).

    On the left, those who advocate improving social conditions, alleviating poverty, greater nurturing etc., fear that a discovery of the violent, cruel, anarchic nature ‘being genetic’ would undermine their raison d’être, and the case for more funding for the deprived and under-privileged.

    On the right, there is a substantial fear, valid to a degree, that finding the root cause of psychopathic behaviour in brain structure and genes would give the worst and most unanswerable opt-out clause when psychopaths are on trial, to the effect of,

    “Sorry, M’Lord, I couldn’t help it ; it’s in me genes”. (Etc).

    A nightmare, indeed, for the prosecution.

    This objection is something psychologists are already familiar with, where attempts are made by the defense to proffer psychological truths or diagnoses as mitigating factors, or ‘get-out’ clauses.

    It cannot be stated clearly enough : to understand something is not to excuse it. To establish something in fact does not dilute the need to bear responsibility for the behaviour that ensues from it.

    We can, and must, find ways to exert restraint and control over anti-social, destructive and undesirable behaviour. Preferably before it becomes criminal behaviour. It becomes more and more imperative, as we realize that ‘the enemy’ - the terrorist - the destroyer- moves among us, as ‘the kid next door’.


    Click here for more

    Posted on 11/11/14 at 08:19 PM by SeekingUnderstanding. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in Crime hypothesesThe psychologyKnox persona hoax
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (35)

    Wednesday, November 05, 2014

    Denial Of Parole For Rudy Guede Could Be Yet More Bad News For Knox And Sollecito

    Posted by Peter Quennell



    Above and below: Mammagialla prison at Virterbo north of Rome where Guede is


    Rudy Guede has been in prison at Viterbo for seven years less only several weeks now.

    Despite his claims via closed-circuit TV that he has had an exemplary record and has nearly finished a college degree, the Italian parole oversight board in Rome has just declined his work release application.

    Rudy Guede has been treated fairly, and does seem to have behaved himself, and there is zero evidence he was on a crime wave or dealt drugs or acted as a snitch for the Perugia police.

    Despite that, he has never been given any breaks in the past seven years except as described here by the current system. 

    That post in fact reflects the view of a number of pro-victim Italian judges and prosecutors who personally incline toward the UK and US practice of plea bargaining under which the accused puts realistic evidence on the table and rolls over on accomplices and shows real remorse, in return for which lesser charges are arrived at.

    The grounds for refusing work-release parole were not published, but if this is a way of pressuring Guede into further pressuring Knox and Sollecito? Go for it.






    Posted on 11/05/14 at 08:51 PM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxRaff SollecitoRudy GuedeKnox-Mellas teamSollecito teamNina BurleighMichael HeaveySteve MooreBruce FischerGuede good guy hoax
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (13)

    Saturday, November 01, 2014

    Marking Seven Years Since Meredith Was Taken From Her Family And Friends

    Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



    They all mark this date every year, we know.

    Final justice for Meredith now seems very close at hand, and with measures in Italian university cities to clamp down on student drug-use and measures in American colleges to monitor students in foreign exchange schemes a lot more closely, many others will be made a little safer resulting from this sad affair.

    Poster Hopeful offers the poem below and for those who only came to know about Meredith lately this group of posts may move you a lot.

    Funny, kind, charismatic, ambitious to make her mark for mankind, and unstinting in hard work. We will need so many more like Meredith in probable tough times going forward. Watching over them is something we all need to do.

    Sound of Seasons

    Meredith, all these pleasures
    You will miss as surely
    As the next spring
    Arrives in unfailing sequence,
    The limitless seasons
    Over and over like tireless waves
    Rekissing the shore.

    All these you miss, destroyed by death,
    Your eyes unseeing
    What even the smallest bird on earth
    Enjoys.

    Oh dearest, hearts are breaking for you,
    That all your dreaming is gone,
    That you seem lifeless as the stone,
    Your laughing body and ambient wit
    Disappeared into thin air,
    Your mellow eyes with big chivalric stare
    Shut to this earth,

    But where where
    Can we find anything to replace you
    In this tired earth?
    What joy or power or jewel
    Would compensate
    For your deft lineage stricken from the rolls
    Of life?

    There is an answer, a drum roll. Hear it
    Announcing sound.
    Sound is the purest mark of your legacy,
    Sounds sounds all sorts of sounds
    Unseen yet constantly around us.
    If you listen closely to your own breathing
    you will hear it push a little sigh
    Over your hovering ears.
    Whish, the wind blows wherever it pleases. Life is in the breath.

    Meredith you are dancing again
    In the music that we hear.
    You are sound’s daughter
    Splashing again in the waves
    Of the Sea of Truth.

    Dawn rises to stir the wind with the sun.
    Your voice rustles the air
    With your varied presence.
    It is so sweet.
    Your speech is breathing
    The breath of nations,
    Like air air
    Entering the body
    As life entered the Garden.

    Posted on 11/01/14 at 08:28 PM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in Concerning MeredithHer memory
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (14)

    Prime Minister Renzi’s Justice Reforms: One System-Change Need Strongly Suggested By Meredith’s Case

    Posted by Peter Quennell





    Prime Minister Renzi might be able to push some justice reforms through the Rome parliament.

    After all, it was not his pals that were being plagued with investigations and charges, it was ex-PM Berlusconi’s, and business is leaning on him.

    Those reforms being talked about (of a system which most Italians rightly feel proud of) seem to mostly involve economic efficiency. But it would be popular if a more-pro-victim tilt is also promoted.

    The only slight pro-victim tilt at present is the presence of a lawyer representing the victim at trial. Dr Maresca in fact is representing Meredith not her family, but this small tilt toward fairness drives the Knox crazies like Bruce Fischer even crazier. It also promotes the (illegal under the laws of all countries) stalking and harassment of Meredith’s family.

    A more-pro-victim tilt polls well in Italy. A clear majority of the population would like to see it. This post was about one of the fearless campaigners, a popular TV presenter who has written to us with thanks for siding with her.

    Surely introducing a hurdle to all those automatic appeals (unique to Italy) that so clog the court agendas and eat up judges’ time would be a good idea.

    Surely a really good idea, one which all of those tied up by the case in Italy and also many elsewhere would side with, is: No fast-track trial and automatically reduced sentence like Guede’s without a REAL confession and repentance.

    Our poster Popper explained (again) in comments here on 21 October what the law on fast-track trials is for the moment, and why Guede got no special breaks from anyone except the Italian system itself for not talking.

    [A deal with Guede? All such deals are illegal.] Not only illegal, impossible I would say, as not envisaged by the code for serious crimes, ie not practically possible, there are no exceptions ... in addition 1. a prosecutor cannot promise or decide anything in that system (even if it was a small crime for which plea bargain is possible, judge or court decides and can say no)  2. Mignini was not the PM responsible of the Guede appeal as the groupies should know if they had read the primary documents they publish on their, for the rest, useless website 3. Mignini got a life sentence for RG (decreased to 30 years for fast track discount) I do not believe he appealed this verdict, obviously.

    So as we said many times (I repeat for newcomers and for the benefit of people in good faith, FoA in bad faith know already) Guede got this reduction as the life sentence (with fast track discount 30 years, this is an automatic formula) became 24 years given the judges of appeal gave generic mitigations equivalent to aggravations, exactly as in the first instance and appeal trials of Amanda and Raffaele.  Once this factor is introduced, the base penalty for murder becomes 24 years (like Amanda and Raffaele) but there is, for Guede, the automatic reduction of 1/3 for the choice of the abbreviated trial.  Result is 16 years of prison.

    Amanda and Raffaele got from 24 to 28.5 and 25 for their other crimes in continuation, theft phones, simulation, transportation of a weapon, calumny to Lumumba (only Knox).

    Many might live more easily with the idea of Guede getting his sentence pared down to only 16 years in prison, if only he had been made to fess up properly about what happened and make a real bid to express sorrow and remorse to Meredith’s family.

    But his sticking point even now which the current law allows is that Meredith INVITED him in for sex and he was only a bystander to her murder.

    Wail at his callous obtuseness all you like, but he has only gone where the system itself points him. 

    Judge Massei had tried to punish him additionally by reversing Judge Micheli on primary blame and placing primary blame for the fatal attack on Guede.

    But that weird stretch didnt hurt him, his eventual sentence was unaffected, and it caused enormous problems down the road when Judge Hellmann was enabled to go even further and roll back the guilt of RS and AK entirely.

    This is a problem Judge Nencini then had to set about correcting, which never would have even existed had Guede been forced in 2008 to fully confess and repent, in exchange for his fast-track trial and reduced sentence.

    If the Italian system had forced Guede’s confession in 2008 as his part of the deal, how radically different would have been the history of this protracted process. And how radically different would have been the lives and peace of mind of Meredith’s family, left suffering now both financially and in health terms.

    It wasn’t meant to be, but in this respect Italy’s is a cruel system. Please, Prime Minister Renzi, correct it. Call it the Meredith Amendment.

    Posted on 11/01/14 at 12:24 AM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in The wider contextsItalian contextItalian system
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (5)

    Thursday, October 30, 2014

    Why Numerous American JUDGES Favor The Supremely Neutral Italian Kind Of System

    Posted by Peter Quennell



    See that above at the bottom of the YouTube screen? Some $280 million has been spent since the year 2000.

    Can you guess what the $280 million was for?

    In fact the $280 million is funds raised and spent for judges’ election campaigns in the roughly 3/4 of all American states where such judges’ elections are held - the original intention of which was good: to get judicial choices out of smoke-filled rooms.

    Sitting judges and prospective judges themselves usually dont like this fundraising, because they have to take time off to raise these funds,  and pressures from donors - including bad-boy donors and in some cases defense lawyers seeking a break - can become extreme.

    We have posted previously on enlightened American lawyers favoring main aspects of the Italian kind of system and on American cities now doing the same. Now we see many American judges and public-interest groups inclining the same way.

    Why all judges in Italy are impartial and well-trained in the extreme (like all prosecutors) and dont have to keep their paws outstretched is that they are in a merit-based system where only their performance and not their politics counts.

    We described how Italian justice system officials have to jump hurdle after hurdle in getting their cases advanced. A very demanding process in which only the best succeed.

    It’s the same with their careers. They have to jump hurdle after hurdle in exams and peer assessment to advance from level to level - to make it as high for example as this revered prosecutor here.

    Do such serial defamers of the Italian system as Doug Preston and Steve Moore and ex-judge Michael Heavey bother to tell you this about the Italian system? Probably not. They have never been truthful about it before.

    Posted on 10/30/14 at 09:28 PM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in The wider contextsItalian contextN America contextItalian justice hoaxFlorence MOF hoaxItalian system
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (2)

    Wednesday, October 29, 2014

    The Knox Interrogation Hoax #15: Dr Mignini’s Account Of Knox “Interrogation” Explained To The World

    Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



    Dr Mignini examines Knox July 2009 on the “interrogation” at her own initiative

    1. Overview Of This Post

    Post #1 includes an overview of the entire series and links to all posts up to this one.

    Knox has repeatedly claimed that Dr Mignini was present at the informal summary/recap session led by Inspector Rita Ficarra, the actual purpose of which was merely for Knox to suggest a few possible leads the police might interview.

    He wasn’t there, though. And he has repeatedly explained that at the second session ending with a second insisted-upon statement by Knox at 5:45 AM, his entire role was to read Knox her rights, and to advise her to say no more until she had appointed lawyers. (Regardless, she then insisted on dictating that second statement.)

    Dr Mignini more than anyone else at the central police station that night developed a complete overview of how the two sessions had proceeded.

    THREE TIMES Knox willingly put herself under his questioning (December 2007, January 2008, July 2009) to attempt to shake this. While his questioning was formal, polite and quite mild, Knox’s recollection of 5-6 November was scrambled or devious (some think she and RS were both high on hard drugs).

    So by the end of those sessions Knox seems to have made a complete disbeliever of Dr Mignini, swayed few if any in Italy, and certainly did not sway the judges of the trial court or any appeal court.

    But few English-language reporters other than Andrea Vogt, John Follain and Barbie Nadeau have interviewed and reported Dr Mignini in depth fairly, and there are a number of English-language reporters to whom he kindly gave time who mangled what he lucidly and fairly explained to them.

    In July 2009 Dr Mignini wrote an acerbic email to Linda Byron of Seattle TV to attempt to straighten out her own understanding, and although she seemingly tried to hide it, we captured it and translated and posted in full his explanation.

    Highly worth reading.

    In mid 2011 a similar thing happened. Drew Griffen of CNN was given a three-hour on-camera interview - and sarcastically broadcast cherrypicked and mangled responses from Dr Mignini. Again we obtained Dr Mignini’s full statement, and Skeptical Bystander posted the whole thing in three long parts, with translation by Clander, Yummi, Jools, Thoughtful, TomM and Catnip.

    Again, highly worth reading.

    In the first 20 minutes of the second hour of the interview, Drew Griffen tried to give Dr Mignini a hard time over the so-called Knox interrogation. Drew Griffen was abysmally informed of the testimony at trial we have been posting and had no idea of the substance of Knox’s one interview on 5-6 November or the fact that this was merely a recap/summary session not ever requiring recording.

    Dr Mignini had not himself testified at trial, and he led the testimony of others present on 5-6 November very fairly and without defense protests about any bias. And Dr Mignini is not under oath here. However this 20-minute segment is important, for it reinforces that Knox was treated extremely fairly and she had no genuine reason for complaint about it.

    2. From Mid-2011 Interview By CNN With Dr Mignini

    0’40’’ English question [Translator’s note: These words are in English in the Italian transcript of which this document is a translation.]

    0’48’’ CNN: You didn’t interrogate Amanda?

    0’50’’ Mignini: Oh, the police interrogated her. I was told about it. I wanted to explain this. I remember that I had gone to sleep and the director of the flying squad, Dr. Profazio, called me, because he tells me: “There are developments; Raffaele in fact has denied what he had said before”. So I went down and the head of the flying squad told me what had happened. At some point they tell us that Amanda has made this statement.

    And thus her interrogation as a person informed of the facts was suspended by the police in compliance with Article 63 of the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure [c.p.p. - Codice di Procedura Penale], because if evidence appears that incriminates the person, the person being questioned as a person informed of the facts can no longer be heard, and we must stop. “Everyone stop! There must be a defense attorney [present]”. And thus the police stopped and informed Amanda, who had placed herself on the scene of the crime and who said that she had accompanied Lumumba and let him in and that then Lumumba, in the other room, allegedly committed a sexual act and killed Meredith. This is what she said.

    2’11’’ Then I was called, I was informed about this, I went to Amanda who, I remember how she was, what she looked like, I remember her very well, she remained imprinted in my memory, I still remember then two things about Amanda that struck me at the time: first, she looked like she was relieved of a burden and second, she was like, and this is another detail that was impressive, it seemed as if she was terrified of Lumumba.

    20’48’’ Then I, as I had in some way to, let’s say… this police interrogation had been suspended. At that point I remember that… they made me notice that Amanda, because she wanted to go on talking, I remember she had, like a need to. So I told her: “you can make statements to me; I will not ask questions, since if you make a spontaneous statement and I collect it, I will collect your statement as if I were in fact a notary”. She then repeated [her story] to the interpreter, who was Mrs. Donnino, I remember there was a police woman officer who wrote the statement down [verbalizzava], I did not ask questions. She basically repeated what she had told the police and she signed the statement. Basically I didn’t ask Amanda questions. Not before, since the police asked them and I was not there, and not after, since she made spontaneous statements. Had I been asking her questions, a defense attorney should have been there. This is the procedure.

    05’24 CNN: She had an interpreter during the whole time?

    05’26’’ Mignini: Yes.

    05’29’’ CNN: She says no.

    05’32’’ Mignini: Look the interpreter was there, when I heard her there was the interpreter. The interpreter Anna Donnino, who is an interpreter for the police; she was hired by the police.

    Just like I believe that there was [before], I do not have the minutes now, but yet now this is a fact, it is undisputed that there was an interpreter.

    06’02’’ CNN: Amanda Knox says she was interrogated for 14 hours…

    06’11’’ Mignini: No, look, absolutely not. At 1 a.m., the minutes of Nov 6th has started at 1 a.m. and I arrived, 14 hours that cannot be, we are really… that’s absolutely impossible. So the minutes were done at one o’clock, then the minutes of the spontaneous declaration was taken at 5.45, it maybe lasted half an hour because no questions were asked. She made her statements; they were translated; then at around 8 a.m., I think, at approximately 8, I drew up the detention order. Thus it is… well, she had been heard earlier, so she had been questioned as a person informed of the facts at around one forty-five a.m. She had previously been heard by a female police officer, but [that’s] because she had gone voluntarily to the police and she reported that, she said things quite relevant to the investigation of Raffaele and was heard by the inspector [Rita] Ficarra. However this [event] ... I was not there, I do not know [about it]. But remember, there are the minutes. Then the minutes in which she was questioned as a person informed of the facts starts at 1:45 of November 6, and cannot have lasted 14 hours ... in no way whatsoever. Then she was arrested at around 8 a.m. or at about 9 a.m. or so.

    08’16’’ Mignini: Look, I remember what I saw when I saw her personally, because she said, I told her: “you can make, if you deem it [necessary], a spontaneous statement, because Italian law provides for this. If a person is aware that he/she is suspected [under investigation], may request to speak before a magistrate, it happened many times, they came also to me, and they say “I want to make a statement”. Very well, I listen. If I listen, I wanted this to be highlighted…. to be clear, I listen and that’s all, and I ask no questions, the defense attorney may be not present. But if I ask questions and I object to the facts [of your answers], it is like an interrogation and thus we would need a defense attorney.

    09’10’’ CNN: was [Amanda Knox] scared?

    09’11’’ Mignini: Well, I recall this feeling that I had in that moment which, [as] I am explaining to you, in the spirit in which I am doing this interview, to explain to you the acceptance [adozione] of our requests [provvedimenti], what was, why the trial went in a certain way. [Translator’s note: The Italian in the CNN transcript is nearly incomprehensible. We have provided the foregoing on a best effort basis.]

    09’36’’ She was, she seemed to me like she was uplifted, freed of a weight, and terrified of Lumumba. That’s an impression that has stayed with me, yet I don’t understand. I remember that there was a policeman who was called, from the SCO [Servizio Centrale Operativo] in Rome, who made an impression on me because he was very fatherly. She was crying as though freed of a great weight, and he was trying to console her. I remember there was also a policewoman who, well, she…[missing word?] and I’m sure that.. [missing word?] .. well, all that picture how it was described later… at that moment it wasn’t like that. Right then, there was a situation in which I was trying to console her, to encourage her, because actually we believed that she had told the truth.

    11’03’’ CNN: No one hit her?

    11’06’’ Mignini: No, look, absolutely not. I can state this in the most positive way, and then, let’s say… I wasn’t there when she was being questioned by police, the rooms are quite far away… you don’t know but I was… it’s quite far, there’s a corridor, and I was with the director, Dr. Porfazio, and she was being questioned in a different place. I also remember that passing through, I also saw Sollecito who was alone in a different room; he was also being questioned, as I recall. I don’t exclude…well…it’s clear that I wasn’t there, but I don’t believe that anything whatsoever happened, and in my presence absolutely not.

    11’55’’ On the contrary, there was an attitude of… I mean they gave her [some] ... [missing word?] then she was like, you know, like someone crying from a sense of liberation, as though she had been freed. That was the attitude.

    12’51’’ CNN: Why wasn’t there any video or transcript of those hours?

    13’00’’ Mignini: Look, that’s, I was at the police station, and all the…let’s say…when I made investigations in my own office, I taped them. I taped them, we have an apparatus for that, and I transcribed them. For example, there’s the interrogation of the English girls, Meredith’s friends, it was all taped. The interrogations of Amanda in prison were taped, and then transcribed, and we have the transcripts of… But in a police station, at the very moment of the investigation it isn’t done, not with respect to Amanda or anyone else. Also because, I can tell you, today, even then, but today in particular, we have budget problems, budget problems that are not insignificant, which do not allow us to transcribe. Video is very important…I completely agree with you that videotaping is extremely important, we should be able to have a video recording of every statement [verbale di assunzione di informazioni] made Because what is said is very important, but it’s maybe even more important how it is said, the non-verbal language. Because from the non-verbal language you can [missing words].

    15’14’’ Mignini: It isn’t only Amanda, it’s always like that. But I wanted to say that I agree with him that it’s fundamental, only there’s a problem, especially when the witnesses are so numerous, and in fact just recording, I mean recording the sound, isn’t enough according to me.

    15’38’’ CNN: It doesn’t cost much, he says.

    15’40’’ Mignini: Well we have significant budget problems, that’s what it is.

    15’38’’ CNN: So in the end, you did get a confession. But then, everything that was written in the confession became a lie?

    16’16’’ Mignini: But then, there was the fact that she placed herself at the scene of the crime, and Lumumba wasn’t there, together with the three of them, the two of them, but Rudy was there, according to the facts that emerged later. But the fact of having accused…and she’s even accused of calumny in regard to Lumumba, was an element that was very important from the point of view of her legal position at the trial. Why accuse someone of participating in a crime, placing yourself at the scene of a crime? Because with those declarations, she placed herself at the scene, at the place of the crime. And she placed someone there who was a complete stranger to it. Why did she do that? There is one detail that’s particularly significant. Above all when Lumumba was arrested and no one – if it hadn’t been for the Public Prosecutor’s Office that conducted the investigation, and that is mandated to seek elements in favor of the accused, Lumumba would have stayed in prison. But we investigated, and we saw that Lumumba wasn’t involved, that he was the object of calumny and so he was freed and the case against him was archived.

    18’15’’ CNN: Was she asked to imagine what might have happened?

    18’24’’ Mignini: No, absolutely not. Either you saw a person or you didn’t. I can’t ask someone what they imagine because it would be a question that doesn’t mean anything, that I even don’t understand.

    This really does finish our posting of the case for the prosecution on this “interrogation” issue, though at least half a dozen other investigators provided supportive testimony which we have not yet quoted.

    Next, how all of the Italian courts up to Cassation concluded that Knox’s claims were unsupported, contradictory, and damaging, and how her three-year prison sentence served was well justified.


    Analysis #3 Of Testimony Of Dr Chiacchiera, Organized Crime Section: Contradictions Between RS & AK

    Posted by Cardiol MD




    1. Overview Of This Series

    In 2007 Dr Chiacchiera was the Director of the Organized Crime Section and the Deputy Director of the Flying Squad.

    He was one of the most senior and experienced law enforcement officers to testify at the trial. His testimony and his cross examination by the defenses occupied a lot of time of the court late in February 2009. He covered the following ground.

    (1) He found Knox and Sollecito uncooperative when he asked them questions.

    (2) Saw evidence contradicting any lone burglar theory and indicating that the “break-In” to Romanelli’s room was faked.

    (3) Phone records and the police investigation into the accused phone activity the night of the murder.

    (4) Discovery of pornographic magazines at Sollecito’s house.

    (5) Details of how the large knife, Exhibit 36, was collected from Sollecito’s and the evidence that it is the murder knife.

    Dr Chiacchiera was submitted to cross-examination on the above 5 items by 4 Attorneys for the Defence of Knox and Sollecito, by 2 Civil Party Attorneys, and to Re-examination by the Prosecution. He had a gruelling time as a witness.

    All the translation is by the ever-dedicated main poster ZiaK. This series is highlighting some key portions. Here is the full 50-page transcript which will be posted in the trial testimony area of McCall’s great Wiki.

    Continuation of Dr Chiacchiera’s Evidence-in-Chief:

    MaCh: It emerged that normally Sollecito kept his cellphones, and also Amanda Knox, they kept their cellphones on until a late hour, evening, [sic] there is no telephone traffic from 20:40 hours. A thing of this …

    {Witness begins Testimony re cellphones and is interrupted}

    MC: But did this emerge from the declarations or did it emerge from the analysis of the [phone] records in the preceding days?

    {Examiner interrupts witness with good Q re source of telephone-usage information}

    MaCh: It emerged from the analysis of the [phone] records in the preceding days.

    {Witness answers clearly}

    GCM: Excuse me. Let me understand. In other words you say: the cellphone was switched off and there was no telephone traffic, these are two different things.

    {Court asks good clarifying Q}

    MaCh: I’m saying, Mr President. Two things. The first, normally Sollecito’s telephone and the telephone of Amanda, were switched on until the late hours. The fatal evening, they were switched off from 20:42 hours until … one [of the phones] from 20:42 onwards and the other from about 20:50 onwards. One. Two, the traffic …

    {Witness is Answering Court's Q in 2 parts. When he gets to his part #2, Court interrupts}

    GCM: Before going on to “Two”, excuse me: “normally” – what does that mean? You had …

    {Court is asking good Q re witness's Part #1, but is interrupted}

    MaCh: We had done a comparative analysis of the telephone traffic of that evening with the telephone traffic of the preceding evenings. Shall we say the habits ...

    {Witness interrupts Court with narrative response, and is also interrupted}

    GCM: And so the “normally” emerges from this?

    {Court interrupts witness's response with good Q}

    MC: How many evenings? If you recall, or not?

    {Examiner asks witness relevant Q, adding redundant Q}

    MaCh: Months, no … honestly, I don’t remember how many [evenings], but months.

    {Witness stumbles, seeming uncertain re 'evenings' vs 'months'}

    MC: I mean to say, not …

    {Examiner preambles re her redundant Q but is interrupted}

    MaCh: Not three days, no. The telephone traffic habits were evaluated. [This is point] one. [Point] Two, the element that emerged, that contradicted the declarations, I can’t report on the declarations but I can report on the element that contradicted [sic. i.e. provided the contradiction], that in effect no telephone call had arrived at 23:00 hours, as had been declared: on the phone line that was declared to have received that … the recipient of that very phone-call. Another element: no interaction with the computer emerged, unlike what was declared. So there were a few objective elements of comparison from the analysis and from the technical checks that contradicted what had previously been revealed.

    {Witness interrupts Examiner with narrative response to Examiner's Q, witness indicating contradiction between suspects' declarations and objective records of telephone and computer activity}

    MC: For Amanda Knox, were there incongruities of this type?

    {Examiner asks if incongruities/contradictions existed for Amanda Knox}

    MaCh: Yes, there were incongruities because Amanda Knox was, how to say, contradicted by Sollectio, and then she contradicted herself, if I may …

    {Witness answers affirmatively, amplifying applicability both to Sollecito & Knox, but is interrupted}

    GB: President, if we continue in this way, then we might as well do the old [trial] procedure.

    {Giulia Bongiorno, Sollecito's lawyer interjects, objecting-subjectively to Court, but submitting no legal basis for her objection}

    GCM: Excuse me, please.

    {Court seems to politely rule GB out-of-order}

    MaCh: The elements, these are [sic], Mr President, I don’t know how to do.

    {Witness communicates uncertainty to Court}

    MC: But it is so difficult, however.

    {Examiner chimes-in apparently commiserating with her witness's uncertainty}

    MaCh: Mr President, I really don’t know what to do.

    {Witness seems to repeat statement addressed to Court, who possibly interrupts}}

    GCM: Excuse me…

    {Court seems to begin response to Witness, but is possibly interrupted}

    MaCh: If I have to describe the investigation activity …

    {Witness may be interrupting Court or is continuing Witness's unfinished statement to Court}

    MC: He’s not referring to declarations.

    {Examiner chimes-in with his opinion re Witness's reference to Defendants' contradictions/incongruities - GB's interjection seems to have side-tracked court procedure}

    GCM: Regarding these declarations, you can report on this [sic. i.e. in this instance?], and with regard to Raffaele Sollecito, you reported – citing the telephone traffic and citing the use of the computer. There now, and this is one point. With regard to Amanda Knox, you cannot report the declarations. But you may, however, say – following these declarations – what type of investigations you carried out, and the outcome of these. So, following the declarations given by Amanda Knox, did you do similar investigations, as [those you did] for Sollecito Raffaele on the [phone] records? Or was there nothing to do, except to …?

    {Court rules on subject of testimony re Defendants' declarations, seeming to rule admissibility of Sollecito's declarations re telephone traffic and computer usage, but inadmissibility of Knox's declarations. Court does seem to permit description of investigations that followed Knox's declarations, without describing Knox's actual declarations, and Court asks whether phone-record investigations similar to those done for Sollecito were done for Knox.}

    MaCh: Mr President, all the necessary checks were made, but in that immediate moment the most important element … that is to say, in [this] place [NdT: i.e. “in this Court”], in this moment, in this place, that is to say, when they were … I said [that] when the arrests were made, I don’t, I don’t know how to do, however, the incongruity of the declarations with the facts that we had found, and with the declarations that Sollecito had previously given us, [this] was the most important element. I don’t know if I have managed to …

    {Witness seemingly responding to Court that he doesn't know how to deal with the declarations, is interrupted.}

    GCM: No, excuse me (overlapping voices). So, with regard to Raffaele Sollecito, we have
    understood these checking activities were carried out on the declarations made, the verification activities carried out, and [that’s all] very well. With regard to Amanda Knox, if you also carried out … maybe there were no objective elements for possible checking, there were no … or else, there were activities carried out of …

    {Court, interrupting over witness's testimony, seems to be explaining his Q to witness, but is interrupted by witness}

    MaCh: Later, there emerged a series of further elements.

    {Witness interrupts with statement re unspecified further elements}

    GCM: Not evaluations on the congruity, incongruity, likelihood, these are evaluations and will be done, there you go, comparably. I’m thinking of the [phone] records, of the use, if she had given indications on the basis of which [you] could carry out investigative activity …

    {Court seems to want evidence in Knox's phone records justifying further investigation.}

    Here ends the Testimony Of Dr Chiacchiera covering the relevant Phone Records, elicited by the Prosecution.

    Next comes the Testimony Of Dr Chiacchiera elicited by the Prosecution, covering Discovery of pornographic magazines at Sollecito’s house, Details of how the large knife, Exhibit 36, was collected from Sollecito’s and the evidence that it is the murder knife

    Posted on 10/29/14 at 05:27 AM by Cardiol MD. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in Public evidenceThe witnessesTrials 2008 & 2009Massei prosecution
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (5)

    Wednesday, October 22, 2014

    Why They Also Damn: The Hundreds Of DNA Samples Taken And Analyses Done, Shown In Table Form

    Posted by Olleosnep




    1. Even Excluding DNA, There’s Massive Evidence

    Contrary to foolish claims elsewhere, there’s a great deal of evidence implicating not only Guede but also Knox and Sollecito in the brutal murder of Meredith Kercher. 

    The bulk of the evidence is circumstantial, and encompasses different categories of evidence, such as: wounds sustained by Ms. Kercher;  ear and eye witnesses;  footprints; shoeprints; fingerprints and lack thereof; blood patterns; evidence that Ms. Kercher was moved after she died; misplaced items in her room and in the cottage; evidence of partial clean-up; cellphone records; computer evidence; evidence of staged break-in; lack of evidence of actual break-in; statements by all three defendants; lack of alibis; lies by Knox and Sollecito; etc.

    A lot of the most critical evidence has been repeatedly reviewed by many different judges involved in the case, from Judge Micheli to Judge Nencini, and led to the unanimous verdict at trial now confirmed by Appeal Judge Nencini. 

    2. The Massive DNA Evidence Is Equally Conclusive

    We have carried nearly five dozen DNA posts previously on the Scientific Labs work in 2007-09, the discredited judges’ consultants work in 2011, and the Carabinieri Labs work in 2013.

    They go to prove that some of the most damning evidence comes from the DNA traces found on hundreds of samples tested by the Forensic Genetics department of the Italian Scientific Police squadron in Rome. The department was presided over by the biologist Dr. Stefanoni at the time [seen above left with Prosecutor Comodi] who acted as the department’s principal technical director.

    The results of Dr. Stefanoni’s work were collected in several reports issued by her lab during the 2008-2009 investigation and trial phases. Of these reports, two reports in particular comprise a ‘survey’ of the work performed by her lab at the time: the “Genetic Tests” report (GT), and the “Stato Avanzamento Laboratorio” report (SAL). Both reports are available on the Meredith Kercher Wiki.

    These two reports are notable for highlighting the large quantity of testing done and the significant number of objects and items sampled. In addition, the reports not only look at items with blood traces, but also traces of skin cells, feces, semen, and above all, hair traces, an aspect of the evidence that has been largely glossed over in the testimony and in the motivation reports.

    3. For The First Time A Complete DNA Roadmap

    The DNA Spreadsheet will open using Microsoft Excel or alternatives such as the free OpenOffice. Please note the table is very wide.

    In order to better understand the extent of the work and types of the tests performed, I have taken the data that can be gleaned from these two reports and placed them into a single spreadsheet, in order to create a kind of ‘database’ of the testing and analyses done.

    This spreadsheet uses the GT report as a basis, followed by additional information obtainable from the SAL report.

    The spreadsheet is basically a list of each sample, object and/or test done by Dr. Stefanoni’s team. These include tests done for DNA analysis, testing done for Y haplotype analysis and hair sample analysis. In the SAL report, it is shown that a few samples were tested multiple times. The list also includes some objects which were not analyzed at all, or were only analyzed up to a point.

    It should be noted that there are a few difficulties with the reports. The GT report references an associated photographic report that has not been made available. The GT report is also missing a couple of pages and the descriptions of the results are at times inconsistent. Other times it can be tricky to follow exactly what tests were done. Because the report is a black and white scan of an original likely printed in color, some of the information in the tables is difficult or impossible to read. And some traces are missing result tables altogether.

    The SAL report is also incomplete. The luminol samples at the cottage and all the samples taken at Guede’s apartment are missing, as are other samples. The scanned pages in the PDF are out of order, making cross-checking with the GT report tedious. The SAL report does not have all the test data indicated in the GT report. For instance, the human antibody tests noted in the GT report are not indicated in the SAL report. The data in the SAL report is often not as complete as one might think. As an example, all hair samples were logged and assigned a sample number. But those hairs that had no DNA extracted, do not have a date of when they were analyzed. Presumably they were all analyzed as a set for each item, given that the sample number is frequently numerically sequential (i.e. 47084, 47085, 47086, etc.). But it’s not possible to say with certainty when the hairs were reviewed from the report.

    Nevertheless the GT and SAL reports do have significant information that is of interest to the case. Hence the spreadsheet.

    4. Some Guidance For The Use Of The Spreadsheet

    Spreadsheets can be useful for presenting various pieces of data together ‘at a glance’. But the real power of spreadsheets for this type of data is that rows can be sorted in order to group similar pieces of data together, allowing one to get a overview of subsets of data.

    So, for instance, if one wanted to order all the rows by ‘sample number’ to see the sequence of how they were processed in the lab, one need only highlight all the rows (done by clicking on row number 5, holding down the ‘Shift key’ and paging down to the bottommost row), then go to menu option ‘Data’ and then ‘Sort’ and select the column or columns to sort by- ‘AF’ in the case.

    Or perhaps one wants to sort by ‘DNA yielded’ and ‘building’ to see where someone’s DNA was found. Simply select all the rows again, select the menu option ‘Data’ and then ‘Sort’, and select the first column as ‘DNA yielded’ (or column AD), then select as the second column as ‘building (or column F).

    To return to the original order, select all rows again and sort on column A.

    Note that the first four rows in the spreadsheet are ‘locked’, in order to allow the column headers to be always visible.  If one wants to unlock these rows, select the whole spreadsheet by clicking on the upper left corner of the window where the column header labels and row numbers meet. Once the whole spreadsheet is selected, go to ‘View’ option and select ‘Unfreeze panes’. For Excel version 2007 and higher, click on the little arrow to the right of ‘freeze panes’ button on the menu bar, and there will be the option to unfreeze panes.

    If one is handy with Access, or any other database program, it should be possible to import the spreadsheet into that database program, allowing one to perform more powerful ‘queries’.



    The Rome headquarters of the Scientific Police which work closely with the FBI

    5. Explanations Of Some Of The DNA Data

    The data in each column was obtained directly or indirectly obtainable from the two reports by Dr. Stefanoni’s team.

    1) Column ‘A’ allows one to resort rows to their original order, which is based on the order of the ‘item number’ noted in the GT report.

    2) ‘Item number’ refers to the actual piece of evidence, whether an object sampled onsite or an object that was bagged and taken to the lab, as noted in the GT report.

    3) ‘Original item label’ is data provided in the first pages of the GT report, as a way to tie the evidence item back to evidence markers used at the crime scene, and visible in some of the crime scene photos.

    4) ‘Page in attached photo report’ indicates that there is an adjunct ‘photo report’ Dr. Stefanoni provided that has not yet been released, and likely has photos of the evidence items ‘in situ’. This information is also noted in the beginning item lists in the GT report.

    5) ‘Sample date’ is based on the dates noted in the beginning list in the GT report, indicating when the evidence item was sampled or taken from the crime scene. This is sometimes difficult to read, due to the fact that the report was apparently printed in color and the black and white scan hides or obscures some text and graphics.

    6) Columns F-K are location and object data, obtainable from the descriptions in the GT report, especially the first pages that provide a list of where evidence samples were obtained. I broke this data down into various categories to allow different possibilities of grouping the data.

    7) ‘Sample obtained’ indicates the type of biological substance that was assumed to contain DNA. This was first obtained from the GT report, and later corrected with the data from the SAL report, which has a more consistent description of what the sample was assumed to be.

    8) Columns M through AC list data either directly reported in the GT and SAL reports, or interpretable from them. Column M notes if an item was analyzed or not. In the GT report, unanalyzed items are noted in the beginning list as ‘not analyzed’ though not consistently. In the SAL report, they are noted as having 0 samples.

    9) ‘Trace number’ was obtained from GT report, though on a few occasions, the actual number is not clear. Note that the number ‘starts over’ for each evidence item. Sometimes the trace number is sequential, independent of whether it is blood or hair or skin cells. Items having the most traces are those that were ‘heavily’ sampled, including Sollecito’s sneakers, the duvet, Ms. Kercher’s sweat jacket, her jeans, the kitchen knife, the kitchen sponge, etc.

    10) ‘Additional trace info’ is additional information noted from both reports about a specific sample.

    11) Column P ‘revealed in luminol?’ indicates with a ‘yes’ those samples obtained during luminol analysis. What often gets overlooked is that luminol analysis was performed not only at the cottage, but in Sollecito’s car, Sollecito’s apartment and Guede’s apartment. Notable here is that 14 different samples were obtained from luminol analysis at Sollecito’s apartment. While the DNA data yielded was meager, what is important is not the actual data yielded, but the number and location of samples investigated, including samples from door handles, and different locations like the bathroom, bedroom and kitchen. There was certainly a suspicious amount of blood, bleach or turnip juice at Sollecito’s place!

    12) ‘Date of extraction’ comes from the SAL report, though, as mentioned above, it is not consistently reported for every trace or sample analyzed. This indicates when DNA processing occurred on a sample. This column is important to look at when discussing the issue of lab contamination. If one performs a sort on this column and on the ‘sample number’ column, one can clearly see that samples were processed in batches, often a week or two weeks apart. So for instance, claims that the sample 36B happened due to contamination at the lab is really not possible, given that Ms. Kercher’s DNA was analyzed one week earlier (11/5/07 and 11/6/07) and sample 36B is the only sample to contain Ms. Kercher’s DNA from all the samples analyzed on 11/13/07. Similarly, Sollecito’s DNA and Guede’s DNA are only found once each of all the items analyzed on 12/29/07, yet the last time Sollecito’s DNA had been analyzed was on 12/17/07, 12 days earlier. So the likelihood of lab contamination seems extraordinarily small, just from the dates of when samples were analyzed.

    13) ‘TMB test positive’ was originally obtained from the GT report. Again because that report is likely in color, a number of tables have either missing graphics or are missing tables altogether. Fortunately the SAL report has duplicated this data consistently.

    14) ‘Human antibody test positive?’ is obtained from other tables in the GT report, almost always paired with the TMB table. In some cases where the table data is illegible, I’ve placed a “?” in front of an assumed result. Curiously, this test is not shown in the SAL report.

    15) ‘Cat antibody positive?’ is from the GT report, shows that the basement apartment blood samples were all made a by cat, which Dr. Stefanoni comments on in her Massei testimony.

    16) Apparently they also ran ‘dog antibody’ testing as well, as is noted in the GT report.

    17) ‘DNA extraction done?’ indicates if a decision was made to extract DNA. This was inferred from the GT report. Notable here is that even with samples having cat antibodies, Dr. Stefanoni does the DNA extraction anyway to make sure no human DNA is in the sample.

    18) ‘Quantity extracted’ comes from the SAL report. This refers not to the amount of DNA extracted, but specifically to the amount of liquid (50, 100 or 150 microliters) filtered through the Qiagen Bio Robot EZ1 machine. This machine actually filters or purifies the sample, removing all other biological materials like cells, bacteria, etc. leaving only actual DNA molecules which can then be processed. This extraction process is also the quantification process, where from a 50 microliter sample a certain amount of DNA is found and quantified.

    19) ‘Human DNA found during quantification’ was inferred from the GT report. It should be noted that for Dr. Stefanoni’s team, DNA analysis involved finding DNA useful for comparison. This means that Dr. Stefanoni was not looking for a sample of any human DNA, but a sample sufficiently ‘complete’ to be able to compare it with others samples. So it was likely often the case that a trace might have snippets and pieces of DNA, but these pieces were either too small or too fragmented to be useful for any profile comparisons. So ‘No’ in this column means not so much that no DNA was found at all, but that no DNA was found that could be useful for comparison.

    20) ‘Decision to amplify and analyze’ was obtained from the GT report. Sometimes it is explicitly mentioned in the description of the results in the GT report. Other times, it can be inferred from the lack of tables.

    21) ‘Concentrate sample with Speed VAC 110’ means that where “no human DNA was found” (i.e. when no DNA was found sufficiently complete or in sufficient amounts useful for comparison), Dr. Stefanoni decided to process the sample further in an effort to ‘bring out’ whatever DNA there might be. This was done using a ‘concentrator’, which dries the samples and vacuums them, thereby reducing sample fluid to make any DNA present more easily found by the subsequent DNA processing equipment.

    22) ‘STR amplification’ is the DNA copying process whereby any DNA found is copied millions of times to obtain samples that can be adequately rendered by capillary electrophoresis. The process Dr. Stefanoni used is described specifically in the GT report for evidence items 12 and 13.

    23) In some cases ‘Y chromosome amplification’ is also done. While this may be done at the same time by the same machine, I took any Y chromosome amplification to be a separate test, since per the GT report, it sometimes yielded different results. In a few cases, it is not clear from the GT report if Y chromosome amplification was done on only one sample, or on all the samples of an evidence item. In those cases, I assumed all the samples.

    24) ‘Capillary electrophoresis’ is where DNA is rendered through a chemical/electrical process that tags DNA particles with fluorescence. These fluoresced particles are then read by the software of the machine and mapped onto a graph that shows DNA particles as ‘peaks’, which are an indicator of quantity of DNA found. The software of the machine then produced graphs of the peaks obtained and it is these graphs that Dr. Stefanoni and her team used for profile comparison.

    25) ‘DNA yielded’ is what is indicated in the GT report and is based on Dr. Stefanoni’s comparison of the DNA profile(s) shown by capillary electrophoresis to index DNA samples she had of Sollecito, Lumumba, Guede, Knox and Ms. Kercher.

    26) ‘Egram number’ is taken from the GT report.

    27) The ‘sample number’ was taken from the GT and further completed by the SAL report, which has the sample numbers for all samples, whether they were analyzed for DNA or not. The sample numbers are useful for indicating what was happening at the Dr. Stefanoni’s lab. As an example, if one does a sort on column Q (Date of extraction) and column AF (sample number) one can see that between 11/5/07 and 11/6/07, there is gap of 129 samples that were likely performed for another case. The last sample analyzed on 11/5/07 was 47082, and on 11/6/07, the next sample number is 47211. So presumably her lab ran 129 additional DNA tests on samples related to other cases between these two runs. Generally the sample numbers increase sequentially by date, but there are a few exceptions. One in particular is sample 47821, which appears as the last sample on 11/23/07, though samples starting on 11/26/07, three days later, start with sample number 47711. This implies that samples were probably numbered in batches (by sticking numbered labels on tubes or bags) and not necessarily right before extraction or other machine processing was done.

    28) ‘Compatibility notes’ are extra comments noted by Dr. Stefanoni in the GT report.

    29) ‘Likely substance containing DNA’ is interpretable from the GT and SAL report and the results of the testing done.

    30) Finally there are columns related to hair analysis. ‘Type of hair’ comes from the SAL report, and it is sometimes, but not consistently or legibly, noted in the GT report.

    31) ‘Hair color’ provides a description of the hair color. Notable is that the hair description is quite consistent, with black, blonde, chestnut, light chestnut, red chestnut being the more significant categories. This is available in both the GT and SAL report and both reports match.

    32) ‘Hair length;’ is obviously the length of hair analyzed. I’m not sure how this was done since the machinery used is not indicated in either report. Again, this is in both reports, and again the data matches in both reports.

    33) ‘Hair width’ is the diameter of the hair in micrometers, and is available in both reports.

    34) ‘Hair marrow’ is found only in the SAL report, and presumably describes the condition of the very core of the hair.

    35) ‘Hair end condition’ indicates whether the end of the hair is ‘cut’, a ‘point’, frayed or otherwise.  This is found in both reports.

    36) ‘Bulb phase’ relates to the particular phase of hair growth, with DNA apparently present in the hair bulb only during the initial growth phases of the hair. This too is found in both reports.

    37) ‘Hair remarks’ are any comments related to hair samples.

    38) Lastly, the ‘remarks’ column contains my notes on a particular sample or test, indicating discrepancies or explanations of what I was able to understand.

    As noted above, the SAL report does not contain data for all the samples. Per Dr. Gino’s testimony in the Massei trial on 9/26/09, additional SAL sheets were apparently released that indicate that TMB tests were done on the luminol samples at the cottage and that these tests were negative. However it should be noted that TMB is less sensitive than luminol, so it is possible that a luminol sample could be in blood, which however is too diluted to be registered by a TMB test.




    6. More Commentary On the DNA Extracted From Blood

    1) DNA is only found in white blood cells, not red blood cells

    2) The luminol reacts with the iron in red blood cells, not white blood cells

    3) Red blood cells outnumber white blood cells by roughly 600 to 1

    4) Even if DNA is found it may be not usable for comparison

    So just because there is a positive luminol or TMB result does not mean that DNA can be found.

    7. More Commentary On The Resulting Statistics

    At the bottom of the spreadsheet are some interesting statistics, which I won’t reiterate here, except to note a few things.

    a) 227 different objects or site objects were sampled/ obtained for analysis. 30 of these were not analyzed at all. From the remaining 197 objects and site objects sampled, 484 separate tests were set up for analysis, with 93 of these consisting of hair analysis. Of these 484 tests, 193 of them yield DNA data useful for comparison (40%).

    b) Of the 193 tests that were ‘successful’, 100 tests yielded DNA compatible only with Ms. Kercher’s DNA (over 50%- again keep in mind their may have been other DNA but it may have been too small or too fragmented to be useful for comparison). Nine additional tests (comprising seven samples) yielded DNA compatible with Ms. Kercher’s DNA mixed with either Knox’s, Guede’s or Sollecito’s DNA. 27 tests had DNA compatible with Guede’s DNA; 18 tests had DNA compatible with Knox’s DNA; 11 more tests had DNA compatible with Sollecito’s DNA. Nine other tests yielded DNA compatible with a mixture of Knox’s and Sollecito’s DNA. 17 tests yielded DNA of unknown men and women (i.e. unmatchable by Dr. Stefanoni), and two tests were of samples obtained from Lumumba.

    c) Of the nine tests yielding Ms. Kercher’s DNA mixed with others, five of these yielded DNA compatible with a mixture of Kercher’s and Knox’s DNA. They were all samples found in blood or potential blood- notably: three in the bathroom, one on the corridor floor in a luminol revealed bloody footprint, one in a luminol revealed blood stain in Romanelli’s room.

    d) Returning to the discussions about contamination, it is notable that, whether the contamination occurred during site collection or in the lab, one might expect to find bits of contamination occurring here and there over 193 tests. Yet nearly all the arguments involve contamination about two samples, out of 193 tests. Over 50% of the tests that had useful DNA yielded Ms. Kercher’s DNA. If site collection, transport and/or lab procedures were so poor, one would expect to find Ms. Kercher’s DNA in other places as well. Yet very few samples have her DNA mixed with others, and conversely, very few other samples have other mixed DNA. Only nine samples have mixes of Sollecito and Knox’s DNA, eight of which were all obtained at Sollecito’s apartment or from Sollecito’s things (including a pocket knife), and one was obtained from a cigarette butt at the cottage. If contamination was so rampant, why does it occur on only two samples out of 193, (and curiously only on the two most damning samples)?

    e) Continuing along the same lines, 118 samples were obtained from Sollecito’s apartment. Of these, 49 were not analyzed, (many were hairs not having bulbs in the right phase). Of the remaining 66 samples that were analyzed, only one, the one the blade of the kitchen knife, had Ms. Kercher’s DNA. And 41 yielded no usable DNA. So if there was contamination, or worse, direct framing of evidence by the lab, certainly there would be more of Ms. Kercher’s DNA amongst those 66 samples, in order to achieve an ironclad case. Yet there is only one sample out of 66 that had Ms. Kercher’s DNA.

    f) Similarly, 224 tests were done on objects taken from the upper apartment. Of these 56 were not analyzed for DNA and an additional 61 that were analyzed, did not yield anything useful. Of the remaining 107 tests, only 3 had Sollecito’s DNA (a trace on the cigarette butt, and a trace on the bra clasp having Sollecito’s DNA as well as his Y chromosome.) Surely if there was rampant contamination or worse, direct framing of evidence, one would expect to find more of Sollecito’s DNA in Ms. Kercher’s room. Yet only one sample had his DNA and Y chromosome- the bra clasp.

    g) Conversely, it is rather odd that Sollecito’s car was sampled in 16 locations (actually 19 samples were taken but only 16 analyzed), and none of those samples revealed his DNA. Did he ever drive his car?

    8. And Finally More Commentary About The Hairs

    Guede had black hair. From photos of Nov 2, 2007, Knox had blonde hair and Sollecito had chestnut to light chestnut hair. Meredith Kercher had chestnut to reddish chestnut hair.

    93 hairs were found and analyzed. Seven of these were either animal hair or fibers. The remaining 86 hairs were, per the SAL report, all human. Seven of these hairs were black in color. Of the seven, six were short (4 cm or less) and one was long. Of the six short black hairs, four were found on the duvet covering Ms. Kercher, one was found on her mattress cover, and one was found on a sponge (containing fourteen other hairs) at Sollecito’s apartment. It is very likely these short black hairs were Guede’s, and if so, how it one of his hairs get on a sponge at Sollecito’s apartment.

    Similarly, 21 blonde hairs were found, ranging from 4 cm to 20 cm. Of these, fifteen were found at Sollecito’s apartment, either on a sponge in the kitchen, or on a sweater. The other six were found at the cottage, with three being found on the duvet, one found inside the small bathroom sink, one found on a mop, one found on Ms. Kercher’s purse and one found on Ms. Kercher’s mattress cover.

    Assuming the blonde hairs were Knox’s hair, it is difficult to imagine how they might wind up on Ms. Kercher’s purse and mattress cover.

    There were four light chestnut hairs found. One, measuring 9 cm, was found on the kitchen sponge at Sollecito’s apartment. The other three light chestnut hairs were found on Ms. Kercher’s bra (2 cm), sweat jacket (7.5 cm) and the towel found under Ms. Kercher’s body (20 cm).

    35 chestnut colored hairs were found, ranging from 1.5 to 30 cm in length. The vast majority were in Ms. Kercher’s bedroom. Two chestnut colored hairs (5 cm and 8 cm) were on the kitchen sponge at Sollecito’s house. It should be noted that three chestnut colored hairs yielded Ms. Kercher’s DNA, measuring 15, 18 and 23 cms.

    So even from the hair evidence, it seems that hair having Knox and Sollecito’s color were on Ms. Kercher’s more intimate objects, while Guede’s and Ms. Kercher’s hair apparently were on a sponge in the kitchen at Sollecito’s apartment. In other words, an object used in a clean-up, and in a room that also had five luminol revealed samples.

    Even the hair evidence points to Guede, Sollecito and Knox having acted together in the murder of Ms. Kercher.


    Thursday, October 16, 2014

    Knox, Tied In Knots By Her Own Tongue: Translation Of The 17 Dec 2007 Interview With Dr Mignini #4

    Posted by Yummi, Catnip and Kristeva



    Inmate-chefs at Capanne Prison, from which Knox was making a bid for release

    1. Getting Up To Speed On This Fourth Post

    How much serious questioning was Knox subjected to prior to this voluntary interview six weeks after her arrest?

    In fact, none. In the early days of November, after Meredith was found dead, she had several less-formal “recap/summary” sessions with investigators on possible leads (as did many others), which the defenses conceded without argument at trial were simply that and no more.

    So these were the first serious questions put to Knox - politely, and Knox is essentially not argumentative throughout

    The transcript was in the evidence pile and all judges except Hellmann seem to have studied it hard. This was also the first-ever interview of Knox by Dr Mignini, as prosecutor appointed to the case. He had seen her twice at the house and heard her at her strong insistence early on 6 November.

    But they had never before really talked.

    Prior to this, Knox had already emanated over a dozen differing versions of what she wanted to claim took place and the police and prosecutors and Supervising Magistrate Claudia Matteini had tried to make sense of those. 

    2. Our Translation Of Approximately The Fourth 40 Minutes

    This is the fourth 40 minutes of the voluntary interview which lasted in total about three hours. For a full understanding it would really be best to read (1) our first post and comment thread and (2) our second post and comment thread. and (3) third post and comment thread.

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

    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.


    Wednesday, October 15, 2014

    Knox, Tied In Knots By Her Own Tongue: Translation Of The 17 Dec 2007 Interview With Dr Mignini #3

    Posted by Yummi, Catnip and Kristeva



    Warden of Capanne Prison Bernardina di Mario (not present at Knox’s interview)

    1. Getting Up To Speed On This Third Post

    How much serious questioning was Knox subjected to prior to this voluntary interview six weeks after her arrest?

    In fact, none. In the early days of November, after Meredith was found dead, she had several less-formal “recap/summary” sessions with investigators on possible leads (as did many others), which the defenses conceded without argument at trial were simply that and no more.

    So these were the first serious questions put to Knox - politely, and Knox is essentially not argumentative throughout

    The transcript was in the evidence pile and all judges except Hellmann seem to have studied it hard. This was also the first-ever interview of Knox by Dr Mignini, as prosecutor appointed to the case. He had seen her twice at the house and heard her at her strong insistence early on 6 November.

    But they had never before really talked.

    Prior to this, Knox had already emanated over a dozen differing versions of what she wanted to claim took place and the police and prosecutors and Supervising Magistrate Claudia Matteini had tried to make sense of those. 

    2. Our Translation Of Approximately The Third 40 Minutes

    This is the third 40 minutes of the voluntary interview which lasted in total about three hours. For a full understanding it would really be best to read first our first post and comment thread and also our second post and comment thread.

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

    [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]

    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

    [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.

    Continued in Part #4 at this address.

    Posted on 10/15/14 at 11:50 PM by Yummi, Catnip and Kristeva. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (23)

    Tuesday, October 14, 2014

    Knox, Tied In Knots By Her Own Tongue: Translation Of The 17 Dec 2007 Interview With Dr Mignini #2

    Posted by Yummi, Catnip and Kristeva



    Prominent Rome criminal lawyer Dr Giancarlo Costa who walked off the Knox team soon after this

    1. Getting Up To Speed On This Second Post

    How much serious questioning was Knox subjected to prior to this voluntary interview six weeks after her arrest?

    In fact, none. In the early days of November, after Meredith was found dead, she had several less-formal “recap/summary” sessions with investigators on possible leads (as did many others), which the defenses conceded without argument at trial were simply that and no more.

    So these were the first serious questions put to Knox - politely, and Knox is essentially not argumentative throughout

    The transcript was in the evidence pile and all judges except Hellmann seem to have studied it hard. This was also the first-ever interview of Knox by Dr Mignini, as prosecutor appointed to the case. He had seen her twice at the house and heard her at her strong insistence early on 6 November.

    But they had never before really talked.

    Prior to this, Knox had already emanated over a dozen differing versions of what she wanted to claim took place and the police and prosecutors and Supervising Magistrate Claudia Matteini had tried to make sense of those. 

    2. Our Translation Of Approximately The Second 40 Minutes

    This is the second 40 minutes of the voluntary interview which lasted in total about three hours. For a full understanding it would really be best to read first our first post and its insightful comment thread before tackling this.

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

    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,

    [31]

    ...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.

    [32]

    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?

    [33]

    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?

    [34]

    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

    [35]

    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

    [36]

    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

    [37]

    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…

    [38]

    ...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…

    [39]

    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…

    [40]..

    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…

    [41]

    ... 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…

    [42]

    ...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?

    [43]

    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… 

    [44]

    Knox: And also all my clothes are at my home…

    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

    [45]

    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?

    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…

    Continued in Part #3 at this address.

    Posted on 10/14/14 at 12:13 AM by Yummi, Catnip and Kristeva. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (46)

    Saturday, October 11, 2014

    Knox, Tied In Knots By Her Own Tongue: Translation Of The 17 Dec 2007 Interview With Dr Mignini #1

    Posted by Yummi, Catnip and Kristeva



    A view of Capanne Prison where this interview was done

    1. What Had Already Happened Prior To This Interview

    How much serious questioning was Knox subjected to prior to this voluntary interview six weeks after her arrest?

    In fact, none. In the early days of November, after Meredith was found dead, she had several less-formal “recap/summary” sessions with investigators on possible leads (as did many others), which the defenses conceded without argument at trial were simply that and no more.

    Early on 6 November 2007 at Perugia’s central police station, Knox had headed off down a slippery slope, from which nearly seven years later she is still trying to crawl back.

    It was recorded at the arrest hearing before Judge Matteini on 9 November that her newly-appointed lawyers had told her not to say a word. But by the end of that November alone the ever-talkative Knox had come out with ten-plus differing statements, and in early December she came out with even more.

    The ten-plus differing November statements included an email to many in Seattle, two voluntary statements she insisted upon making early on 6 November, and another around noon; two letters she wrote to her lawyers dated 9 November, a daily diary which she began writing on 9 November in Capanne (partly in Italian, apparently beamed at police, prosecutors and judges, as she left it in her cell after she was warned the cell needed to be searched), several recordings of conversations with her parents in Capanne (into which the Supreme Court read a great deal), a letter to Raffaele Sollecito dated 22 November and another to Madison Paxton around six days later.

    None of her statements prior to 17 December had helped her and several had dropped her in deeper. In some Knox was not simply in defiant denial mode all of the time about any role in attacking Meredith. In some she seems hard on herself for things she had done including the framing of Patrick, though she never wound hat back.  In Capanne Prison her parents had shushed her to be quiet just when she seemed to be coming clean, as she seems close to doing so here. 

    2. Our Joint Translation Of This Extremely Crucial Interview

    This interview by Dr Mignini at Capanne Prison was eagerly agreed to by Knox, possibly seeing this as her last best chance to get herself off the hook and to avoid remaining locked up.  This lasted about three hours, until Knox’s lawyers interrupted to got her to clam up.

    Despite the many false claims about “interrogations” to the contrary, this was Knox’s first-ever in-depth interview. It was also the first-ever interview of Knox by Dr Mignini as prosecutor appointed to the case - as we have shown he asked Knox no questions on 5-6 Nov. 

    All of the trial judges and appeal judges and lay judges had clearly studied this document hard. Also prosecutors and the Knox and Sollecito defense counsel periodically refer to it.

    Knox’s lawyers were Luciano Ghirga and Giancarlo Costa who soon after departed from Knox’s team for mysterious reasons rumored as being that he saw guilt. (Giancarlo Costa is not even mentioned in Knox’s book; if that isnt suspicious, what it?).

    Knox very much mischaracterizes this interview in her book Waiting To Be Heard (2013) but has never seriously been called on that so far, because there was no English transcript. 

    We need to forewarn you that this is not a trial transcript but a transcript of a suspect interview over which Dr Mignini presided, requested to be put fully into Italian (many of Knox’s words were in English) by Knox’s defense team. That is why sometimes you will read the interpreter translating Knox (and the Italian speakers present to her) and sometimes not.

    3. Our Translation Of Approximately The First 40 Minutes

    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 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

    Translation Into Italian

    For the transcription of this Statement, the declarations made by Ms Knox have been translated by Prof Dr Alesssandro Clericuzio. The statement is transcribed in 100 numbered pages from number 1 to number 100. [page numbers shown in square brackets here]  (signed)  Technical Consultant Rosanna Siesto

    [Note by our translation team. In the Italian, the header on each page consists of: “Statement of information supplied by Ms Amanda Knox, assisted by the interpreter Julia Clemesh. In the statement, the phrases reported and pronounced in the language of Amanda Knox have been translated by the Technical Consultant Dr Alessandro Clericuzio.” and the administrative annotations “Crim. Proc. n. 9066/07” and “Of the day 17 December 2007”.  The footer on each page carries the annotations: “Technical Consultant Rosanna Siesto”, “Interpreter Dr Alessandro Clericuzio” and the page number.]

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

    [1]  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.

    Continued in Part #2 at this address.

    Posted on 10/11/14 at 05:55 PM by Yummi, Catnip and Kristeva. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (26)

    Tuesday, October 07, 2014

    Translation Of The Nencini Sentencing Report Explaining The Failure Of The RS & AK Appeal

    Posted by The TJMK Main Posters





    This is the report by Judge Nencini now in English which the Italian Supreme Court will be ruling upon next March.

    The 355-page report was kindly emailed to us by Skeptical Bystander for the translation team on PMF-dot-Org which did all the work. Translation of the legal concepts and references was tough work but precise.

    The translators were Ald, Jools, Kristeva, Olleosnep, Maundy, Catnip, Tiziano, Katsgalore (our ZiaK), Thoughtful, Sallyoo, The 411, Tom, and Popper, and the proofreaders were Tom, Thoughtful, Popper and Skeptical Bystander.

    While the report can stand alone for the meticulous detail it includes, for a full confident understanding it should be read in conjunction with the following posts:

    In April last year the Supreme Court reinforced the definition of how narrow first appeals and their sentencing reports should be, which the Hellmann court had wildly exceded.

    See the top posts here. Our Italian lawyers reckon Judge Nencini has now followed that guideline to a tee.

    That makes overturning this legally impeccable report really tough for the defense teams of Bongiono, Maori, Dalla Vedova and Ghirga, none of whom have ever won a case before the Supreme Court.

    Among the many factors making it worse for the perps, the Prime Minister of Italy Mr Renzi is from Florence. For years he has worked closely with the highly respected Florence court.

    Attempts at a political endrun around Nencini and the Supreme Court will be dead at the gate.

    Posted on 10/07/14 at 04:28 PM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (29)

    Monday, October 06, 2014

    The Knox Interrogation Hoax #14: The Third Opportunity Knox Flunked: The Mignini Interview

    Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



    Prominent Rome criminal lawyer Dr Giancarlo Costa who walked off the Knox team soon after this

    1. Where This Series Stands

    Dozens of people have very aggressively gone to bat for Knox over her “interrogation” and still do.

    They trust that one or other of her versions of the 5-6 November 2007 police-station session is right.

    We have been demonstrating the rock-solid evidence that Knox and her supporters have lied and lied and there will be more evidence of this to come.

    We’ve shown in this series that Knox insisted on being there; she was merely helping to build a list; she was treated kindly and taken for refreshments; she was the only one overheard by anyone to raise her voice, when she screamed about Lumumba “He did it!”; it was Sollecito not the police saying that she had been lying and had made him lie; and there is documentary evidence that the police investigators who sat with Knox told the truth.

    Coming soon, we are going to post hundreds of very nasty claims by Knox shills, all sparked by and never reigned in by Knox.

    2. The Pre-Trial Hurdles Knox Failed

    Do you know how many major opportunities before her 2009 trial started Knox was given to get the murder charges dropped? This is not something Knox supporters trumpet about, if they even know.

    In fact there were six, and Knox dismally failed them all.

    In 2007 there were (1) the Matteini hearing and (2) the Ricciarelli hearing in November and (3) the Mignini interview in December.  And in 2008 there were (4) the separate Knox appeal and Sollecito appeal to the Supreme Court in April, and (5) the first Micheli hearings in September, and (6) the second Micheli hearings in October, which dispatched Knox and Sollecito for trial.

    In all six instances Knox’s team also had the opportunity to get the charges against Knox for calunnia against Lumumba dropped.

    As you will have seen in previous posts, Knox’s team pussyfooted about without conviction in the few brief instances when the 5-6 November session was discussed. In the Mignini hearing of 17 December 2007 they eventually advised her it would be in her best interests to shut up.

    3. The Four-Post Translation Of Knox’s Interview By Dr Mignini

    The translation of this interview by Dr Mignini at Capanne Prison was done by Catnip, Yummi and Kristeva. It is carried in full in these posts.

    Knox, Tied In Knots By Her Own Tongue: Translation Of The 17 Dec 2007 Interview With Dr Mignini #1

    Knox, Tied In Knots By Her Own Tongue: Translation Of The 17 Dec 2007 Interview With Dr Mignini #2

    Knox, Tied In Knots By Her Own Tongue: Translation Of The 17 Dec 2007 Interview With Dr Mignini #3

    Knox, Tied In Knots By Her Own Tongue: Translation Of The 17 Dec 2007 Interview With Dr Mignini #4

    This interview was sought-after by Knox, possibly seeing this as her last best chance to get herself off the hook and to avoid remaining locked up.  This lasted about three hours, until Knox’s lawyers interrupted to got her to clam up.

    Despite the many false claims about “interrogations” to the contrary, this was Knox’s first-ever in-depth interview. It was also the first-ever interview of Knox by Dr Mignini as prosecutor appointed to the case - as we have shown he asked Knox no questions on 5-6 Nov.

    All of the trial judges and appeal judges and lay judges had clearly studied this document hard. Also prosecutors and the Knox and Sollecito defense counsel periodically refer to it.


    Saturday, October 04, 2014

    Negative Drumbeat Continues: Two New Developments Mitigating Against Breaks for Knox Or Sollecito

    Posted by The TJMK Main Posters




    1. Overview

    Tick tick tick. The growth of factors negative to Sollecito and Knox is relentless.

    We already count several dozen, the most recent of which are the legally impeccable sentencing report by Judge Necini the lead Florence appeal judge, the expected hard line on Sollecito’s and Knox’s further appeal by a hard-line Supreme Court justice, the legal focus on the world-record blood money and two books riddled with felonies (more to come), the surfacing in the US media of Knox’s daily liaison with a drug kingpin (more to come), and the Sollecito camp’s ongoing moves to put Knox squarely between the fire and Sollecito (more to come).

    In the last couple of days these two stories hit the headlines with further implications negative to the foolishly uncomprehending pair.

    2. The Further Promotion Of Arturo De Felice

    The official title of the prime minister of Italy is President of the Council of Ministers, which is the counterpart body to the President’s cabinet in the United States and the Prime Minister’s cabinet in the United Kingdom

    Our main poster Jools has picked up reports by the Italian media that the Council of Ministers has appointed Dr Arturo de Felice (image above) to be Prefect of the Republic.

    As we understand it, the Prefect is a top post of unusual powers in the central government filled in times of generational change of the bodies of government, in which the Prefect is a sort of czar representing the agencies of the central government toward the regions, special cities and provinces (the province level is expected to be phased out).

    Perhaps the nearest equivalent in the American government is the Secretary of Homeland security, the czar who coordinates the CIA, FBI, and dozens of other security agencies.

    Why is this significant in ensuring justice for Meredith?

    Well, Dr Felice was the head of the Perugia police when Guede, Knox and Sollecito were arrested and he oversaw the investigations which began in November 2007 and were essentially concluded in summer 2008

    Dr Felice was at that point promoted to more senior regional and central posts. Then in 2012 he was appointed as head of the national anti-mafia department.

    At any one time Italian and American justice agencies are pursuing dozens and perhaps hundreds of matters of common interest and nobody in Italian justice oversees more dealings with the Federal Department of Justice or the FBI than the head of Italy’s anti-mafia department

    We see no signs that the Federal government will buck the Italian government as a favor to the convicted felon and admitted drug user Amanda Knox, but Dr Felice’s past and future roles will help greatly to keep things politically on the straight and narrow.

    3. Extradition To Mexico Of American

    We have had 18 posts on how extradition law, politics and statistics are stacked against Knox (see category link in right column) with this post by James Raper and this post by TomM as must-reads.

    Johnny Yen has picked up on the reports of the US Government extraditing an American to Mexico to face murder charges.

    For his role Dylan Ryan Johnson has now been sentenced to 13 years in a Mexican prison.

    Prosecutors allege that early on the morning of Sept. 7, 2003, when Johnson was 20, he drove his pickup truck into the small community of Empalme Escobedo in Guanajuato state and checked into a hotel with Hilario Garcia Rosales, who had worked for the American man. Johnson was intoxicated, according to witnesses.

    Johnson departed about an hour later, but told the hotel staff that his friend would be staying longer. The boy’s body was discovered the next day by a maid. Garcia was strangled shortly after someone had anal sex with him, according to forensic reports. Authorities originally accused Johnson of rape and premeditated murder, but he was convicted only of the latter….

    Johnson was on the Guanajuato prosecutor’s most wanted list for years until he was picked up on an international arrest warrant in 2012. A U.S. judge reviewed a summary of evidence against him before approving Mexico’s extradition request, and agreed that probable cause existed for the prosecution, applying American legal standards. In re Extradition of Dylan Ryan Johnson, No. 12-1832, U.S. Dist. Ct., W.D. Penn. (Opinion and Order Dismissing Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Mar. 11, 2013).

    This was one of the few extraditions of American nationals to make headlines but numerous other cases are handled quietly. It is almost unheard-of for governments with firm bilateral extradition treaties to fail to respect them.

    Posted on 10/04/14 at 04:40 PM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (27)

    Thursday, September 25, 2014

    Analysis #2 Of Testimony Of Dr Chiacchiera, Organized Crime Section: Discounting Any Lone Wolf

    Posted by Cardiol MD



    Dr Chiacchiera (talking) with his team explaining reason for charges in another case

    Overview Of This Series

    In 2007 Dr Chiacchiera was the Director of the Organized Crime Section and the Deputy Director of the Flying Squad.

    He was one of the most senior and experienced law enforcement officers to testify at the trial.  His testimony and his cross examination by the defenses occupied a lot of time of the court late in February 2009. He covered the following ground.

      (1) He found Knox and Sollecito uncooperative when he asked them questions.

      (2) Saw evidence contradicting any lone burglar theory and indicating that the “break-In” to Romanelli’s room was faked.

      (3) Phone records and the police investigation into the accused phone activity the night of the murder.

      (4) Discovery of pornographic magazines at Sollecito’s house.

      (5) Details of how the large knife, Exhibit 36, was collected from Sollecito’s and the evidence that it is the murder knife.

    All the translation is by the ever-dedicated main poster ZiaK. This series is highlighting some key portions. Here is the full 50-page transcript which will be posted in the trial testimony area of McCall’s great Wiki.

    This post continues analysis of the evidence that the lone burglar/lone wolf theory was not credible to those that were first on the crime scene and that the “break-In” to Filomena Romanelli’s room was to them obviously faked.

    Public Prosecutor Comodi [MC] Leads Testimony

    Judge Massei [GCM}:  Excuse me a moment, just to give some guidelines, but of the evaluations that the witness is expressing, obviously it’s not that they can be taken account of, however we will acquire them [for the trial files] in order to understand the investigation activities, the appropriateness of the investigations that were carried out, directed in one way or in another, there you go. However, maybe, … there you go, yes, maybe if we can manage to keep with the bare essentials this will help everybody.

    {Court proceedings seem to have been diverted into a free-for-all colloquy, with multiple participants chiming-in, and creating confusion. Court-President, GCM, now politely intervenes, apparently trying to restore order, ruling that the professional evaluations made by the witness, testified-to by the witness, should be admitted for the trial files. The appropriateness of the witness's evaluations can be dealt with separately and later.}

    Manuela Comodi [MC}:  Well, in short, they were called … they are the only ones who can describe the whole progression of the investigations - Dr Profazio and Dr Chiacciera – because they are directors, they are the only ones who will come to describe for me, thus, what was the progression of the investigations. Clearly, in order to pass from one investigative act to another rather than … and the choice of the subsequent investigative acts. It’s clear that they have to describe, in order to make a complete reasoning, even the lines of thought that, as Dr Chiacchiera said, it sometimes happens that they make. However, one point: apart from the break-in, apart from the broken window, there are … did you acquire further elements that corroborated the idea that there had been a burglary? Nothing from Romanelli’s room had been carried off? Valuable things had been taken?

    {Examiner acknowledges Court's admonition, argues importance of her witness's testimony, and segués into triple-Q addressed to witness re elements corroborating idea of burglary.}

    Dr Chiacchiera [MaCh]:  This ... in fact, in the progress ...

    {Witness begins to answer, but is interrupted by Examiner}

    MC:  Was a declaration/complaint of theft made then, with a list of the things taken?

    {Examiner interrupts witness with new double-Q}

    MaCh:  In the logical progression, if I may in some way still, in summary, say what ….

    {Witness begins narrative response but is interrupted by Court}

    GCM:  Say the objective facts, if you have ….

    {Court interrupts witness, beginning to admonish him to respond by testifying to objective facts, but is itself interrupted by witness}

    MaCh:  Nothing disappeared, so a burglar would have had difficulty …

    {Witness answers 3rd Q of Examiner's above triple Q, but then launches into a narrative beginning: "so…", but Court interrupts}

    GCM:  Excuse me, nothing had disappeared? Before all else, what thing .... you knew what things were in that room that did not disappear?

    {Court interrupts, questioning basis for witness's statement that "Nothing disappeared"}

    MaCh:  Yes, because, shall we say, the investigation elements that then subsequently emerged, allowed us to deduce that from Romanelli’s room absolutely nothing disappeared. There was a complete mess/chaos, but nothing disappeared from Romanelli’s room. And this is another element to [lead us] to obviously deduce that the desired hypothesis of a burglar and of a theft was objectively … But then the burglar does not [sic] close the door and throw away the key. The burglar does not cover the victim. The burglar …

    {Witness answers Court's Q, with narrative explanation including reference to "the key", and Court interrupts}

    GCM:  Excuse me. They key. What is this detail about the key? What is it?

    {Court asks Q simple Q re "the key" - with apparent transcriptional error: "They key"}

    MaCh:  There was no key.

    {Witness answers Court's Q}

    GCM:  There was no key where?

    {Court asks simple Q}

    MaCh:  Those who entered into the inside of the house first found the door closed. A closed door that then aroused the suspicions and that then gave concern and then it was decided to … to break [it] down.

    {Witness responds to Court's Q with narrative explanation}

    GCM:  Excuse me, on [sic] Romanelli’s room there was no key?

    {Court asks another simple Q}

    MaCh:  No, I’m talking of Meredith’s room, Mr President; Meredith’s room was locked by key.
    This is another … how to say, the investigative deductions that we drew from these details that emerged, also from the declarations that we gathered.

    {Witness responds to Court's Q, and informatively amplifies A}

    MC:  Was it normal that Meredith closed herself [sic. i.e. her room] by key?

    {Examiner asks witness a simple Q}

    MaCh:  No.

    {Witness gives simple A}

    MC:  And did you find the key of Meredith’s room?

    {Examiner asks witness a simple Q}

    MaCh:  No.

    {Witness gives simple A}

    MC:  So it was closed by key, but there was no key inside?

    {Examiner summarises witness's testimony re key and poses a simple Q}

    MaCh:  But there was no key inside, so that it was necessary to break down the door in order to enter. Also the almost inexplicable detail of the presence of two cellphones in a garden of a house, doesn’t tend to favour the thesis of someone who enters and who accidentally, so to speak, finds a person and then kills them, because [he] is forced to kill them because they have seen [his] face.

    {Witness responds to Q in form of confirming-repetition and amplifies A in expanded narrative-form}

    MC:  But is via Sperandio far from via della Pergola?

    {Examiner poses vague Q re proximity of 2 streets}

    MaCh:  No. And there we tried to deduce. And via Sperandio, as I said earlier, Doctoressa, is not far from the house. We discussed [this] to understand why these telephones went and ended up there …

    {Witness answers simply, and respectfully, introducing " the house" on one of the streets, seguéing into subject of the mobile telephones and is interrupted by the Court}

    GCM:  Excuse me. When you say it is not far from the house, can you specify at what distance? How one reaches it?

    {The Court's interruption is also vague, with double-Q, referring to an unspecified "it"}

    MaCh:  Not far from the house means that, by following a route that any Perugian knows, Mr President, one passes through a park and one arrives, let’s say, near the gateway of Porta Sant’Angelo. So for this reason, as the crow flies, how much would it be, but less [sic] … three hundred, four hundred metres. But to reach it by foot from via della Pergola to via Sperandio I think that it doesn’t take more than 5, [or] 7 minutes.

    {Witness responds to Court in explanatory narrative form

    MC: But do you have to pass by via Garibaldi?

    {Examiner asks simple Q}

    MaCh:  Yes. But you can also pass through the park – there’s a park that then comes out right in front.

    {Witness answers Q, and amplifies his response}

    MC:  Of the villa?

    {Examiner seeks clarification of witness's response}

    MaCh:  In front of the villa, at the entry to the villa. Looking from the street that crosses with the provincial [road], the one that, shall we say, borders the villa, whoever is looking at it, I repeat, I – who am 44 years old, am Perugian – I did not know that there was a garden behind there.

    {Witness clarifies his response, amplifying further}

    MC:  And how far away is via Sperandio from via Garibaldi, corso Garibaldi?

    {Examiner asks apparently simple Q}

    MaCh:  it’s parallel. It’s very close, very very close. It’s 200 metres away, as the crow flies. I think even much less, because they are almost parallel, let’s say. Even that is something that in some way made us understand that there was an interest in getting rid of those cellphones, clearly, by whoever did that thing there.

    {Witness gives detailed response;
    See: "Just seeing police could panic the killers into instant dumping of the telephones, without even needing to know why the police were where the police were (There is no need to invoke any awareness by the phone-dumper[s] of the reason the Police were near Mrs. Lana’s place - the hoax-call.). So if the killers saw flashing police-lights, or any other sign of police near Mrs. Lana’s place, that sign could be enough to explain panic phone-dumping - then and there (not considering whether the phones were switched-on or switched-off)." In TJMK: "Updating Our Scenarios And Timelines #2: An Integrated Comparison Of The Timing of the Phone-Events." 6/28/2013}

    MC:  When you arrived for the first time in via della Pergola, did you enter the room of the crime?

    {Examiner asks simple Q}

    MaCh:  Immediately, no. I went in afterwards, when Dr Mignini also arrived; and later with Dr Lalli. Then I had, how to say, occasionally entered when the crime-scene inspection of the Forensic Police, of the colleagues arrived from Rome, was already begun, so late. I didn’t stop long inside the house, I say the truth, also because the measures/orders that I issued immediately were those, yes, of deducing, [of] drawing out all the investigative elements that might emerge in the immediate surroundings [and/or immediately after the facts] to seek to immediately direct the investigation activity, but also to “freeze” [sic. i.e. to solidify, or to make concrete] another aspect, which was that of hearing/questioning all the people who might tell us details on Meredith’s stay in Perugia, in general, but above all on her final hours, on her visits/visitors, everything about those who Meredith had known in some way and … This was the thing that we considered logical to do precisely in relation to this, to these first investigative deductions that we drew from the [above]-described crime-scene.

    {Witness gives detailed narrative reply}

    MC:  And so that same day you were present when they began to hear/question…

    {Examiner begins preamble to presumed Q, but is interrupted}

    MaCh:  Yes.

    {Witness interrupts Examiner with witness's answer to assumed Q}

    MC:  … the people [who were] acquainted with the facts.

    {Examiner completes interrupted Q-in-the-form-of-a-statement, which omits Q-mark}

    MaCh:  I was present. I did not participate personally in the examination [of witnesses], but I was present, in the sense that both with [my] colleague Profazio and with [my] other colleague from the central operative service…

    {Witness responds with narrative description of circumstances, but is interrupted}

    MC:  from Rome.

    {Examiner interrupts with her assumed next part of witness's response}

    MaCh:  from Rome. We began to put the pieces together, excuse my [use of] the expression; that is to say all the … all the elements that emerged from the examination of witnesses, were checked, were gradually verified/cross-checked.  Both with cross-checks that enlarged the group of witnesses, of the people to be heard/questioned, and with the checking of the alibis of many people, [as well as] with a technical activity that was carried out.

    {Witness confirms Examiner's assumption, and completes his narrative description of circumstances}

    MC:  That is to say?

    {Examiner enquires as to witness's reference to indefinite "technical activity"}

    MaCh:  A technical activity. A bugging activity was carried out. There was also an activity carried out also for the cross-checking of the phone [activity] printouts. There was an activity to understand also the cross-checking of the [phone] cells. There was a very wide-range activity carried out. Without excluding, I repeat, all also [sic] ... shall we say, the minor hypotheses. For example, the news arrived of a Maghrebi who had been in a rush to wash his own clothes in a launderette, not too far from the scene of the crime. This piece of information was excluded for a very simple reason, because from the first results of the investigative inquiries, he had arrived there in the early afternoon, but instead, in the early afternoon of the day before her death, Meredith was still alive [sic]. Because from the witness examinations we had determined that the last person who had seen her alive, saw her in the late afternoon. After which, we also did another series of checks relative to the one [sic] that there was a strange telephone call that the people who found the cellphones in the famous villa, the beautiful one on via Sperandio, had received in the evening. However, we had, how to say, understood that it was a case of a boy who had made a call from Terni and of a strange coincidence, but absolutely irrelevant for the investigation activity. Indeed, we made checks on all the hospitals in order to evaluate, to check, whether maybe there were [patients] who had presented blade/cutting wounds that in some way might have been compatible with a wound, let’s say, or at any rate with a reaction by the victim. Only one had presented, it was a [person] from Foligno who, [while] cutting salami, had cut their hand during the trip back from an away-game with Foligno – he was a football fan. Nothing else. So no investigative hypothesis was rejected. It was, obviously, because this is how it is done, and thus I believe that it is logic, we began to discuss/think in a certain way, because we had deduced from all this scen, another series of further elements, that is to say that the person ….

    {Witness responds with prolonged narrative re "technical activity" and seems to pause}

    MC:  Speak. Don’t be afraid to say it.

    {Examiner urges witness to continue}

    MaCh:  No, no. I’m not afraid.

    {Witness argues with Examiner}

    MC:  That is, let’s say, when was it that the investigations turned to, [started] to focus on today’s defendants?

    {Examiner asks simple Q}

    MaCh:  When on the evening of … they did not focus on today’s defendants, that is to say, progressively the analysis of the investigative elements made us … made us start, even us, to suspect. Because going into a house, finding a [sic] door of Meredith’s room closed, a [sic] door of the apartment opened, faeces in the toilet [bowl], while I take a shower, a series of bloody prints…

    {Witness responds in narrative form and is interrupted}

    MC:  However the faeces were in which of the two bathrooms?

    {Examiner interrupts witness with clarifying Q}

    MaCh:  Of the bathrooms. Me, if I take a shower in a bathroom where there are faeces, instinctively I flush the toilet, in short.

    {Witness makes non-responsive subjective statement and is interrupted}

    MC:  Yes, but the faeces were in the other bathroom.

    {Examiner engages witness in argument}

    MaCh:  Yes, yes, I understood. However, in short, in some way it comes instinctively, no?, to flush the toilet? The fact is that ….

    {Witness joins argument and is interrupted}

    GCM:  Excuse me, do you know how many bathrooms there were in the house?

    {Court interrupts argument with simple Q}

    MaCh:  Two.

    {Witness ignores actual Q and responds with answer to assumed follow-up Q}

    GCM:  Two bathrooms. Excuse me, please. Do you know that a shower was taken?

    {Court asks another simple Q, using vernacular ref. to whether a person used the shower, rather than that the the shower device was taken away.}

    MaCh:  Yes.

    {Witness answers Court's actual Q}

    GCM:  How do you know?

    {Court asks simple follow-on Q}

    MaCh:  I know because it is a thing that I cannot, I believe, report because it was ….

    {Witness seems to answer in non-responsive, subjective narrative form, and is interrupted}

    GCM:  But you checked…?

    {Court seeks objective answer to his simple Q}

    MaCh:  I am trying to be very very careful.

    {Witness hints that he has reasons for apparent evasion}

    Giulia Bongiorno [GB]:  Mr President, we are talking of nothing.

    {Sollecito's lawyer chimes in with distracting comment}

    GCM:  Excuse me, Attorney.

    {Court appears to admonish GCM not to chime-in without specified legal-objection}

    MaCh:  Well, the main point [is] that very slowly we began to understand that there were strong inconsistencies in the revelations that were made. And there were behaviours that on the part of above all, indeed exclusively, of Sollecito and Knox, appeared to us as [being], at the very least, particular. Behaviours both immediately after the event – a sort of impatience/irritability shown [with regard to] the investigation activity that we were carrying out, and obviously we could not but ask [NdT: i.e. “we had to ask”] those who were close to Meredith [about] elements that we considered useful, even necessary, in order to continue the investigation activity.

    {Witness launches into apparent justification for his evasiveness}

    MC:  Excuse me if I interrupt you. I’ll just make a few precise questions, thus: you checked, let’s say, let’s call them alibis, even if it’s a term that’s very so [sic] from American TV films, but in any case [it’s] understandable… Did you check the alibis of the people closest, let’s say, to Meredith?

    {Examiner, after preamble, asks relatively simple Q}

    MaCh:  Yes.

    {Witness answers Q as phrased}

    MC:  In particular, did you check the alibis of the young men from the [apartment on] the floor below?

    {Examiner asks simple Q}

    MaCh:  Yes.

    {Witness answers Q as phrased}

    MC:  Results?

    {Examiner poses Q in casual form}

    MaCh:  Positive for them, in the sense that they were at home, in their own home, that is to say their respective houses, because they were here for reasons of study, so they were not present in Perugia during the days when …

    {Witness responds with allusive casual A, begins to amplify, but is interrupted}

    MC:  Because they had left for …

    {Examiner interrupts with suggestion for next part of witness's response}

    MaCh:  Yes, for the All Souls’ Day long-weekend, let’s call it that.

    {Withess reacts to Examiner's suggestion by stating reason for upcoming week-end absence, but not stating week-end destination}

    MC:  Did you check the alibi of Mezzetti and of Romanelli?

    {Examiner asks double Q}

    MaCh:  Yes.

    {Witness answers for both Qs}

    MC:  Results?

    {Examiner poses Q in casual form}

    MaCh:  The result in this case also [is that] Mezzetti and Romanelli were not there, so …

    {Witness gives clear Answer, apparently begins explanation, but is interrupted}

    GCM:  Excuse me, can you say what checks you did?

    {Court interrupts witness's testimony to ask Q re witness's method}

    MaCh:  We carried out a whole series of checks that brought us to evaluate, establish, that these persons were not present in the premises that evening.

    {Witness ignores Court's Q as phrased and answers anticipated next Q}

    MC:  Let’s say, I imagine that you heard/questioned them.

    {Examiner makes statement-in-form-of-Q with ?-mark omitted}

    MaCh:  Yes.

    {Witness answers presumed Q}

    MC:  Did they tell you where they were that evening, what they did that evening…?

    {Examiner seems to interrupt and asks double-Q}

    MaCh:  And in effect, we assessed/considered that …

    {Witness ignores Q-as-phrased and is apparently interrupted}

    MC:  And you ascertained that in effect …

    {Examiner apparently interrupts A and continues his interrupted multiple Q}

    MaCh:  That it was true what they had told us. I can report on the circumstance.

    {Witness seems to continue his interrupted answer and offers to expand his narrative.
    Q &A cycle is confused and confusing because of repeated multiple Qs, instead of orderly single Q & A}

    MC:  Did you check the alibi of Amanda Knox and of Raffaele Sollecito? Was there a comparison between the declarations of Amanda Knox and of Raffaele Sollecito with regard to the night of the murder, and what you were able to compare, shall we say, objectively, through the other declarations, through the phone records?

    {Examiner asks multiple Qs}

    MaCh:  Through the phone records and through the checks [that were], shall we say, objective, it was found that what Sollecito had declared was not truthful because there was a phone call that was never received [i.e. answered] by Sollecito at 23:00 hours. Because it turned out that there was no interaction with the computer, but I believe that this … as declared [sic]. But above all there was an absolute incongruity of the ….

    {Witness summarizing findings wrt phone records, is interrupted}

    GCM:  There now. Excuse me. Maybe we will not ask the question in these terms: following the declarations, on which you cannot report, that you got from and that were given by Amanda Knox and Sollecito Raffaele, what type of investigations you carried out…

    {Court interrupts to restrict Qs but is interrupted}

    MaCh:  We carried out ...

    {Witness interrupts Court's interruption and is interrupted}

    GCM:  ... and the outcome of these investigations. There now. This is where we’re at.

    {Court completes it's interruption, seeming to believe he has made himself clear, but confusion still reigns}

    MaCh:  Well, in summary ...

    {Witness begins a summary, but is interrupted}

    GCM:  Following the declarations given by them, you had … With regard to Sollecito Raffaele, what did you do and what [information] emerged?

    {Court interrupts witness with double-Q}

    MaCh:  It emerged that, unlike …

    {Witness begins to answer Court's 2nd Q, but Court interrupts}

    GCM:  What did you do, first?

    {Court repeats1st Q}

    MaCh:  We did an analysis of the telephone traffic, and from the analysis of the telephone traffic it emerged that Sollecito had absolutely not received/answered the 23:00 hours phone call as he had declared. From the analysis of the telephone traffic, there then emerged a very strange detail, in the sense that the cellphones …

    {Witness answers 1st Q, begins answering 2nd Q, and is interrupted by Sollecito's lawyer}

    GB:  (overlapping voices) … continue with the opinions/judgements, with all the opinions/judgements.

    {Sollecito's lawyer seems to demand comprehensive testimony}

    GCM:  That which emerged.

    {Court makes seemingly cryptic statement which is probably a Q relating to witness's interrupted A to Court's 2nd Q above: "It emerged that, unlike …" }

    MaCh:  A detail/particular emerged ... unlike what …. (overlapped voices).

    {Witness resumes testimony but is interrupted, multiple voices are heard}

    GCM:  Excuse me. What emerged?

    {Court asks witness to clarify what witness was saying}
    _____________________________________________

    Here ends the Analysis of the Evidence #2, discussing that the lone burglar theory is not credible, and that “Break-In” to Romanelli’s room was faked.

    The next Post:  Analysis of the Evidence #3, will Analyse the Phone records and the police investigation into the accused phone activity the night of the murder.

     

    Posted on 09/25/14 at 04:22 AM by Cardiol MD. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in Guede good guy hoax
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (31)

    Monday, September 15, 2014

    Analysis #1 Of Testimony Of Marco Chiacchiera, Director, Organized Crime Section, Flying Squad

    Posted by Cardiol MD



    Dr Chiacchiera with Dr Comodi explaining reason for charges in another case

    Overview Of This Series

    Yet another vital translation which will be posted in the trial testimony areaof McCall’s great Wiki. This again is translated by the ever-dedicated main posterr ZiaK.

    Although I graduated as a medical doctor I also graduated as a lawyer, and was often in courtrooms. For this post and the rest of the Chiacchiera series I am wearing my lawyer’s hat to point out what strikes me in Prosecutor Comodi’s questions,  Marco Chiacchiera’s testimony, and the cross-examinations by defense lawyers.

    Prior Preparations And Procedures

    Under the Italian Code, before the beginning of the trial phase in Italy, the parties file a brief, detailing all evidence they want to present – the parties have to indicate by name every witness and precisely what these will be asked. The aims include creation of a Record of Admissible Facts.

    Also under the Italian Code, both the defendant and the prosecutor can cross-examine each other’s witnesses. The Judge may choose not to admit any testimony that appears patently superfluous, reject irrelevant or improper or irregular questions – such as leading questions, and Inadmissible Hearsay – and also ask questions to the witnesses and experts.

    Ground Covered In Dr Chiacchiera’s Testimony

      (1) He found Knox and Sollecito uncooperative when he asked them questions.

      (2) Saw evidence contradicting any lone burglar theory and indicating that the “break-In” to Romanelli’s room was faked.

      (3) Phone records and the police investigation into the accused phone activity the night of the murder.

      (4) Discovery of pornographic magazines at Sollecito’s house.

      (5) Details of how the large knife, Exhibit 36, was collected from Sollecito’s and the evidence that it is the murder knife.


    My Assessment Of This Court Exchange

    It is immediately obvious to me that this witness is a skilled witness; as such, and given his deep hands-on involvement in the immediate investigation this witness’s testimony is credible.  My assessment therefore is that this was a very good and unflinching witness and that Dr Comodi shows no signs of leading the witness or seeking other than a truthful record.

    I have seen prosecutors examine witnesses differently but dont believe the resultant record would have been superior. This would have stood up well in any American court.

    Public Prosecutor Comodi [MC]

    MC:  Dr Chiacchiera, you carried out your duties where, when, at what moment of the events?

    MaCh:  I was and am the director of the Organized Crime Section of the Flying Squad and I am the vice-director of the Flying Squad. The Organized Crime Section is a branch of the Flying Squad that deals with … the term, I think that in this place [i.e. the court] it is enough to say that it deals with organized crime. However, I am also the vice-director of the Flying Squad, for which [reason] I deal with, in the case of need, everything that is necessary [for] the various aspects.

    {Witness supplies 5 items of relevant information that Examiner should elicit at beginning of examination.}

    MC:  Can you tell the Court how you became aware of events, who called you, when you became involved?

    {Examiner asks another triple-question}

    MaCh:  Yes.

    {Witness simply answers question as worded by Examiner}

    MC:  For now, start to tell us, then maybe I will intervene [NdT: i.e. interrupt with further questions] if necessary.

    {Examiner, asking no Q, instructs witness, suggesting provisional forbearance if witness does not make interruptions necessary.}

    MaCh:  On the fateful day, at around 12:33, I had gone to the cemetery with my mother. The operations room called me immediately after the discovery of the body.

    {Witness begins appropriate narrative response, but Examiner interrupts}

    MC:  So the 113? [NdT: 113 is the Italian State Police emergency number]

    {Examiner interrupts witness with a Q, suggesting witness's receipt of call from an emergency number, but suggests wrong source-number}

    MaCh:  110. The operations room of the Questura called me, and informed me of the happenings in an initially obviously very summarized manner. They said to me that there was a suspicious death, a young woman who lived in via della Pergola. I rushed to the place directly in my mother’s car. I didn’t stop by at the Questura, I didn’t go to get the service [i.e. police] car. I got myself taken to via della Pergola. We took about 15 minutes from the cemetery to there, ten fifteen minutes. In the meantime, I phoned the deputy Commissioner Napoleoni, in the temporary absence of the director, Dr Profazio, who arrived later, who was … he was enjoying a period of leave, and with deputy Commissioner Napoleoni we arrived almost at the same time. We arrived almost simultaneously at the premises. Forensics, too, arrived almost at the same time at the premises.

    {Witness supplies correct source-number and resumes interrupted narrative response}

    MC:  The Perugia Forensics?

    {Examiner questions witness's correction, as if to verify and to ensure accuracy of court's record}

    MaCh:  The Perugia Forensics, I highlight, yes.

    {Witness emphatically agrees with Examiner's question}

    MC:​[They were] alerted by you, or ...?

    {Examiner pauses mid-Q, inviting witness to guess complete Q, or is interrupted}

    MaCh:​Alerted by the operations room, and also alerted by me.
    ,
    {Witness responds to invitation, or interrupts with A to assumed complete Q}

    MC:​So you arrive, and who do you find?

    {Examiner's 1st simple Q.}

    MaCh: ​I found there ... there was already deputy Commissioner Napoleoni, there were also a few of Meredith’s co-tenants. There was Amanda Knox, there was Raffaele Sollecito. There were two young men who were, I believe, the friend of the boyfriend of one of the co-tenants. In short, there were a few people who had already been inside the house. There was the Postal Police.

    {Witness answers Q in reasonable detail}

    MC:​In the person of…?

    {Examiner seeks more detail re specific Postal Police Personnel}

    MaCh: ​Battistelli and another of Battistelli’s colleagues. Inspector Battistelli, with whom there was immediately a discussion in order to understand what were the reasons for his intervention there, because it is not normal to find the Postal [police] in a crime of this sort. And he explained to me immediately what was the reason for his intervention. The origin of the, shall we way of his intervention, was due to the discovery of a pair of cellphones in a period of time, I believe, of an hour, [or] two, I don’t recall clearly, that were one in the name of one of Meredith’s co-tenants and one in the name of, later it [sic] … I mean the SIM [card], obviously, the cellphones’ SIMs, the cards, they were in the name of a co-tenant and the other in Meredith’s [name]. The co-tenant, however, then told us, we then ascertained that both of the cellphones in fact were used by Meredith. And already that was, how shall we say, a first detail on which we began to reflect because, in fact, that was an element than in some way made us [become] immediately occupied/involved from an investigative point of view.

    {Witness responds to Q and includes relevant amplifying narrative, anticipating probable future Qs re cellphones}

    MC: ​So, excuse me, also if the Court already, shall we say, knows this, because others have reported it, on this point however, where were the cellphones found?

    {Examiner seems to interrupt with simple Q to clarify specific relevant fact not yet reached}

    MaCh:​Inside the garden of a villa that is in via Sperandio.

    {Witness responds appropriately}

    MC:​In via Sperandio.

    {Probably a Q, but implicitly inviting more specificity}

    MaCh: ​A villa that ... I am Perugian, [and] honestly, I didn’t even know there was a villa there. I’m Perugian, and I swear that I would have sworn [sic] that behind there was a wood.

    {Witness flounders, seems unable to be more specific}

    MC:​A field

    {Probably a Q, but implicitly inviting more specificity}

    MaCh: ​It [was] the first time that I went in behind there. Instead, I see a marvelous old mansion with an enormous garden that gives ... that is almost adjacent to the street – the street that leads towards Ponte Rio. Anyone from Perugia understands me maybe.

    {Witness seems to be in informal conversational mode}

    MC: ​From the structure of the fencing/enclosure, could you tell, shall we say, whether it was possible to throw these cellphones from the street, or whether it was necessary to enter the garden itself?

    {Examiner engages witness, and asks Q to clarify how cellphones got into that garden}

    MaCh: ​Yes, obviously, we checked that. In fact, immediately, in short, the detail that seemed, how shall we say, of great investigative interest was that [very point], besides other details that I will go [into] a bit [sic], so to speak, also to give the impression of what the immediate impact was that we saw in the moment when we found ourselves in a situation of this type. So, deputy Napoleoni immediately entered inside the house in order to check it for herself. I did it [entered] shortly afterwards, also because [as] you will imagine that in that moment whoever was there had to notify all those who [sic], amongst whom Dr Mignini who was the Public Prosecutor on duty, and immediately give orders so that the correct checks are carried out. Because it was not just a crime scene that had to be analysed immediately: there also had to be, how shall we say, correlated with the information that we had got from via Sperandio – because the entry of the Postal [police in the case] originated with via Sperandio. And so we immediately asked ourselves: “Ah, what are these cellphones belonging to poor Meredith doing inside the garden of a villa?” And then And then immediately after, we asked ourselves, obviously, what might be the profile of the possible, or probable, murderer, and we discussed/talked about the crime scene. The crime scene immediately seemed fairly strange to us, if you wish [NdT: literally “if we wish” in Italian, but meaning the same as “shall we say”, “if you wish”, “so to speak” etc.]

    {Witness responds to Q with detailed narrative}

    MC:​Why?

    {Examiner asks ambiguous Q, probably wrt crime scene seeming "fairly strange "}

    MaCh:​Because the door did not show… the entry door to the villa did not show signs of break-in. The we checked …

    {Witness seems to decipher ambiguity correctly, begins narrative response, but is interrupted by Examiner}

    MC:​We are not talking about the villa on via Sperandio obviously?

    {Examiner interrupts with Q, apparently not comprehending Witness's narratives}

    MaCh: ​For the love of god! It was called a “villa” … (overlap of voices), let’s say the house, of the house on via della Pergola there was no forcing/break-in. We found a forcing on the window. The window is this one, on the side of the house. I don’t know if you’ve seen the house? Anyhow, it is this one on the side of the house that can be seen immediately when you come down the slope from the gate. Logically reconstructing the thing, a hypothetical prowler [NdT: literally “ill-intentioned person”] who entered the house, breaking the glass with a rock - because inside the room, which was Romanelli’s room, which was the, shall we say, hypothetical arena of the entry, was completely in utter chaos. For that reason, what should we have hypothesized? That the hypothetical prowler took a rock, managed to throw the rock; the shutters, the external ones, the external shutters were not …

    {Witness is exasperated at Examiner's apparent incomprehension, is repeating his previous testimony, but is interrupted by Examiner}

    MC:​The dark-green wooden ones?

    {Examiner interrupts with Leading Q re colour of external shutters. Now begins a confused and confusing colloquy. The arrangement of Filomena Romanelli’s window, with Outside, and Inside Shutters, the Broken-Glass-Frame in-between, and the glass-splinters on the window-sill is complicated and needs a picture-exhibit that the witness can refer-to; this is apparently not provided, leading to the confusions}

    MaCh:​The dark-green wooden ones were half shut, for which reason [he] must have had an aim like “Pecos Bill” [NdT: a cartoon Wild West cowboy], takes aim and throws that rock, smashes the window. After, he climbs up and does a turn on the little slope, and has to clamber up towards the window on the smooth surface, it seems to me, that from the ground up to the window there are two and a half metres-three [metres]. And then would have said: “bah, in short” [sic]. Yeah, well, the thing seemed to us…. in short, the first hypothesis that the investigator normally does, finds a level of unlikelihood of this kind of happening. After which, we looked at the house and we saw that an entry of a potential prowler [ill-intentioned person], still reasoning on the hypothesis…

    {Witness amplifies narrative response but is interrupted by Examiner}

    MC:​Of theft.

    {Examiner inappropriately interrupts, incorrectly guessing what witness was about to say}

    MaCh: ​Of theft ending badly. Of theft that then degenerates because the burglar in some way thinks that he will find no-one in the house and instead finds a person, and then it degenerates … We saw that there were easier means of entry, without wishing to bore you, but behind the house there was the possibility of climbing in a much easier way, without being seen by people that might have passed in the road. Let’s remember that, in short, it was not very late; quite the contrary. Normally people passed there, for which reason, if [he] had done it, the thing would probably have been seen. That thing there, as an hypothesis, we didn’t immediately discount it, that’s clear, because it’s a good rule to never discount any hypothesis. But we immediately considered that it was not a priority.

    {Witness corrects Examiner's wrong guess, amplifies and seems to end narrative response}

    MC:​Dr Chiacchiera, I interrupt you. (The witness is shown an exhibit.)

    {Examiner, seems to acknowledge her habit of interruptions without actually interrupting, while introducing an unspecified exhibit. This introduction seems very informal, because Exhibits are normally identified by an assigned title.}

    MaCh:​Ah! I didn’t remember it as being so big.

    {Witness recognizes unspecified exhibit}

    MC:​Precisely! You saw it? This is the rock that ...

    {Examiner engages witness, stating it is "the rock".}

    MaCh:​Yes, but it has been some time I have not, how shall we say, yes, I saw it. Absolutely.
    However, it’s big, it’s huge.

    {Witness engages Examiner, commenting on how large the rock exhibit is}

    MC:​Do you consider that it could be this?

    {Examiner ambiguously (what are "it" & "this "?) asks witness's opinion}

    MaCh:​I believe so.

    {Witness seems to overlook ambiguity of Q with vague A)

    MC:​I try …

    {Examiner begins to speak but is interrupted}

    Judge Massei [GCM]:​How?

    {Court interrupts as if to ask Q how Examiner 'tries'}

    MC:​It is this. Yes, it is this one that was collected, yes, that was found.

    {Witness seems to confirm that exhibited rock is the rock found in Filomena’s room}

    GCM:​So the rock is shown. [NdT: an “aside” for the court records?]

    {Court formally announces admission of rock-exhibit, seemingly trying to reduce confusion caused by informal dialogue}

    MaCh:​Inside the room where we then found the rock…
    ??:​But what was the question about the rock?

    {Witness amplifies that rock had been found in a room, but enquires re rock Q, exposing confusion caused by informal dialogue}

    GCM:​If this was the rock. And the witness said ...

    {Court begins explanation to confused witness}

    MaCh:​I said yes. Yes.

    {Witness interrupts Court - confusion reigns}

    GCM:​You saw it? You saw the rock?

    {Court asks witness 2 Qs, trying to clarify that 'it' refers to 'the rock' that witness saw.}

    MaCh:​Yes.

    {Witness confirms that witness had previously seen the rock introduced into court as an unlisted exhibit.}

    GCM:​When you saw it, where was it?

    {Court proceeds to clarify confusion re where the rock was when witness originally saw the rock}

    MaCh:​The rock [was] in the room of Romanelli.

    {Witness specifically testifies, for witness's first time, that when witness originally saw the rock, the rock was in Filomena Romanelli’s room}

    GCM:​How far from the window? Can you say?

    {Court continues to seek clarification using double-Q.}

    MaCh: ​A few centimetres [NdT: “un palmo” = “a hand’s width”] from the window sill, under the window, from the wall where the window is.

    {Witness testifies clearly in answer to Court's 1st Q of above double-Q.}

    GCM:​So from the internal perimeter wall, from where the window gives onto it, a “hand’s breadth”. So 20 centimetres…

    {Court apparently begins to seek verification of witness's testimony, but is interrupted}

    MaCh:​Mr President ....

    {Witness begins to Interrupt Court}

    GCM:​... away from it approximately.

    {Court finishes his interrupted statement}

    MaCh:​Yes.

    {Witness agrees with Court's completed statement}

    GCM:​And this is the rock. You remember it.

    {Court states his understanding in form of Qs.}

    MaCh:​Yes, yes, yes, yes. That is the rock.

    {Witness impatiently agrees with Court's understanding}

    MC:​At least as far as size and colour [are concerned], it corresponds thus to the one that was collected [as evidence].

    {Examiner makes statements in form of Q, seeking verification of resemblance of exhibit-rock to original rock}

    MaCh:​At least as far as size and colour [are concerned], it absolutely corresponds. If it was collected, I think that ...

    {Witness begins narrative agreement with statements of Examiner, but is apparently interrupted by Examiner}

    MC: ​Very well. WITNESS [sic? Should be MaCh?] and Romanelli’s room was a complete shambles. The clothes were on the floor, the glass was strangely on top of the clothes, the [glass] shards were strangely on top of the … on the windowsill, let’s put it that way.

    {Apparent Transcriptional confusion attributing to interrupted witness narrative the interrupting .statement of Examiner}

    MC:​The outside one.

    {Examiner seems to amplify statement of Examiner wrt which window-shutter witness had been referring-to}

    MaCh: ​The outside one, precisely. The one that is between the shutters and the shutters [sic. NdT: “imposte” in Italian, but this can also mean shutters, or flap, as in the inner “scuri” shutters, or he may mean the window-frame itself, with the window-panes, given his following description], the green shutters and the shutters, the broken ones in short, where the glass is. The shutters – the wooden ones. The rock was a bit too close with regard to the wall if I [were to] throw it from least two metres. Unless it was lobbed [i.e. thrown in a high arc]. But in that case it’s rather unlikely that it would smash the glass. For that reason, I repeat, in the context of immediate likelihood, this one …

    {Witness agrees with Examiner that he was referring to "The outside one", continuing with narrative of reasoning, but is interrupted by Examiner…}

    MC:​Yes, it’s true. These are considerations. However they are considerations, shall we say, that refer [sic], because they are reasoning/lines of thought that are formed in the “immediacy” of the events [NdT: i.e. “in the immediate aftermath”. NOTE: throughout the text, a number of speakers use “immediatezza” (lit. “immediacy”) to convey a number of meanings, from “in the immediate aftermath”, or “in the immediate surroundings”, or “very soon after”, etc. I will translate them appropriately according to the context, without further explanation of the use of “immediatezza”], in order to proceed in one direction rather than another.

    {Examiner, interrupting witness, apparently agreeing with witness's reasoning. While Examiner is apparently stating his own argumentative reservations re the possible evolution-in-time of witness's changing lines of reasoning, he is interrupted by Giulia Bongiorno, Sollecito defense lawyer:}

    Giulia Bongiorno [GB]: ​I never like to interrupt an examination [of a witness], however if one wanted, between the Public Prosecutor’s hypotheses, to do that [sic] of demonstrating that from a ballistic point of view it is not possible, then the ballistic expert should be called.

    {GB interrupts Examiner to comment that Witness and Examiner are expressing opinions on Ballistics that require the testimony of a Ballistic Expert.}

    MC:​But in fact, his considerations are not the considerations of an expert: they are the considerations of an investigator who made certain deductions in the immediacy of the events.

    {Examiner argues that witness's testimony is that of an investigator's temporal train of thought.}

    MaCh:​It happens to us too, at times, to reason/think rationally …

    {Witness joins colloquy, amplifying Examiner's argument.}

    GCM:​These reasonings/deductions, then determined your investigative activity in one direction rather than in an …?

    {Court seems to invite further amplification by witness}

    MaCh: ​Yes, obviously, Mr President. I was trying to ... (overlap of voices) it is a premiss/basis to be able to then, how shall we say, reach – I won’t say conclusions – but in order to try to understand what our way of broaching the thing was, there and then. We had, I reassert, reasoned immediately also on via Sperandio. So the first thing, I may say, [was] the unlikelihood, or at any rate it was not the top priority hypothesis, the one of a prowler/ill-intentioned person entering. The open door without signs of break-in. But above all, a young woman who is [sic] probably killed in her own room, nude or almost nude, with a wound of that type, in a lake of blood, covered with a duvet. I repeat, the door was not smashed/wrecked, there’s a broken … a window broken with a thrown rock, how can I say, it’s obvious that we immediately found this situation as … (overlap of voices).

    MaCh:​… particular.

    {Witness further amplifies narrative}

    GCM:​You formed these considerations, and what did they lead you to?

    {Court asks simple Q.}

    MaCh: ​That very probably the author or authors knew the person, or at any rate that the author or authors did not enter … did not enter from the window-pane of that window.

    {Witness responds with his conclusion that the authors of the faked break-in did not enter from the window-pane of that window.}

    GCM: ​Excuse me a moment, just to give some guidelines, but of the evaluations that the witness is expressing, obviously it’s not that they can be taken account of, however we will acquire them [for the trial files] in order to understand the investigation activities, the appropriateness of the investigations that were carried out, directed in one way or in another, there you go. However, maybe, … there you go, yes, maybe if we can manage to keep with the bare essentials this will help everybody.

    {Court proceedings seem to have been diverted into a free-for-all colloquy, with multiple participants chiming-in, and creating confusion. Court-President, GCM, now politely intervenes, apparently trying to restore order, ruling that the professional evaluations made by the witness, testified-to by the witness, should be admitted for the trial files. The appropriateness of the witness's evaluations can be dealt with separately and later.}
    _________________________________________________

    This segment of Chiacchiera’s Testimony re the Crime Scene, which he believed had been remodeled by the criminals to dupe Investigators into believing that there had been a burglary, committed by a single criminal, is paused here because it is so prolonged.

    Analysis of Chiacchiera’s Testimony will continue in a future post.

     


    Sunday, September 14, 2014

    Now Raffaele Sollecito As Well As Amanda Knox Is Using A PayPal Link To Encourage Donations

    Posted by The TJMK Main Posters




    Sollecito And Knox Paypal Accounts

    Please check out the images at bottom here. As of today Knox’s PayPal account still exists.

    At the same time Sollecito has created a new one as GoFundMe dropped his solicitation page. PayPal and their own Italian lawyers are likely to regard these two accounts as hot potatoes when the following implications are shared with them.

    Imperiled Bank Accounts

    Each PayPal account will point behind the PayPal scenes to a bank account, which as this example among many others describes can be seized by American and Italian authorities.

    The Government wants the seized properties to be handed over to the authorities, and claims it’s permitted under U.S. law. This includes the bank account that was used by Megaupload for PayPal payouts. The account, described as “DSB 0320,” had a balance of roughly $4.7 million (36 million Hong Kong Dollars) at the time of the seizure, but processed more than $160 million over the years.

    “Records indicate that from August 2007 through January 2012 there were 1,403 deposits into the DBS 0320 account totaling HKD 1,260,508,432.01 from a PayPal account. These funds represent proceeds of crime and property involved in money laundering as more fully set out herein,” the complaint reads.

    PayPal refused to channel payments to the hacker organization Wikileaks and 14 members of the hacker group Anonymous who attempted denials of service attacks (DOS) against PayPal were charged and pleaded guilty.

    Strong evidence that law enforcement will work hard to help prevent the use of PayPal for activities it considers illegal. 

    How It Gets Worse For Them

    Knox is already a convicted felon for life for calunnia with no further appeal possible. Under PayPal’s terms of service that by itself seems sufficient grounds to bounce her. From Paypal’s rules for Donate buttons:

    Note: This button is intended for fundraising. If you are not raising money for a cause, please choose another option. Nonprofits must verify their status to withdraw donations they receive. Users that are not verified nonprofits must demonstrate how their donations will be used, once they raise more than $10,000.

    Neither have publicly specified in even the least detail who will get what and why out of the funds raised by this Donate button intended for good causes (think charities).

    How It Gets Worser For Them

    The pitches on the Knox and Sollecito websites are essentially the same as in their two books which are both riddled with demonstrably false accusations, for which Sollecito has already been charged and for which Knox will also in due course be charged.

    The charges against Sollecito are a mixture of calunnia and diffamazione, which are explained at the bottom here, and the charges against Knox are expected to be the same.

    In effect then this is seemingly not only Knox and Sollecito attempting to profit from crimes, but attempting to profit from crimes based on highly fraudulent accounts of those crimes for one component of which (as pointed out above) Knox has already served three years in prison.

    How It Gets Even Worser For Them

    “Defense Fund” implies the money being raised is all going to their Italian lawyers. If the lawyers accept such payments as fees that could become a problem for them.

    The same thing applies if any of the money raised goes to David Marriott, Ted Simon and Robert Barnett. It is now radioactive. They will presumably know this - know that they cannot profit from proceeds which are illegal under Son of Sam laws and obtained on fraudulent pretenses.

    And In Fact Even Worser For Them

    If Cassation dismisses the final appeal of Knox and Sollecito (for which the grounds seem very flimsy) they will each be liable for the millions in damages which Judge Massei imposed as modified by Judge Nencini.

    Donations legally labeled bloodmoney cannot under any circumstances be used to pay damages. Knox and Sollecito would have to generate new funds to pay the damages awards by legal earnings or by voluntary or forced selling off of any assets.

    The Bottom-Line Liabilities Here

    The financial liabilities Knox and Sollecito are presently incurring for themselves include (1) payment of all fees for legal and PR help in the US and Italy; (2) the clawing back of all bloodmoney profits from their crimes; (3) the payments of millions in damages as assessed by Judges Massei and Nencini; and (4) further fines and damages that are expected to result from their two books.

    Under the post below Popper posted this partial calculation for Knox; the forfeit of bloodmoney and possible future damage awards are additional.

    Massei gave (and Nencini confirmed) provisional damage to father and mother of Meredith of Euro 1 million each, to brothers and sister Euro 800,000 each, to PL Euro 50,000 and to the owner of the flat Euro 10,000.

    To this it must be added more for the legal costs in Appeal and Cassazione, so a total a bit short of Euro 5 million, about 6 million dollars.

    VAT and CPA must be paid on all the above sums, so more than that, we probably go over USD 6 million

    Together with the forfeit of bloodmoney and possible future damages imposed, this adds up to around the $10 million estimated in this post. Sollecito’s burden would be less, somewhat more than half of that. 

    Explanation Of Calunnia And Diffamazione

    The charge of calunnia (art. 368) has been commonly translated as “slander” in the English/US media. This translation is incorrect, however, as calunnia is a crime with no direct equivalent in the respective legal systems.

    The equivalent of “criminal slander” is diffamazione, which is an attack on someone’s reputation. Calunnia is the crime of making false criminal accusations against someone whom the accuser knows to be innocent, or to simulate/fabricate false evidence, independently of the credibility/admissibility of the accusation or evidence.

    The charges of calunnia and diffamazione are subject to very different jurisprudence. Diffamazione is public and explicit, and is a more minor offence, usually resulting in a fine and only prosecuted if the victim files a complaint, while calunnia can be secret or known only to the authorities. It may consist only of the simulation of clues, and is automatically prosecuted by the judiciary.

    The crimes of calunnia and diffamazione are located in different sections of the criminal code: while diffamazione is in the chapter entitled “crimes against honour” in the section of the Code protecting personal liberties, calunnia is discussed in the chapter entitled “crimes against the administration of justice”, in a section that protects public powers.


    Click for larger image





    Posted on 09/14/14 at 03:20 PM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in Those who were chargedRaff SollecitoThe wider contextsN America contextSollecito teamSollecito book hoaxesItalian justice hoaxNo-evidence hoax
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (28)

    Saturday, September 13, 2014

    Those Channeling Funding To RS And AK Should Definitely Take Note Of This

    Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



    GoFundMe has dropped this page of Sollecito’s which was soliciting funds under false pretenses


    The increasingly tough American bloodmoney laws (Son of Sam laws) were described here and here.

    These laws are operable at the federal level and in most states. The tendency is for the laws to be made more and more tough, and to spread the net of who could be charged more and more widely.

    Book publishers and TV networks have armies of lawyers who usually step in smartly to stop them being party to illegal money flows. All American TV networks have codes of ethics which prevent fees being paid that reward a crime.

    The bloodmoney net could be spread widely in the Perugia case if the Republic of Italy requests the invoking of these laws against Knox, Sollecito, their families, and the in-it-for-the-money opportunists such as Sforza, Fischer, and Moore.

    Their PR help also appears to be at risk, along with the shadow writers, book agents and publishers of the two books.

    Sollecito might have got a blessing in disguise then when GoFundMe the private-purposes fundraising site closing down his begging page (image above) after around $40,000 had been conned from the sheep.

    GoFundMe did that as part of a move to keep the company and the site away from controversy and the long arm of the law. This move is fairly typical of a broad trend on the internet as courts increasingly sentence harrassers, abusers, swindlers and money-grubbers to tough terms.

    Making money out of crime has never been a walk in the park, and anything gained rarely goes very far.

    Trying to make money illegally is fundamentally why OJ Simpson (images below) is serving a term for armed robbery east of Reno in Nevada - and in that case he considered the property he was robbing at a Las Vegas casino hotel was actually his own.

    In his case his wife and a friend were found slashed to death at her home a mile or two from his. Simpson nearly fled the country before trial, then he won an acquittal at criminal trial, and then he was convicted at a wrongful-death civil trial. Wikipedia explains.

    On February 5, 1997, a civil jury in Santa Monica, California, unanimously found Simpson liable for the wrongful death of and battery against Goldman, and battery against Brown. Daniel Petrocelli represented plaintiff Fred Goldman, Ronald Goldman’s father. Simpson was ordered to pay $33,500,000 in damages. In February 1999, an auction of Simpson’s Heisman Trophy and other belongings netted almost $500,000. The money went to the Goldman family.

    To avoid ever making any of the required payments to the Goldman family, Simpson squirreled assets and income away.

    The items he wanted back at the point of a gun at the Palace Station hotel and casino would have been worth a lot. But instead this foolish financial crime could cost him up to 33 years.

    Our take is that Sollecito may have squirreled away some of his gains, and Knox may have squirreled away much more. US law enforcement is capable of finding those payments if asked and if Knox’s family and paid help don’t press her to cough up.

    Hopefully it will be made to sink into that Knox’s panhandling (she is still at it via her website via Paypal) was not such a good idea.















    Wednesday, September 10, 2014

    The Knox Interrogation Hoax #13: The First Two Opportunities Knox Flunked: Matteini & Ricciarelli

    Posted by The TJMK Main Posters



    Judge Matteini and Judge Ricciarelli each held key hearings in November

    1. Where This Series Stands

    1. Summary Of Post #1

    Post #1 sets out the two versions of Knox’s sessions at the central police station on 5-6 November 2007.

    The first version has in total about two dozen eye witnesses, and it is the one that prevailed at the Massei trail and throughout all of the appeals -  Hellmann in 2011 (this part was not annulled), Casssation in 2013, and Nencini in 2014. Cassation in 2013 made Knox’s verdict and sentence of three years for the false accusation against Patrick final.

    The second version lacks any independent witness, although Sollecito makes some claims in his book that could be assumed to help Knox. There seems no sign that Knox’s own lawyers in Perugia have ever bought into any part of it, they have never lodged a complaint, they did not pursue it in cross-examination, and they have even cautioned against it.

    Knox’s lawyers seemed jumpy when Knox pursued elements of it (unconvincingly to the court) in her two days of testimony in July 2009.  Despite this, it is still sustained by Knox herself (in several contradictory versions) and by a number of PR campaigners.

    2. Summary Of Posts #2 to #9

    Those posts quote the relevant trial testimony of the six investigators (scroll down) who had the major roles in the 6-7 November sessions.

    2. The Pre-Trial Hurdles Knox Failed

    Do you know how many major opportunities before her 2009 trial started Knox was given to get the murder charges dropped? This is not something Knox supporters trumpet about, if they even know.

    In fact there were six, and Knox dismally failed them all.

    In 2007 there were (1) the Matteini hearing and (2) the Ricciarelli hearing in November (see below) and (3) the Mignini interview in December.  And in 2008 there were (4) the separate Knox appeal and Sollecito appeal to the Supreme Court in April, and (5) the first Micheli hearings in September, and (6) the second Micheli hearings in October, which dispatched Knox and Sollecito for trial.

    In all six instances Knox’s team also had the opportunity to get the charges against Knox for calunnia against Lumumba dropped.

    3. The First Hearing by Judge Matteini

    1. Summary Of The Hearing

    This key post by Nicki describes how every one of the numerous hoops Italian police and prosecutors must jump through is presided over by a guiding magistrate.

    Finally, in this ultra-cautious process, if the investigation has not been dropped and the guiding magistrate is confident that the police and prosecutors have made a case, they can then order it submitted directly for short-form trial (as with Guede) or for a trial judge (like Judge Micheli) to decide if there is a case for a long-form trial.

    At this point, 9 November 2007, the police investigations were far from done, and the existence of Guede was not yet known (though Knox hinted at him on 6 November) let alone the role he is serving 16 years for.

    The investigations continued through the summer of 2008 with Judge Matteini re-entering the process repeatedly. Even after the summer of 2008 additional witnesses were being sought and several including Kokomani and Quintavalle only came forward later.

    On 9 November 2007 Judge Matteini had before her the police summaries of evidence and witness and suspect statements. Knox and Sollecito were placed under arrest on 6 November and she had held separate hearings with Knox, Sollecito and Patrick with their lawyers present on the day before (8 November)

    2. Sollecito’s statement for his hearing

    Knox presented no written or oral statement to Judge Matteini on the very strong advice of her lawyers. Sollecito wrote one out. In various ways it separates him from Knox.

    Sollecito had seen his lawyers on 7 November in Capanne Prison. Sollecito was extensively interviewed by Judge Matteini (translation pending). He also submitted in advance a new statement for his own 8 November hearing which famously starts off “I wish to not see Amanda ever again.”

    ʺI wish to not see Amanda ever again.

    I met Amanda at a classical music concert which took place at the University for Foreigners of Perugia, about two weeks ago. I then met her again at the bar ʺLe Chic“: I went to this pub 2‐3 times just to see Amanda since she had told me that she worked there.

    A romantic relationship had taken shape and we have lived together since the first day at my house, and she would go back to her house at Via della Pergola more or less every other day to pick up her clothes and talk with her girlfriends. I have never met the man who runs the pub ʺLe Chicʺ and I did not know anything about the pub; I do not even know who worked there. I used to accompany Amanda to work at the pub around 22‐22.30 and then I went back to pick her up at 24.00‐00.30.

    I met Meredith at Amandaʹs house since they were friends and they lived together, besides her also Filomena and Laura lived there. We ate lunch at her house sometimes, and sometimes we ate at my house. While dinner [instead] always at my house or out. On 1 November, Amanda woke up before me. I went to see her later since she told me she wanted to go home to talk with her girlfriends.

    I arrived at about 13‐14 and there was Meredith who was wearing a pair of jeans which belong to her ex‐boyfriend who was in London, Meredith went out at around 16:00 and we stayed, and we went out at around 18:00.

    I point out that I make use of cannabis and I make use of it on every holiday, and whenever I need it. I am an anxious person. I do not remember how much I smoked, I certainly did [smoke] one at Amanda’s place, and at my house every time I felt like.

    At 18.00 we went out and we went to the [city] center passing by Piazza Grimana, Piazza Morlacchi alla Fontana and Corso Vannucci. We remained in the center until 20.30‐21 and then we went to my house; I do not remember at what time I had dinner, I think I had dinner together with Amanda.

    I remember Amanda received a few text messages on her phone and she replied. I do not remember whether the message arrived before or after dinner. Then she told me that the pub was closed, unlike every Tuesday and Thursday and thus she did not have to go to work that day. Iʹm not sure if Amanda went out that night, I do not remember.

    About that night I remember that the pipe under the sink had unlatched and, while I was washing things in the kitchen, the floor flooded, I tried to dry the floor and then, on Amanda’s suggestion, I let it go. I worked with my computer and then I went to bed. I received a call from my father, who calls me every night before I go to sleep, I do not remember if he called me on the landline phone or on the cell phone.

    The next morning Amanda woke up before me, she woke me up telling me that she wanted to go take a shower at her house because she did not like my shower. So she went out and I remained to sleep. She went out at around 9:30 to 10:00. Later she came back, she rung at my door and I woke up. I remember that she had changed her clothes and she was now wearing a white skirt while the day before she was wearing jeans. She carried a mop with her to clean the floor.

    I finished drying up the floor. I do not remember if we had breakfast together before or after. Amanda told me that she had found the front door wide open, with blood stains and that therefore all this was strange. She told me to go to her house to see what had happened, we got there and I was agitated.

    She opened the front door [and] I noticed that Filomenaʹs door was open with broken glass. The bathroom was clean except the bathmat and the sink which was stained with blood, she told me that someone had cut himself/herself or they were menstruating. The only thing that I noticed [is] that Meredith’s door was locked with the key and I tried to enter the room from the outside, while I was doing this Amanda was leaning over the railing to try to reach the window; she had knocked repeatedly and calling [sic] Meredith ʹs room.

    I tried to look through the keyhole and saw that there was a duffel bag and an open wardrobe‐door. Then I told her to call her girlfriends. I then called my sister who is an inspector and she told me to dial 112 [Carabinieri] and I gave [them] Amanda’s phone number. We remained out of the house to wait for the arrival of the Carabinieri. Some officers of the Postal Police arrived who wanted to talk to Filomena. When the officers of the Postal Police arrived we were out of the house. I remember I called 112 before the arrival of the Postal Police officers. I spoke with the officers of the Postal Police and Amanda too if she could understand what they said; I reported [to them] that there was something wrong by showing that Filomenaʹs bedroom door was wide open with broken glass on the floor and the door of Meredithʹs room was locked.

    Filomena arrived with her boyfriend and some friends of hers. The Postal Police officers broke down the door of Meredithʹs room and they said that they had seen a foot and some blood. Then the Carabinieri arrived.

    I previously made a false statement because I was under pressure and I was very agitated, I was shocked and I was afraid. I point out that on 5 November I was very agitated when the agents asked me questions because they put me under pressure. I confirm that on the night of 1 November I spent the night with Amanda. I do not remember if Amanda went out that evening. At 20.30 we were at my house. I got it mixed up.

    I remember that Amanda must have come back [home together] with me. I do not remember if she went out. My father calls me every day and I find it strange that he did not call on 1 November. I fail to understand why my prints are there; I [did] not enter that room; I was not wearing those shoes on 1 or 2 November. The one who killed her must have had my same shoes. They are rather common shoes.

    In my Internet blog where there are some of my feelings and in particular where I quote the Monster of Foligno [2] who came from the Onaoasi College, that was just irony.

    With regard to the faeces in the bathroom, I did not see them since I did not enter the bathroom, I was outside [the bathroom] and I leaned with my face toward the toilet bowl. Amanda got scared and she jumped on me and told me that the faeces were no longer there compared to before [sic] when she had gone to take a shower.

    I walk around with a knife that I use to carve trees. I have a collection of knives in Giovinazzo. I also have katanas, [but] they are blunt swords. Itʹs a passion that one about knives. I have always carried a knife with me in my pocket since I was 13 years old.

    I do not remember exactly if that Thursday night she went out, I remember well that I was on the computer more or less up to 12.00 smoking my joints. I am sure that I ate, that I remained at home and that Amanda slept with me.

    I have two knives, the one the Flying Squad seized is the one that I carry when I wear these garments; when I wear other clothing I carry the other knife; these two are my favorite knives. The Flying Squad put great psychological pressure on me. The first time we went to the police station we were kept there the whole night. I categorically rule out that I have ever entered the room where the victim was found.

    On 8 November Knox’s lawyers had just been appointed. Knox and her lawyers were perhaps at a disadvantage in the hearing, having just met. But Judge Matteini was not fact-finding and her only decision was to remand the three (including Patrick) in prison. Knox’s opportunity to talk came on 17 December 2007 in Capanne before Dr Mignini (see Post #15).

    On 6 November Amanda Knox had submitted three statements all linked to in Part 1 here and all written at her own insistence. Judge Matteini disallows these for use against Knox but allows them for use against others, later confirmed in a Cassation ruling which oddly was claimed as a new victory by Knox forces. The statements were never ruled illegally obtained.

    3. Matteini Report: The Full Version

    Because it is so long, our new translation of the Matteini report, with emphases in bold of what is especially significant, appears as Part 5 below under “Click here for more”.

    4. The Panel of Three Judges Chaired By Judge Ricciarelli

    Judge Riciarelli chaired a panel of judges on 30 November 2007 and, with more evidence, the findings were more forceful than Judge Matteini’s.

    For example the panel labeled both of the two dangerous with Knox demonstrating having several personalities. For the first time a court stated that the physical evidence pointed toward a group attack.

    There is a full translation of the Ricciarelli Report here. We will excerpt key passages here soon.

    Significantly, Knox and her defense are not reported anywhere as having made her 6 November “interrogation” an issue. So nearly a month has passed since the “interrogation” and Knox has seemingly still not complained to anyone except for one private letter from Knox to her lawyers on which they did not act.

    These media reports below will be supplemented soom by excerpts from the judges’ report.

    1. CNN Cable News Rome

    They carried a report in English on the Ricciarelli panel which included the following.

    A panel of judges in Italy said an American student held in connection with the killing of Meredith Kercher should stay in police custody because evidence suggested she had “fatal capacity for aggression,” Italian media reported Wednesday.

    A court ruled last week that Amanda Knox, 20, and her Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, 23, must remain in jail after lawyers for the pair appealed for their release.

    Massimo Ricciarelli, president of the panel of three judges that gave last Friday’s ruling, published the reasons for his decision Wednesday, Luca Maori, a lawyer for Sollecito confirmed to CNN.

    In his ruling, Ricciarelli said Knox’s detention was justified because evidence showed she has multiple personalities, according to the Italian daily newspaper, Corriere della Sera, which published transcripts of the ruling on its Web site.

    Corriere della Sera reported the judge as saying that Knox has a “high, we could say fatal, capacity for aggression.”

    “(Knox) has a disposition to follow whatever drive she has, even when they can end up in violent and uncontrollable acts,” the ruling said, according to the paper.

    Ricciarelli added that all the evidence suggested Kercher was killed by someone she knew, the paper reported, and investigations suggested that more than one person carried out the killing and that the villa where the body was found had not been broken into….

    According to the newspaper, the ruling said the lack of evidence of a break-in “proves that the killer did not have to exercise any type of violence in order to enter the house, having used the keys or having been allowed in by the victim herself.”

    A report issued more than a week ago by an Italian judge suggested Kercher may have been sexually assaulted at knifepoint before she was killed in her bed.

    John Follain Book

    In the excellent book A Death In Italy John Follain included this below. He leaves out that the panel concluded that there must have been several attackers though CNN above and Italian media did report that.

    30 November 2007

    Amanda and Raffaele’s hopes of freedom – a fortnight earlier both had made a new appeal for their release – were drastically dashed by a panel of three judges headed by Judge Massimo Ricciarelli. The judges endorsed much of Mignini’s reconstruction of the murder and decreed they should stay in prison.

    Their ruling was scathing in its analysis of Amanda. She had ‘a many-sided personality – self-confident, shrewd and naïve, but with a strong taste for taking centre stage and a marked, we could say fatal, ability in putting people together.’ She acted on her desires ‘even when they can lead to violent and uncontrollable acts.’

    As for Amanda’s statements since Meredith’s death, they were a ‘constant attempt to do and undo, to say something and then immediately deny it, as if she wanted to please everyone. Such behaviour seems to be the result of slyness and naïvety at the same time.’

    For the judges, there was no burglary at the cottage. Only Spiderman, they said, could have entered the cottage through Filomena’s broken window. Why would a thief have got rid of Meredith’s mobile phones so soon after the crime? And why would a killer take the phones with him in the first place, only to abandon them a short distance away? Meredith’s killers had taken them from the cottage, the judges surmised, because they didn’t want the phones to ring there. The killers needed to pretend to call Meredith after her death, and they didn’t want their call to help track her down to her room.

    ‘The killer did not have to exercise any type of violence in order to enter the house, having used the keys or having been allowed in by the victim herself,’ the judges said. Meredith was killed by someone she knew, and probably by more than one person.

    Raffaele had lied in claiming to have called the police before they arrived at the cottage. Nor had he gone to bed the previous night at about midnight or 1 a.m. He had spent a turbulent night, so much so that he had switched his mobile on again very early and received a message from his father at 6 a.m. – it was a goodnight message, clearly sent when the mobile was switched off and for that reason had reached him only the next morning.

    The judges mocked Raffaele for claiming he could recall spending a long time at his computer as well as smoking joints on the evening of 1 November. Appearing before the judges themselves a few days earlier, he’d given new details of his time at the computer which, they remarked, ‘clearly conflict with the pitch darkness that would have reigned in his mind after taking the drugs, unless he suffers from a particular pathology – the selective loss of memory.’

    An expert’s analysis of Raffaele’s laptop showed there had been human activity between 6.27 p.m. and 9.10 p.m. when the film Amélie was screened. There was no trace of human activity between 9.10 p.m. and 5.32 a.m. – ‘a formidable corroboration of Raffaele’s involvement’ as the dawn activity, they said, pointed to a virtually sleepless night.

    In his blog, Raffaele had failed to distance himself from serious criminals – he’d praised a convict who killed two boys – and above all he’d proclaimed his desire for ‘big thrills’. The judges also mentioned the photograph of him in which he brandished a cleaver. Violence, they concluded, attracted him. Both in his behaviour and in his wavering statements, which often fell into line with Amanda’s ‘dream-like’ accounts, Raffaele had shown himself to have a fragile temperament, ‘exposed to impulses and outside influences of every kind’.

    Click here for more

    Posted on 09/10/14 at 02:17 PM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in Those who were chargedAmanda KnoxThose officially involvedPolice and CSIKnox-Mellas teamKnox interrog hoax
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (11)

    Tuesday, September 09, 2014

    Italian Prime Minister Renzi Will Push Measures To Speed Up Justice

    Posted by The TJMK Main Posters





    In a move popular not least among those who are part of it Mr Renzi announces moves to speed up Italian justice.

    Italian justice and those who work in it are widely trusted and respected in Italy. But a very humane system designed post WWII to give those accused a level of rights unique in the world has been even further tilted over the years by politicians passing laws to aid political and business colleagues in legal trouble.

    Because there are now strong economic pressures, reforms may have a slim chance of parliamentary approval. In particular convicted perps’ automatic right to two levels of appeal for most crimes could be pared back more in line with the US and UK where a judge must decide if there are any real appeal grounds.

    Italian and US and UK lawyers among others have posted here on Italian justice about 40 times in the past six years. If you don’t have time for the full 40 these posts with some American comparisons provide good coverage of the key basics.

    1. Click here “They Were Held For A Year Without Even Being Charged!!” How Italian Justice REALLY Works

    2. Click here Why The Italian Judiciary’s Probably Less Prone to Pressure Than Any Other In The World

    3. Click here Why The Prosecutors In Italy Are Relatively Popular

    4. Click here Explaining How The Italian Appeals Process Works And Why It Consumes So Much Time

    5. Click here Italian Parliament Is Now Moving On A Bill To Speed Up Many Trials And Appeals

    6. Click here A Token Balance In The Italian System: The Voice In The Court For The Victim

    7. Click here Compared To Italy, Say, Precisely How Wicked Is The United States?

    8. Click here Interesting Tilts Of Marcia Clark And Alan Dershowitz Against US’s Non-Professional Jury System

    9. Click here The Terrible Weight On The Victim’s Family Because The Italian System Is So Very, Very Pro Defendant

    10. Click here Italy’s Advanced, Effective, Humane Law & Order System Also Adopted By City Of New York

    11. Click here Italy’s Unpopular Politicians And Mafia Fellow Travelers Against Italy’s Popular Justice System

    12. Click here The US Lacks Legal Authority To Decline To Deliver A Guilty Knox To Italian Authorities

    Posted on 09/09/14 at 02:05 PM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (4)

    Monday, September 08, 2014

    Barbie Nadeau Movie “Face Of An Angel” Wins Rave Reviews; Knox Defense Freaks

    Posted by Peter Quennell



    Cara Delevigne is a student similar to Meredith who enables the truth after Meredith’s death


    Can we expect more conniptions from Knox? In the movie, Genevieve Gaunt portrays her fictional double as humorless, self-absorbed, and dull.

    There is no Meredith part at the core of this BBC-sponsored commercial film. Instead Barbie Nadeau (to whom we owe many past posts) and director Michael Winterbottom have hit on a brilliant story device.

    Melanie, played by the British supermodel Cara Delevigne (image above) is a British student in Siena (northwest of Perugia, Siena is a similar walled town and university) and guide to Simone, an America reporter (Kate Beckinsale), and to Thomas, a documentary film-maker (Daniel Brühl).

    Thomas has come to Siena supposing that the story he wants to capture is the one that we all know (which was told pretty competently back in 2011 by Lifetime TV in which a plodding “Knox” also ended up looking dull, as a bright and funny “Meredith” ran rings around her in every way).

    Thomas in light of his discussions with Simone and especially with Melanie finds himself refocusing his project on who the murdered victim really was, and on the cynical sharp-elbowed wars between various reporters and various media outfits who come storming in. He concludes they mostly had focused 180 degrees the wrong way.

    A local blogger, an opportunist Frank Sforza surrogate, comes out looking particularly bad.

    By the end of the movie, the face of the angel in the title is very much that of the talented, funny high-achiever who a jealous, bullying mean-girl may have caused to pass away.

    And most of the media don’t exactly look good.

    The movie was unveiled at the Toronto Film Festival a few days ago. This is from the positive Hollywood Reporter review.

    The action can be roughly divided into three parts following Dante’s Divine Comedy.  In the early scenes Thomas arrives in Italy and meets the lovely journalist Simone, who like Dante’s Beatrice becomes his guide through Hell. She introduces him to the international reporters hanging around Siena hunting for scandal, and to an ambiguous local man (Valerio Mastrandrea) who frightens Thomas with his claims to know a lot about the murder.

    In the central part, Purgatory, he meets the pretty student, part-time waitress and party girl Melanie, played like an overly exuberant teenager by Delevingne. Finally, as the film progresses to Heaven, Thomas identifies her with the purity of the dead girl.  Anybody confused?

    There are many good things in the swiftly-moving narrative, filmed with a hand-held camera to give a documentary look. Wandering through the narrow Medieval streets of the city, the hero is assailed by ghostly voices and monsters in moments of coked-up paranoia. Harry Escott’s score heightens the poetic-exotic atmosphere of Hubert Taczanowski’s lensing, particularly in the final scenes that read more like a tone-poem than narrative.

    The UK Guardian (which had joined in the sliming of Italy and over-exposure of Knox more than any other newspaper in the US or UK) actually has a good first-hand report by Tom Kington and a good review by Paul McInnes.

    Amanda Knox’s lawyers threaten to sue if the movie taints Knox’s good image.

    What good image? Whose to taint? Nobody who actually knew her has ever had much good to say of Knox. And besides Italian TV has not purchased the film yet.

    And sue who? The BBC? Good luck with that. The lawyers for Barbie Nadeau and the BBC will know that the 2011 Lifetime movie portrayed a pushy loudmouth at front and center for over an hour, and from that many viewers in the US and UK concluded Knox seemed a loose canon or worse. The same Perugia lawyers’ legal threats back then went nowhere fast, and the movie didnt affect the (Hellmann) court.

    Let the Knox lawyers worry about the dozens of people Knox slimed in her book. And the Italian and US prosecutors who may take her down for the world-record bloodmoney she has gained. And for the highly illegal stalking of Meredith’s family by Knox and the vicious harrassment pack she leads around by the nose.

    Harrasment and stalking of victim’s families is an imprisonable offense, in Italy, the US and the UK.







    Posted on 09/08/14 at 07:24 PM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (12)

    Wednesday, September 03, 2014

    Sollecito Posting Of Knox’s Diary: Is He Again Prodding Knox Closer To The Fire To Help Himself?

    Posted by Peter Quennell



    Above and below: interiors of Capanne Prison built about a decade ago; Knox front-row right?


    Another potshot in the escalating Knox/Sollecito wars?

    In November 2007 in Capanne Prison Knox wrote prolifically in English in a diary.  Sollecito has now aggressively put it online together with the official Italian translation, as spotted by the sharp eyes of main poster Nell

    The diary was taken by prison authorities, apparently with no protest by Knox as she was pre-warned that her cell would need to be searched. The English original and an Italian translation were entered into evidence at trial, though the diary played no overt role of which we are aware.

    Defense forces helpfully offered it around perhaps in the hope that it would make the authorities not look so good.

    The diary then became the core of a 2008 book Amanda And The Others by Fiorenza Sarzanini, a prominent Italian journalist on the staff of the major newspaper Corriere.

    The book was not entirely unsympathetic to the real Knox. But Knox’s lawyers were seemingly concerned that her peculiar writings as riffed-upon by Sarzanini could subvert the preferred Knox image in court - though frankly that image was pretty daffy too.

    The Knox team sued the holding company of Corriere. They won an award in the first round, then that was reversed on appeal, and then last year Cassation partially reversed that verdict, and Knox was granted an award.

    Italian media reported all of this, but we didnt see any jubilant report in the US. Maybe because all Knox case-related income can be clawed back under US and Italian bloodmoney laws.

    However, according to the Italian reports, Corriere’s legal fault was held not to be one of copyright or of the privacy of Knox. It was in publishing passages in which Knox negatively highlighted others, such as the list of those she had had sex with, a no-no under Italian privacy laws.

    The Sarzanini book is still on sale in Italy, and there was no court ruling that it had to be withdrawn. The same passages Sollecito has put online are also in Italian in that book. There seems nothing in US or UK law that would forbid publishing of an English-language version if Fiorenza Sarzanini wants to do that.

    Ironically Knox with her own 2013 book seems to have run afoul of the self-same laws in her serial defaming of officials, and in due course she stands to lose much more than she had gained from that small award.

    Knox’s book was apparently put into Italian, though Italian and British editions were dropped at the last minute, days after Cassation ruled against Knox, in April last year. Oggi translated and published passages from the book which will see Oggi also taken to court.

    Hard to believe but Knox’s bamboozled shadow writer Linda Kulman and HarperCollins New York were reported as scrambling to remove a lot of defamatory passages from the US version before Knox’s book went out.

    We have posted several excerpts, which were pure fiction, and it is still the nasty work of a troubling psyche. Presumably that is Sollecito’s point.



    Posted on 09/03/14 at 02:28 AM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
    Archived in
    Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (18)

    Page 4 of 32 pages « First  <  2 3 4 5 6 >  Last »