Thursday, May 29, 2014
Ted “There Is No Evidence” Simon’s Tired Mantra Misinforms Americans And Provokes Italian Hard Line
Posted by Peter Quennell
Above: Ted Simon’s objective and accurate statements on the case against Amanda Knox (Dec 2008)
Is Ted Simon already gone?
Has Ted Simon been kicked off the Knox-Mellas team?
Ted Simon gets no mention on Knox’s website among the credits to her Italian legal and Seattle PR teams. He seems to serve zero useful purpose to anyone that we can see. One could train a parrot to repeat “there is no evidence” for a smaller fee.
Ted Simon is certainly not helping Knox to get back to Planet Earth - in January Judge Nencini awarded her another year inside, and for continuing legal incautions Knox could certainly face more time.
As he seems utterly ineffective on all fronts, maybe it was high time that Ted Simon was gone.
If so five good reasons why
A year ago, he seemingly allowed this false felony charge to be included in Knox’s book. That malicious claim could result in more prison time for Knox, and possibly open Ted Simon to a malpractice suit for zero due diligence done on her book - or at least this.
Since then, Amanda Knox has shot herself in the foot at least four more times, with no obvious legal restraint.
Knox charged ahead with the insulting and inaccurate email to Judge Nencini, the insulting and inaccurate appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, the insulting and inaccurate first response to the Nencini Report, and the insulting and inaccurate website which Knox foolishly runs.
And seven more reasons why
Our interest is for justice for Meredith and her family, for Italian justice to be seen in a fair light, and for an end to this protracted PR-driven dead-end fight, in which Ted Simon has had some hand.
So let us look at some other ways in which Ted Simon’s lazy mantra, a substitute for a convincing alternative scenario of the crime, gives, or at least gave, Amanda Knox false hopes and will ultimately let her down.
1. Take a look at this absurd claim by Ted Simon which millions of Americans now, large numbers of lawyers, and many TV hosts can laugh off as simply untrue.
“There was no hair, fiber, footprint, shoe print, handprint, palm print, fingerprint, sweat, saliva, DNA of Amanda Knox in the room where Meredith Kercher was killed,” attorney Theodore Simon told TODAY’s Savannah Guthrie. “That in and of itself tells you unassailably that she is innocent.” (CNN)
What exactly does that mean? Does Ted Simon even understand the scenario of the attack? This was a KNIFE attack, which does not usually see the exchange of a lot of DNA. There was the indisputable use of two knives in the attack - and Knox’s DNA is absolutely incontrovertibly on one.
Why does Ted Simon make no mention of that?
2. Meredith’s room was not fully swabbed for DNA because fingerprint dusting was the investigators’ (right) first choice. There were no fingerprints there - but there were none in Knox’s room either. Was she never there too? Knox’s lamp was found in Meredith room, with no prints. It would not have got there without help from her. There was a Knox-size shoeprint in the room. It would not have got there without help from her.
Why does Ted Simon make no mention of that?
3. Throughout the rest of the real crime-scene, which Ted Simon would really, really like Americans to forget includes a corridor, two bedrooms, and two bathrooms as well as Meredith’s room, there is stacks of unshaken forensic evidence against Knox. Indisputably a partial cleanup occurred because some footprints in several chains had been disappeared.
Why does Ted Simon make no mention of that?
4. There is, if anything, a surfeit of possible motives (not that there is a requirement for certainty there), and certainly there is a surfeit of alibis. Knox clearly framed Patrick. She was totally unprovoked by police, and yet even after three years actually served for felony framing, she continues to perpetrate the great hoax that she was.
Why does Ted Simon make no mention of that?
Why does Ted Simon make no mention of that?
6. Raffaele Sollecito was absolutely incontrovertibly in the apartment during the attack - his own lawyers have failed to prove the print on the mat was not his. Absent Knox, it is inconceivable that Sollecito was there.
Why does Ted Simon make no mention of that?
7. Finally dozens of lawyers are saying that the extradition treaty with Italy is crystal clear. If due process to a conviction was followed - and the American Embassy in Rome monitored it and saw nothing wrong - Knox could be on a plane within weeks to pay for what was a very cruel crime.
Why does Ted Simon make no mention of that?
New mantras in light of above
Due to sudden problems with Ted Simon’s gibberish machine, we are happy to step up and provide these for free.
There was no hair, fiber, footprint, shoe print, handprint, palm print, fingerprint, sweat, saliva, DNA of Rudy Guede in the bathroom where there was a bloody footprint of RS and DNA of Knox,” attorney Theodore Simon told TODAY’s Savannah Guthrie. “That in and of itself tells you unassailably that Guede did not do the crime alone.”
There was no hair, fiber, footprint, shoe print, handprint, palm print, fingerprint, sweat, saliva, DNA of Rudy Guede in Filomena’s room where the breakin was staged, though there was Knox’s DNA” attorney Theodore Simon told TODAY’s Savannah Guthrie. “That in and of itself tells you unassailably that Amanda Knox is framing him.”
There was no hair, fiber, footprint, shoe print, handprint, palm print, fingerprint, sweat, saliva, DNA of Amanda Knox in the bedroom where she slept,” attorney Theodore Simon told TODAY’s Savannah Guthrie. “That in and of itself tells you unassailably that Knox did not even live in the flat.”
Amanda Knox is thrilled. Thrilled!! Look for them soon on your local TV.
Below: Ted Simon’s shrill and misleading statements on the strength of the case against Amanda Knox (Feb 2010).
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (12)
Monday, May 26, 2014
The Nencini Email: Why This May Be The Last Time Knox Emails Such Obvious Lies To A Judge
Posted by SeekingUnderstanding
This was Amanda Knox’s own first appeal. It was not a prosecution appeal, or a second or third trial by ‘Italy’. This appeal only happened because Knox and Sollecito demanded it.
At maybe 99.999 percent of all appeals worldwide, the person doing the appealing would be sitting there at that table. But instead of heading-up and guiding her team and even addressing the court, as a generally very confident Sollecito did, Amanda Knox hung back, issuing insulting and misleading commentaries from Seattle.
Culminating in this email.
Pure genius. Or maybe not. Knox sent it via her hapless defense to the judge, loaded with nasty aspersions and false claims about the hard facts, on the same lines - only more-so - as her book Waiting To Be Heard of the previous April.
And guess what? Knox had her prison sentence increased by Judge Nencini. She appeals; she arrogantly taunts from afar; she ends up with more time behind bars.
Pure genius. Or maybe not. That too doesn’t happen in 99.999 percent of all appeals.
In other posts here on TJMK starting with FinnMacCool’s linked-to above, we examine the veracity of the actual content of the email. How did it match up to the hard facts already in evidence and mostly not even in dispute at this appeal?
We have already begun to show that the email sustains and substantially worsens the great Interrogation Hoax which has already cost Amanda Knox four years in prison.
Here we look at what the text would reveal to trained Italian officials (the original was in Italian) about the state of mind of the person who signed it. .
First, one cannot help but be struck by an atmosphere of fear emanating from the author. When we are consumed by our fears, and motivated by our adrenal glands, our cognitive abilities diminish, and, if we are prone to psychological projections, this is when they will burst out and frame others.
As I read this logically inconsistent and highly irregular email, it became vividly clear that this is what had probably happened here. It mirrors and portrays a fearful, unrealistic state of mind, underscored with defiant but very foolish psychological projections.
In this sense, the email has some pathos: it seems quite amazing that Amanda Knox’s lawyers, family and advisors saw fit to allow this to have been sent even though Knox might have been determined to have the last word.
It does, however, provide an opportunity to see psychological projection at work.
Because the entire writing is framed in the mode of ill-concealed psychological projections, we have a window into the constructs of projecting onto others.
Paragraphs 1 to 10
Court of Appeals of Florence section II Assise Proc. Pen, 11113
Letter sent to attorneys Carlo Dalla Vedova and Luciano Ghirga via email Seattle, 15 December 2013
Attn: Honorable Court of Appeals of Florence
I have no doubt that my lawyers have explained and demonstrated the important facts of this case that prove my innocence and discredit the unjustified…
Note ‘discredit’ and ‘unjustified’. They are inappropriate words, and highly presumptive. The whole purpose of a court of law is to carefully distinguish (according to thousands of years of learning) precisely what is just and justified and what is not.
The judiciary do not merely accept the explanations of the prosecution or defence lawyers: obviously this would render a court of law and all trials superfluous!
So, an inauspicious beginning.
Very often, an opening statement by someone - spoken or written - will be one of significance - from a psychological point of view. It would certainly be worth giving attention to, as it will frequently ‘map out’ the essential position of the author. Or, in a more usual phrase, ‘say where they are coming from’.
The position given away in Knox’s opening statement is that of a complete denial of and disdain for the purpose and function of a court of law, as well as disrespect for its need to follow due process, and for this to be complied with by all parties involved - including herself!
She is not exempt from the law, nor due process. Yet, the style of writing simultaneously illustrates a faux respect, something verging upon flattery towards Nencini. One can then observe these two distinct tones throughout the email.
accusations of the prosecution and civil parties. I seek not to supplant their work; rather, because I am not present to take part in this current phase of the judicial process, I feel compelled to share my own perspective as a six-year- long defendant and victim of injustice.
Note ‘feel compelled’, and ‘victim of injustice’: ‘feel compelled’ reveals an inner compulsion. It suggests that the email is other than a logical and rational consideration. Thus it speaks of a drive driven by fear, and adrenalin-led states. The second phrase, ‘victim of injustice’ is too assertive. It is asserted as a given truth, when in fact it is for the court to arrive at this conclusion. What is so odd, though, is that this appears not to be understood. There seems to be almost breathtaking disrespect and disregard, oddly dressed up in pseudo-respect.
The Court has access to my previous declarations
Note ‘my declarations’ - this seems to attribute to herself and her utterances a self-importance, which is out of kilter, given that her word has been proven to be founded on lies, on more than one occasion. An unrealistic self-confidence.
and I trust will review them before coming to a verdict. I must repeat: I am innocent.
Note ‘I must repeat:’ Why must she? This also appears overly-assertive, as in: ‘Methinks thou dost protest too much’.
’I am not a murderer. I am not a rapist. I am not a thief or a plotter or an instigator.’
Note the ‘I am not… I am not… I am not’. This sentence is very indicative of the obsession with the label and the image. ‘I am…’ or ‘I am not…’ this or that PERSON.
The point in question is not Amanda’s own self-absorption with the definition of her own personality, but whether she is culpable for a specific, named event, at one moment in time, viz, on November 1st 2007.
The court is only deciding about this single date. It is beyond its jurisdiction to decide whether she is ‘a murderer’ in an indelible, permanent sense. This matter is for her and her conscience.
I did not kill Meredith or take part in her murder or have any prior or special knowledge of what occurred that night. I was not there and had nothing to do with it.
Note this ‘I did not… I was not’. This reads as if inserted on the advice of lawyers.
’I am not present in the courtroom because I am afraid.’
Note ‘I am afraid’. This, alone of the subsequent paragraphs, is true. She is indeed afraid. But, of what? This is actually a profound question.
I am afraid that the prosecution’s vehemence will leave an impression on you, that their smoke and mirrors will blind you. I’m afraid of the universal problem of wrongful conviction. This is not for lack of faith in your powers of discernment, but because the prosecution has succeeded before in convincing a perfectly sound court of concerned and discerning adults to convict innocent people - Raffael and me.
Note this very contradictory statement. It is attempting to flatter Judge Nencini… ‘your (great) powers of discernment….perfectly sound ...concerned and discerning adults ...’ whilst simultaneously saying that he is so poor a judge that he will be ‘blinded’ and that he will hand her a ‘wrongful conviction’.
She cannot have it both ways, - which is something she has tried so often for before, (as in : ‘I vaguely remember Patrick killed her’....’this may be true, or I may have imagined it…’ etc.
This flattery-cum-put-down is confused and confusing, as well as showing circumlocution and insincerity.
’My life being on the line’
Note ‘MY life…’. This is a melodramatic statement, and one that is insulting to Meredith - whose life was indeed on and over the line. Amanda’s life has never been on the line. Her fears are speaking here.
and having with others ‘already suffered too much’
Note ‘suffered’. Self-centred in the extreme, given the tragic circumstances, as well as debatable. Some might say Knox appears to revel in having so much attention.
I’ve attentively followed this process and ‘gleaned the following’...
Note ‘gleaned’ - a very odd word to use. Almost suggesting, ‘these are the areas I have sifted out as being my best areas to stir up doubts’ etc. Seems to suggest a manipulative mind at work.
...facts that have emerged from the development of this case that I beg you not to dismiss when making your judgment:
No physical evidence places me in Meredith ‘s bedroom, the scene of the crime, because I was not there and didn’t take part in the crime.
Meredith’s murderer left ample evidence of his presence in the brutal scenario: handprints, footprints, shoe prints in Meredith’s blood; DNA in her purse, on her clothing, in her body.
No evidence places me in the same brutal scenario. The prosecution has failed to explain how I could have participated in the aggression and murder—to have been the one to fatally wound Meredith—without leaving any genetic trace of myself. That is because it is impossible. It is impossible to identify and destroy all genetic traces of myself in a crime scene and retain all genetic traces of another individual.
Note the ‘no physical evidence…’. This is the most sweeping scientific fallacy (which we deal with extensively elsewhere). That she has the audacity to proclaim it in these terms, towards a senior judge, does display arrogance, and, again, total disregard for due process, as if it just floats by her, not existing. After this she includes, in a surreal way, ‘Meredith’s murderer left ample evidence of (his) presence’. ‘Murderer’ is placed in the possessive, as in ‘Margaret’s gardener’, or ‘Sarah’s secretary’ - and as such denotes a personal relationship. Odd and eerie, and as all the email, consistently inconsistent.
Either I was there, or I wasn’t. The analysis of ‘the crime scene’
Note the ‘I was… or I wasnt’. Simple and blatant obfuscation. It is obvious to all but the most stupid that the crime scene is the whole house.
Therefore, since Ms. Knox is not stupid, to persist with this usage of the term is either stubbornly recalcitrant, or extremely misguided, - possibly both.
Again, her own unawareness of how others will read this insistence of hers, is very, very sad.
...answers this question: I wasn’t there.
My interrogation was illegal and produced a false ‘confession’ that demonstrated my non-knowledge of the crime- The subsequent memoriali, for which I was wrongfully found guilty of slander, did not further accuse but rather recanted that false ‘confession.’ Just as I testified to the prosecutor in prison and to my family members in prison when our conversations were being recorded without my knowledge.
Note ‘illegal interrogation’ and ‘false confession’. Our Intteroagtion Hoax series is addressing exactly this. The fact that knox can put forward a statement that is demonstrably untrue, on multiple levels, shows someone almost dangerously out of touch with reality, on an emotional level, (and equally out of touch with due process in law.)
The comment about conversations being recorded ‘without my knowledge’ shows irritation and annoyance, as if she wishes to control the investigation herself.
As if the authorities should have asked her permission first, so that she could tailor her comments to suit! ‘How dare they interfere with my manipulation of the evidence?’ Maybe this is an uncharitable inference - but one that is strongly suggested.
My behavior after the discovery of the murder indicates my innocence. I did not flee Italy when I had the chance. I stayed in Perugia and was at the police’s beck and call for over 50 hours in four days, convinced that I could help them find the murderer. I never thought or imagined that they would have used my openness and trust to fuel their suspicions.
Note ‘used my openness’. Again, demonstrably untrue. I am not able to find a single example of her ‘openness’ and trustworthiness in the days of her being a witness and the interrogations, from within the actual transcripts.
Her behaviour was however noted to have been inappropriate, unrestrained, possibly ‘spaced out’, irritated, melodramatic, angry, verbose, contradictory, and unpredictable. If she genuinely believes her state of mind at that time could be best described as ‘openness and trust’, then this suggests a worrying gulf between her own perception of herself, and how she comes across to others.
I did not hide myself or my feelings:
Note ‘I did not hide my feelings’ Indeed she didn’t. However, this is stated with the inference that this is a good thing, something she should be praised for. Some people believe in restraining the expression of their feelings - in case someone else is hurt by them. This would appear to be something she is ill acquainted with.
when I needed comfort, Rafael embraced me; when I was sad and scared, I cried; when I was angry, I swore and made insensitive remarks; when I was shocked, I paced or sat in silence; when I was trying to help, I answered questions, consoled Meredith’s friends and tried to keep a positive attitude.
Note ‘postive attitude’. Towards what? That she could positively ‘win’ in her attempt to cover up the truth? We do not know what she is being positive about. Self-absorption is again displayed. And as Judge Nencini said, ‘I do not know her. I have not met her.’ Towards what is her positivity directed?
Paragraphs 11 to 20
Upon entering the questura I had no understanding of my legal position. Twenty-years old and alone in a foreign country, I was innocent and never expected to be suspected and ‘subjugated to torture.’
Note ‘no understanding’ and ‘Subjugated to torture’. What an assertion, and more melodrama. Such a statement is foolish if she wishes to be taken seriously by a senior judge. In fact, although she appears not to know this, the statement was self-sabotage.
Also, twenty years old is adult - or should be. Any adult should know and obey the law, and co-operate automatically with law-enforcers with no back-patting.
I was interrogated as a suspect, but told I was a witness. I was questioned for a prolonged period in the middle of the night and in Italian, a language I barely knew. I was denied legal counsel- The Court of Cassation deemed the interrogation and the statements produced from it illegal. I was lied to, yelled at, threatened, slapped twice on the back of the head. I was told I had witnessed the murder and was suffering from amnesia. I was told that if I didn’t succeed in remembering what happened to Meredith that night I would never see my family again.
Note, well all of it. Complete fiction. Trial transcripts are very clear. She knew this was shot down by multiple witnesses and failed to avert a prison sentence.
Is this a (misguided) attempt to appeal to Judge Nencini’s heart strings as a father, from a baby twenty year old needing protection?
I was browbeaten into confusion and despair. When you berate, intimidate, lie to, threaten, confuse, and coerce someone in believing they are wrong, you are not going to find the truth.
Note the accusations. The last sentence could be inverted, and an inverse meaning found. What is Knox’s attitude towards the judiciary that have re-instated her guilt? Perhaps, some would say, she is attempting to ‘berate, threaten, lie to, confuse, and coerce’..the court ...into believing they are wrong (to say she is guilty.)
And no, this way, we are not going to find the truth. She is actually right there.
However, it is the duty of a court of justice not to yield to coercion, confusion, threats etc, and if there was more respect and adult understanding for the Italian judiciary, the defendants would know this, and not engage in what is clearly a waste of time.
Judge Nencini’s disdainful dismissal of the ‘highly irregular ‘ email showed he was fully aware of all implications. There are solid reasons for protocols.
The police coerced me into signing a false ‘confession’ that was without sense and should never have been considered a legitimate investigative lead. In this fragmentary and confused statement the police identified Patrick Lumumba as the murderer because we had exchanged text messages, the meaning of which the police wrongfully interpreted (‘Civediamo piu tardi. Buona serata’). The statement lacked a clear sequence of events, corroboration with any physical evidence, and fundamental information like: how and why the murder took place, if anyone else was present or involved, what happened afterward—it supplied partial, contradictory information and as the investigators would discover a little later, when Patrick Lumumba’s defense lawyer produced proof of him incontestable alibi, it was obviously inaccurate and unreliable. I simply didn’t know what they were demanding me to know. After over 50 hours of questioning over four days, I was mentally exhausted and I was confused.
This coerced and illegitimate statement was used by the police to arrest and detain a clearly innocent man with an iron-clad alibi with whom I had a friendly professional relationship. This coerced and illegitimate statement was used to convict me of slander. The prosecution and civil parties would have you believe that this coerced and illegitimate statement is proof of my involvement in the murder. ‘They are accusing and blaming me, a result of their own overreaching.
Note ‘50 hours of questioning’ which was actually less than half a dozen. Another statement that could be usefully inverted, and betrays itself as a psychological projection.
Knox over-reached herself in inventing the Patrick scenario, which was only blown open two weeks later by a reputable businessman. What is she doing, (in this whole paragraph about ‘the coerced false confession’) other than accusing and blaming (the police) as a result of (her own) overreaching?
We can see, from this and other examples, the unpleasant process of a person projecting what they themselves are doing, onto others. A projection attempts to transfer their own responsibility - either for character or deed - onto others, who can then be blamed or framed for the projector’s own wrong-doing, or wrong-being.
This process of projection, as well as projective identification, underlie so much cruelty and injustice in life, as well as the erosion of others’ identity, and the interference and/ or destruction in others’ lives.
Projection, for the most part, diminishes. It can be mild to vicious. In its milder forms, it can sometimes be used as a source for cutting humour : in its worst forms, which become pathological, it can and does lead to demonization, aggression, and even murder.
Yet again, in her unrestrained and exaggerated verbosity, Knox has demonstrated foolishness, and also under-estimation of the knowledge and wisdom of professionals. In a more colloquial phrase, she has dug herself in deeper.
Perhaps she is indeed a victim - but only of her own nature, which appears to be a nature she cannot neither alter nor control, and also one that demonstrates frequently a lack of boundaries. There isn’t a clarity regarding what is herself and what is other people. The result is confusion and hurt.
When people are projected upon, repeatedly, they naturally feel hurt and offended. ‘That isn’t me, how dare s/he !’ is the natural reaction to a projection. If the projecting person then pulls back, there is damage limitation,...but if they don’t, and projection escalates, it is always a slippery slope to negativity.
Experience, case studies, and the law recognize that one may be coerced into giving a false’confession’ because of torture.
This is a universal problem. According to the National Registry of Exoneration, in the United States 78% of wrongful murder convictions that are eventually overturned because of exonerating forensic evidence involved false ‘confessions.’
Almost 8 in 10 wrongfully convicted persons were coerced by police into implicating themselves and others in murder. I am not alone. And exonerating forensic evidence is often as simple as no trace of the wrongfully convicted person at the scene of the crime, but rather the genetic and forensic traces of a different guilty party - just like every piece of forensic evidence identifies not me, but Rudy Guide.
Note again the false confession claim. No confession at all has been advanced in this case.
In the brief time Meredith and I were roommates and friends we never fought.
Meredith was my friend. She was kind to me, helpful, generous, fun. She never criticized me. She never gave me so much as a dirty look.
But the prosecution claims that a rift was created between Meredith and I because of cleanliness. This is a distortion of the facts. Please refer to the testimonies of my housemaster and Meredith’s British friends. None of them ever witnessed or heard about Meredith and I fighting, arguing, disliking each other. None of them ever claimed Meredith was a confrontational clean-freak, or I a confrontational slob. Laura Masotho testified that both Meredith and I only occasionally cleaned, whereas she and Filament Romanal were more concerned with cleanliness. Meredith’s British friends testified that Meredith had once told them that she felt a little uncomfortable about finding the right words to kindly talk to me, her new roommate, about cleanliness in the bathroom we shared. The prosecution would have you believe this is motivation for murder. But this is a ‘terrifying distortion of the facts.’
Note ‘terrifying distortion of the facts.’ It is not, of course, a distortion of the facts. I have frequently observed that Amanda says, ‘Meredith was my friend’, but I have never, curiously, heard this followed up by, ‘I was Meredith’s friend’. What act of friendship did she carry out for Meredith? On this there has been an eerie silence. (And if said now, this would be way too late in the day).
But here, what is of particular interest is the choice of the word ‘terrifying’ regarding ‘distortion of the facts’.
There has been a gross and widespread distortion of the facts of this case, encouraged by a paid PR campaign by her father. It is something that has snowballed (especially with new technology: Twitter etc), and has had an influence.
One wonders, have there been times when she wished she could ‘stop the world and get off’? Has she, in fact, found the explosion of media comment ‘terrifying’? Does she now feel to be on quicksand?
I think, at the very least, the use of this word shows that the way things have escalated - so that she does not control outcomes - is something she does not like at all.
Over and over again - through her self-exposure on TV - she has shown flashes of anger and contempt when she is displeased, and this sentiment is also perceptible as an undercurrent in this email. An innocent person might very well be angry, but they wouldn’t ever show contempt.
I did not carry around Rafael’s kitchen knife.
This claim by the prosecution, crucial to their theory, is uncorroborated by any physical evidence or witness testimony. I didn’t fear the streets of Perugia and didn’t need to carry around with me a large, cumbersome weapon which would have ripped my cloth book bag to shreds. My book bag showed no signs of having carried a bloody weapon. The claim that he would have insisted I carry a large chef’s knife is not just senseless, but a disturbing indication of ‘how willing the prosecution is to defy objectivity and reason in order to sustain a mistaken and disproven theory.
Note ‘how willing the prosecution… disproven theory’. This last part of her sentence is another example of herself describing what she is actually doing, whilst accusing someone else of it.
She is here describing herself, and what she does. The word ‘prosecution’ can be substituted. So one has : how far is ‘she’ willing to go, ‘to defy objectivity and reason in order to sustain a mistaken and disproven position’?
Sometimes, people slip into an error of making one major projection. We all are more prone to project when pressure becomes unbearable. We can all think of someone under stress who has lashed out and pinned the blame on someone else - doing this is a way of releasing a pressure valve for stress. But an emotionally balanced person is able to ‘pull themselves back’ and re-centre themselves.
It is of great concern that the very fabric of this email would seem to be so intertwined or riddled with psychological projections that it is actually woven from them - they form its substance. This strongly suggests Knox is without genuine insight into her own psyche, or processes, and also is in an very unstable state where she is far away from her own centre.
Paragraphs 21 to 30
It is yet another piece of invented ‘evidence’, another circumstance of theory fabricated to order, because having discovered nothing else, the prosecution could only invent.
Note ‘invent… invent’. This indicates another disturbing trait - a barely suppressed glee, that the prosecution ‘have discovered nothing else’. Is she proud of the lack of more evidence? Why is there not more? Who successfully concealed it, as is the case?
I had no Contact with Rudy Guide.
Like many youth in Perugia, I had once crossed paths with Rudy Guide. He played basketball with the young men who lived in the apartment below us. Meredith and I had been introduced to him together. Perhaps I had seen him amongst the swarms of students who crowded the Perugian streets and pubs in the evenings, but that was it. We didn’t have each other’s phone number, we didn’t meet in private, we weren’t acquaintances. I never bought drugs from Rudy Guide or anyone else. The phone records show no connection. There are no witnesses who place us together. The prosecution claims I convinced Rudy Guide to commit rape and murder, completely ignoring the fact that we didn’t even speak the same language. Once again, the prosecution is relying upon a disturbing and unacceptable pattern of distortion of the objective evidence.
I am not a psychopath.
Note ‘I am not a psychopath’. First of all, it needs to be said, that this is not for her to announce. It is not her province. She is not qualified to make such a statement, quite apart from the fact that it would be self-diagnosis.
It is also totally inappropriate to say so to Judge Nencini. The fact that she is unaware of this is astounding.
There is no short list to the malicious and unfounded slanders I have suffered over the course of this legal process. In trial I have been called no less than:
‘Conniving; manipulating; man—eater; narcissist; enchantress; duplicitous; adulterer; drug addict; an explosive mix of drugs, sex, and alcohol; dirty; witch; murderer; slanderer; demon; depraved; imposter; promiscuous; succubus; evil; dead inside; pervert; dissolute; a wolf in sheep’s clothing; rapist; thief; reeking of sex; Judas; she-devil;
Note ‘in the course of this legal process’. Here she appears to be totally muddled about what has been said in the papers and social media, confusing them with serious assessments from the court. However, obviously the media reports and inventions have penetrated her mind, and blown up out of all proportion.
The fact that she (or her family) laregly brought this on herself doesn’t seem to register.
There is an answer though, or would have been : Be honest; be modest; be quiet. Let the truth speak for itself. It usually does. The media coverage is highly regrettable, but, as every celebrity finds, there is always a heavy price for ‘playing the media’.
I have never demonstrated anti-social, aggressive, violent, or behavior. I am not addicted to sex or drugs. Upon my arrest I was tested for drugs and the results were negative. I am not a split-personality
Note ‘I am not a split personality.’ Is this for her to say? Someone with a personality disorder, or indeed mental illness, would often be the last person to admit to it, or even know. Once more, there is a breathtaking dismissal of, in effect, the value of scholarship.
One does not adopt behavior spontaneously.
Note ‘adopt’. Regarding Knox’s behaviour patterns, there is much to suggest that these were neither unusual nor spontaneously adopted. They may not have been as extreme before the crime, but the indications of them are proven.
However, as an actual statement from psychology, this is untrue.
Again, AK is out of her depth, and strangely unaware of it. There are many known instances, which can be detailed, where normally uncharacteristic behaviour does in fact break out abruptly, spontaneously, and without warning. Precisely the kind of behaviour that can and does have terrible consequences. Perhaps this needs to be understood and taken on board?
This is a fantasy.
Note ‘fantasy’. Who is given to fantasy? Who wrote she ‘had a vision’ of what had happened?
This is uncorroborated by any objective evidence or testimony. The prosecution and civil parties created and pursued this character assassination because they have nothing else to show you. They have neither proof, nor logic, nor the facts on their side.
Note ‘character assassination’ Who doesn’t have logic nor facts, or indeed proof of her alibi, on her side?
They only have their slanders against me, their personal opinions about me.
Note ‘slanders’. Who has slandered? Who has aired personal opinions and false claims, for instance about a senior prosecutor?
They want you to think I’m a monster because it is easy to condemn a monster. It is easy to dismiss a monster’s defense as deception. But the prosecution and civil parties are both severely mistaken and wrong. They have condemned me without proof of guilt, and they seek to convince you to condemn me without proof of guilt.
If the prosecution truly had a case against me, there would be no need for these theatrics.
Note ‘theatrics’. There were none from the prosecution. So whose theatrics?
‘Monster’ is Amanda’s own word - it hasn’t come from anyone else. It must be her nemesis - the word which she dreads to hear in her conscious mind, yet can’t escape from.
There would be no need for smoke and mirrors to distract you from the lack of physical evidence against me.
Note ‘smoke and mirrors’. Whose smoke and mirrors? Again, we have a description of her own behaviour, which is being projected outwards.
quote - ‘But because no evidence exists that proves my guilt, the prosecution would seek to deceive you with these impassioned, but completely inaccurate and unjustified pronouncements.’
Note ‘the prosecution would seek to deceive you’. Who really has sought to deceive? Who has demonstrated passion in her pronouncements?
Because I am not a murderer, they would seek to mislead you into convicting me by charging your emotions, by painting me not as an innocent until proven guilty, but as a monster.
Note ‘mislead you’. Yet again, the image of her person as ‘a murderer’ and ‘a monster’ are shown to be her preoccupation. The court has not tried to define her as such. They have tried her for a crime, for what she did on one day.
She is the one who gives permanent labels to herself. They are labels she cannot bear, and cannot accept. But she needs to understand that it is not the judiciary, nor many others seeking justice, who are labelling her person or personality.
The prosecution and civil parties are committing injustices against me because they cannot bring themselves to admit, even to themselves, that they’ve made a terrible mistake.
Note ‘they cannot’. Amongst a statement peppered with almost pitiful projections, this seems to be the most direct projection of them all. Substitute ‘they’ for ‘I’ and we get this:
‘I cannot bring myself to admit, even to myself, that I’ve made a terrible mistake…’
Paragraphs 31 to 34
The Court has seen that the prosecution and civil parties will not hear criticism of their mistakes.
Note ‘will not hear’. Who will not hear criticism of their mistakes?
Not by the experts of the defense, nor by the experts of the Court.
The Court has seen that the prosecution jumped to conclusions at the very start of their investigation: they interrogated and arrested innocent people and claimed ‘Case Closed’before any evidence could be analyzed, before bothering to check alibis.
Note ‘jumped to conclusions’ and ‘before bothering’. Why is she saying any of this to Judge Nencini and the other judges? It is insulting to their intelligence. Can she be unaware of this?
The prosecutor and investigators were under tremendous pressure to solve the mystery of what happened to Meredith as soon as possible. The local and International media was breathing down the necks of these detectives. Their reputations and careers were to be made or broken. In their haste, they made mistakes. Under pressure, they admitted to as few mistakes as possible and committed themselves to a theory founded upon mistakes.
Note ‘founded upon mistakes’. Here there was a young woman who herself ‘under pressure, admitted to as few mistakes as possible , and committed themselves to a theory founded upon mistakes’ (the mistake of admitting to being at the scene of the crime, hearing a scream etc., and then found herself committed to continue to incriminate Patrick, and all the stories consequent to this move.)
One is reminded of a game of chess, where early moves commit one to the rest of the play and end game.
Had they not jumped to conclusions based on nothing but their personal and highly subjective feeling, they would have discovered definitive and undeniable evidence of not Patrick Lumumba, not Rafael Sollecito, not Amanda Knox, but of Rudy Guide. We would not be here over six years later debating inconclusive and unreliable ‘clues.’ We would have been spared the cost, anguish and suffering, not only of Raffaele’s and my family, but especially of Meredith’s family as well.
Note ‘Meredith’s family’. A belated attempt to remember the true victim, but in a way that couldn’t be more hurtful. What would really have spared Meredith’s family anguish and suffering?
It is highly objectionable that the stress and pressure Knox and Sollecito have been under should in any way at all be conflated with the deep suffering and tragic position of the Kercher family. Knox indicates that she is unable to know when she is hurting someone.
The prosecution’s accusations are unworthy of judicial or public confidence.
Note ‘unworthy of public confidence’. Then, if so, as Judge Nencini said, the person who brought the appeal should attend her own appeal, and seek to prove or disprove the worthiness of her case in the court. A basic premise the defendant showed she was oblivious to, when she resorted to the email.
In over six years they have failed to provide a consistent, evidence-driven, corroborated theory of the crime,
Note ‘failed to provide’. The prosecution in fact have patiently, thoroughly, albeit slowly, worked their way towards the most probable truth of that fated night.
They have been grossly and deliberately impeded in their task by the defendant, who moreover has shown no contriteness, no remorse whatsoever for her lack of co-operation or worse.
And, of course, ‘in over six years,’ the defendants ‘have failed to provide a consistent, evidence-driven, corroborated explanation of the crime’ they have been proven to have been involved with. Once more, a statement can be seen to apply more to the speaker herself than to those she is accusing.
but would nevertheless argue that you should take my life away.
Note ‘take my life away’. More unfeeling melodrama.
I beg you to see the facts and reason of what I say. I am innocent. Rafael is innocent.
Meredith and her family deserve the truth. Please put an end to this great and prolonged injustice.
Note ‘deserve the truth’. These last two sentences are true. However, the very last sentence seems to have two missing words from the end, viz, ‘for them’, or ‘for the Kerchers’.
With a correction it reads: ‘Please put an end to this great and prolonged injustice for the Kerchers’ - which with no help from Knox does nevertheless seem to be happening.
The wheels of justice turn, and stories, versions, delusions, projections, deceptions, - even manipulations, will eventually fade away.
[It looked like Knox lawyer Ghirga could not drop this turd in the judge’s lap quickly enough]
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (35)
Thursday, May 22, 2014
The Cuomo Interview: Why This May Be The Last Time Knox Tries To Argue Innocence On TV
Posted by Vivianna
Concepts of innocence
I want to make the distinction here, as in some of my previous posts, between factual and legal innocence to show how on factual evidence Knox is giving up.
- Factual innocence is what we may consider “true” innocence, i.e. the complete lack of involvement in a crime.
- Legal innocence, on the other hand, is innocence established in a court of law on the basis of a reconstruction of events.
Ideally, the two coincide. But there are certainly cases in which someone who is factually guilty of a crime may be found innocent in a legal sense due to a lack of evidence.
This distinction is important here since the type of innocence Knox appears to want to establish throughout her most recent interview is, surprisingly, legal innocence – not factual innocence.
There are signs that Knox knows she’s failed to sell factual innocence, and is losing traction with all crime professionals everywhere - the psychologists are already long gone.
And signs that American big-media fascination has run its course. A few days after the release of the Nencini motivation report, Knox was interviewed by Chris Cuomo on CNN. This was the one big Knox-camp response to the report - and the main airing of the interview was just after 6:00 am. A video of some highlights can be viewed on the CNN website after the brief ad.
I would like to refer you at the start to this excellent post by Eyes for Lies, who has been praised on TJMK before. The transcribed quotes below are taken from the Eyes for Lies blog and they are accurate; their accuracy can be confirmed by listening to the interview linked above.
“This judge’s motivations…”
The first thing you may notice when you watch the interview is Knox’s difficulty to form articulate sentences. This is not a comment on her intelligence or her ability to speak in public, but it appears odd considering her coaching and the number of interviews she has given before.
She pauses often and constantly reforms her sentences, perhaps realizing that what she wants to say may not play out in her favor. As a result, she uses vague and sometimes unusual language, and her sentence fragments reveal aspects which she is otherwise attempting to conceal.
This inability to effortlessly stick to her script in a somewhat tense scenario betrays the fact that there is a discrepancy between her beliefs and her public statements. It also begs the question of why someone who is supposedly telling the truth needs to construct her answers so carefully if she has nothing to hide.
Cuomo begins the interview by asking Knox why she thought that this judge [Nencini] went further than any other. Here is Knox’ answer, preceded by a rather odd smile:
I…believe…I mean, I can’t speculate what this judge’s motivations…personal motivations or otherwise…What I can say is that…as…this…case…has progressed…….the evidence…that the prosecution has claimed exist against me….has been…has been proven less and less and less.
The quote of Knox above is a good example from the legal v factual innocence point of view. First, let’s look at the opening few words.
She begins by saying “I believe…” and then stops. Evidently, only Knox knows what exactly she intended to say, but it’s rather obvious from her next sentence that what she wanted to say about the judge was not particularly flattering or diplomatic. Given her current situation and the pending defamation suits, she probably thought it was not a good idea to be direct.
Hence, she rephrases on the fly and goes on say that she couldn’t comment on his motivations, while doing this nevertheless towards the end of her sentence. This is known as “paralipsis” which is stating something (which sometimes may be considered an ad hominen) while pretending not to do so.
The fact that she mentions Judge Nencini’s “personal motivations or otherwise” implies that his decision may have not been objective, but based on a personal bias against the defendants (an idea that Ms. Bongiorno has been unsuccessfully trying to flog after the verdict).
Moving on, she makes the first appeal to the legal innocence I mentioned above. Instead of clearly stating that she was innocent or that she did not kill Meredith, Knox prefers to focus on the fact that the evidence against her has been allegedly diminishing.
For one, this is false, as no piece of evidence at all has been dismissed; on the contrary, the new DNA test results from the Carabinieri lab could be considered as additional evidence. So Knox is blatantly lying about something which can be factually disproved, which immediately raises the question of what else she could be lying about.
Secondly, what makes this statement odd is the fact that she does not assert her factual innocence. As someone who was supposedly wrongly accused and against whom there is evidence, whether or not she chooses to acknowledge it, the one thing she has control over is the inner knowledge of her own factual innocence.
That kind of knowledge, in someone who was not subjected to torture or brainwashing, should be untouchable – absolute. No matter what anyone said she did, if she knew for a fact that she hadn’t done it, she would be stating it at every opportunity.
The fact that she chooses not to do this indicates that Knox herself may have trouble keeping up this pretense of innocence, especially if she is privately plagued by fear and perhaps guilt or remorse (although she hasn’t shown any signs of the latter). It has been suggested that she may be at a point where she has convinced herself of an alternate truth, but based on what she says, I am uncertain that she genuinely believes what she says.
“I did not kill…”
Only in her next sentence does she finally offer a denial – unfortunately couched in vague language which undermines her point.
I did not kill my friend. I did not wield a knife. I had no reason to.
Simple, straight sentences like these are the kind we would expect from an innocent person. The problem lies in the fact that, throughout this interview, Knox never clearly states, “I did not kill Meredith.” I don’t think Knox is lying when she says “I did not kill my friend,” since, strictly speaking, she did not kill any of her friends.
The problem is that Meredith was not her friend, even if both she and Meredith may have acted friendly towards each other at the beginning. Based on statements given by Meredith’s English friends and by her family, Meredith was irritated by Amanda’s behavior and frequently complained about the latter’s habits (untidiness, dirtiness, attention-seeking, bringing strange men to the apartment, etc).
Meredith probably maintained a civil front in order to avoid tension, but she had already started to distance herself. The fact that she did not return Amanda’s texts on Halloween demonstrates that she wanted to spend time with her actual friends, rather than have to deal with Knox’ histrionic episodes. Given the social nature of Halloween in a college town, this situation would not have occurred if the two had really been close prior to the murder.
“I did not wield a knife” is a blatant lie, since Knox’ DNA was found on both the handle and blade of the kitchen knife. Eyes for Lies found it strange that Knox even mentioned the knife in light of her innocence claim, but I think it makes sense because the knife figured prominently in the appeal proceedings.
Or rather, it makes sense for someone who is focused on the legal innocence aspect mentioned above. Knox equates being found innocent with being innocent, as we’ll see below, so it’s important for her to address the evidence (without realizing that, by doing so, she is acting in ways which are not consistent with factual innocence).
Returning to “my friend,” we see the beginning of a trend which continues throughout the interview. Knox has a tendency to refer to Meredith obliquely – rarely by name.
This manifests itself in several ways: by exerting ownership (“MY friend”) or by referring to her as an inanimate object (which we’ll see happening in the following paragraphs). Considering that murder is a total, irreversible way of taking away someone’s personhood, this constant appropriation and objectification are disturbing and belie Knox’s supposed fondness for Meredith.
Next, Knox says, “I….I was…in the month we were living together, we were becoming friends.”
Here I agree with Eyes for Lies’ argument that perhaps what Knox started saying was “I was trying to be friends with her.” Note that she says “we were becoming friends,” not “we were friends.” This calls into question her truthfulness when she calls Meredith “my friend.”
By Knox’ own admission, they were not quite friends yet at that point - or rather, not anymore, since the disagreements had already started; once again, Knox distorts the truth by making it seem that they were getting closer rather than as in reality growing apart.
A week before the murder occurred, we went out to a classical music concert together. Like…we had never fought. There is no trace of us.
The part about the concert is true (this is where Knox met Sollecito). We don’t know why Meredith left before the concert ended: perhaps she was tired, she had to study, or didn’t particularly enjoy the music; it’s also possible that she may have felt irritated with whatever Knox was doing to attract Sollecito’s attention.
Given his inexperience and lack of confidence at the time, Sollecito would have most likely not approached Knox without an invitation, but that’s a matter for another post.
“Like … we had never fought” can be interpreted in two ways. One: we can read it as “we went out […] together like we had never fought”; this implies that they did fight, which would be true, but that they were working on settling their differences. Two: “like” could be a simple filler word, and we should read it as “we had never fought,” which would be false. I’m not sure which way she meant it, so I’ll leave it at that.
“There is no trace…”
It seems like Knox jumps to saying “there is no trace of us,” but the video posted online was edited, and not very smoothly. You can see the transition, so she must have said this after additional remarks or in response to a different question. Hence, the fact that it seems random isn’t probably her fault.
It’s interesting in itself though because it’s another instance of her lying about verifiable facts (see judges’ reports and the numerous posts regarding forensic evidence). Also, it’s an important statement in conjunction with the infamous quote about Meredith’s “broken body” because it once again equates lack of evidence with innocence, rather than directly stating innocence.
“If Guede committed…”
This is perhaps the most controversial part of the interview and also the part which ties things together (the idea of legal innocence and the objectification of Meredith).
If Rudy Guede…committed this crime…which he did…we know that because his DNA is there…on the…on Meredith’s body, around Meredith’s body. His hand prints and foot prints 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…around Meredith’s corpse….and I…I am not there…and that proves my innocence.
She starts her response with something which is both incredibly revealing and absolutely shocking for someone who claims innocence - “If Rudy Guede committed this crime.”
I don’t think anyone has questioned Guede’s involvement in this murder, even if the precise extent of it remains unclear, and the two have partially built their defense around the lone wolf scenario. Also, since Guede’s verdict was issued and confirmed years ago, Knox does not need to pussyfoot around his status for fear of slander charges.
Knox is not talking about Guede’s involvement in general terms, however. She’s explicitly referring to him actually committing the crime (i.e. inflicting the lethal wounds). Her hesitation betrays the fact that she doesn’t believe he did.
Of course, she catches herself: “which he did … we know that because his DNA is there.” It’s interesting she has to point out how she knows this – from reading the evidence, certainly, not from being there and therefore knowing for a fact that he participated in the assault, but not in the actual murder.
“On the… Meredith’s body”
Next, we have another instance of objectification: “…on the…on Meredith’s body, around Meredith’s body.” Perhaps she wanted to say “on the corpse” and thought it might be a bit inconsiderate, so she switches to the more neutral “body,” only to use the implied word a few sentences later. However, what’s striking about it is that she thinks of Meredith as a body, not as a person.
I want you to think about the time you lost a friend or a family member, regardless of circumstances. Did you ever think of them as a body, or did you continue to think of them as they were in life, even if you had to identify them or take care of funeral arrangements? I’m not asking this rhetorically, by the way.
When my father died (rather suddenly, but due to illness), it never ever crossed my mind to think of him as a body, but perhaps circumstances alter perceptions. I’ve also read numerous things written by Meredith’s friends and family, and they always refer to her as “Meredith” or “Mez.” To them, she never stopped being a person because they loved her, and diminishing her would have been inconceivable.
I think it’s far more likely that the word “body” will appear in a military, medical, or anthropological context, in which there is no personal connection between the observer and the dead. We may use this word ourselves when talking about the crime scene, but it’s rather telling that we use her name far more often than someone who actually knew her in life.
I can’t know what Knox felt about Meredith, but there is no indication it was positive. The clinical and graphic manner in which she refers to “Meredith’s body,” “broken body,” and “corpse” betrays an obstinate refusal to acknowledge her as a person. Why, if Meredith was indeed her friend as she insists?
For one, it suggests that Knox actually saw Meredith being transformed into a “body” and that this image stuck with her. Let’s not forget that Knox never saw Meredith after the latter was discovered; based on the statements of the other people present in the cottage, she was not near the door when it was broken open, and she was also not asked to identify Meredith.
The only way an innocent Knox could have seen Meredith after her death would have been in photographs presented in court. There is no doubt that such photographs can be disturbing and upsetting, but I don’t think they can supplant memories of actual experiences.
Secondly, it’s a form of denying someone’s personhood and of expressing power and domination. A murderer can literally deprive someone of personhood – an act which they may feel triumphant about, especially if the person was a source of distress in life. I can’t help feeling that Knox is gloating when she mentions Meredith’s body.
Thirdly, refusing to name the victim and to refer to her as a person is a way of preventing her from taking center stage. While Knox has repeatedly complained about the media attention she has received, both she and her campaign have fought really hard to marginalize and displace Meredith in an attempt to replace the tragedy of the latter’s death with the supposed tragedy of Knox’ unwarranted imprisonment.
It must be disappointing when someone you’ve risked everything to eliminate continues stealing your thunder, so Knox isn’t letting us forget the actual state of things: she is there, in a TV studio, enjoying the luxury of being an “I,” while Meredith has been reduced to an “it” – a broken body.
The words she uses to refer to Meredith, whether graphic or macabre, suggest disgust with the physicality of death. Perhaps Knox just wanted Meredith to go away forever and found it difficult to deal with the aftermath of a violent murder.
“None of that exists…”
Returning to the issue of legal innocence, Knox claims that Guede’s hand and foot prints were identified, while “none of that exists for me”; also, “I would have left traces of myself….around…around Meredith’s corpse.”
These are further lies, since a size 36-38 foot print was identified, and Knox was the only one it could have belonged to. There were also five mixed DNA spots (comingled blood from both women), which, just because they were not right next to Meredith’s body, cannot be dismissed.
The crime scene covers the entire house as far as the police and the court are concerned. How anyone else defines the crime scene is of no consequence at all.
“[…] if I were there, I would have had traces of…Meredith’s broken body on me,” she says next. This is, of course, an impossible scenario since Meredith was discovered long hours after her death and it was days before police looked at her.
In the meantime, a clean up had unquestionably taken place, and Knox herself admits to having showered (perhaps not in the morning as she wrote in her email, but earlier that night). Also, Knox was initially considered a witness, not a suspect, and her person and clothes were not immediately swabbed by the scientific police.
She’s trying to make it sound like no traces were discovered on her, but in fact no one tested for this and no one can prove it either way.
“I am not there…”
She continues: “I…I am not there…and that proves my innocence.” By “I am not there,” she means that incriminating traces were not found at the scene, not that she wasn’t there on that night. Note the difference between “I am innocent,” which she does not say, and “[the lack of evidence] proves my innocence.”
In other words, she’s insisting on legal innocence, but doesn’t actually confirm her factual innocence. The problem with that is since she’s lying about the factual evidence, it’s difficult to take her legal innocence claim seriously.
“Possible to win…”
At the end of the interview, she says, “I truly believe it is possible to win this and to bring…to bring an end to all of the speculation and the nonsensical theories and really bring peace to everyone who has suffered from this experience.”
The use of the word “win” here is peculiar, to say the least. It’s consistent with her competitive attitude towards Meredith, for one – killing her and getting away with it, regardless of the sacrifices made on the way, would constitute a sort of victory, I suppose.
It also has the implication of “winning the case,” which we may expect from a lawyer or someone for whom this is a professional, rather than personal undertaking. A wrongfully accused and imprisoned person has nothing to win in the end, considering the traumas they suffered; the most they can hope for is recognition and vindication.
She is correct, however, that it’s possible to end the speculation and theories. However, that would require her, Sollecito, or Guede to tell the truth about what happened on that night. In this, she has full agency – this is not something that can be done for her, but something which she needs to do herself.
Other than that, the “speculation and nonsensical theories” refers to the judges’ reports, in addition to lay commentary; her problem is that saying something is “nonsensical” doesn’t automatically render it so in the absence of arguments and proof (none of which she or her defense have been able to provide).
“Peace to everyone…”
“[…] really bring peace to everyone who has suffered from this experience” – this has to be one of the blindest and most self-centered things Knox has ever said about the case.
For one, it’s doubtful that a favorable verdict would even bring peace to her and Sollecito, since they will always know what they’ve done, even if they don’t have to fear imprisonment anymore. It might or might not bring peace to their families, who have already spent a fortune on their defense and whose trust has probably been shattered forever.
However, to imply that it would bring peace to Meredith’s family and friends is both presumptuous and contemptible.
Knox and her arrogant followers have, on numerous occasions, taken it upon themselves to speak for the Kerchers – how they should feel, what they should accept, etc. First pioneered by the contemptible Candace Dempsey, it is incredibly disrespectful to people who have suffered a great, irreplaceable, undeserved loss and who have done nothing wrong by pursuing justice for their loved one.
The fact that Knox and Sollecito have refused to confess for the past seven years has done nothing but prolong the suffering of Meredith’s family by denying them closure and the necessary space to mourn and heal.
what we have here is a number of outright lies, some distortions, and some false starts which help pinpoint what Knox believes, rather than what she says. What we don’t have is a plea for factual innocence, but an attempt to prove legal innocence by glossing over the evidence or dismissing it altogether, and by calling into question the judges’ professionalism. We also see no evidence of respect or compassion for Meredith, but rather an attempt to objectify and incorporate her in Knox’ own story.
My impression is that Knox does not believe the things she says herself and is struggling to maintain a front; that despite her coaching and experience with interviews, she is getting ahead of herself instead of simply reciting her lines, which denotes anxiety and conflict. I don’t believe she’s at peace with the murder at least, which hopefully means that at some point she might be inclined to confess.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (39)
Sunday, May 18, 2014
The Knox Interrogation Hoax #4: More Hard Realities Fron Rita Ficcara, More Nervousness From Defense
Posted by The TJMK Main Posters
1. Overview of this hoax series
Knox turned up at the central police station unwanted late on 5-6 Nov 2007 and briefly helped police with a list of seven names.
Her version of this has morphed into a gigantic hoax.
One highly consistent version of the brief chat was testified to by all those officials present (see the real scenario of the night in previous posts), and accepted by all valid courts including the Italian Supreme Court. Knox has already served three years in prison for it and the US Embassy okayed the process.
And then there is Knox’s endlessly shifting version, which has been inflated opportunistically and erratically over nearly seven years now. This version was repudiated several times by her smart Italian lawyers (though not by her foolish American lawyers) and they did next to nothing to try to verify it when questioning those officials at trial.
Despite the fact that the repeating of her false accusations to poison public opinion can be an obstruction-of-justice felony, and Italy is being forced to consider new charges, Knox and her foolish PR shills have again and again repeated and embellished the same lies.
Knox has done so in numerous interviews, in her 2013 book, on her website, in her email to Judge Nencini, and in her “appeal” to the European Court of Human Rights. And the PR shills have done so on websites, on TV, in books, and in attempts to lobby the US federal government.
Below is the examination of Inspector Rita Ficarra by Carlo Pacelli, Patrick Lumumba’s lawyer. Very tough stuff. Chronologically, this preceded the defense cross-examinations in posts #2 and #3 and may well have dampened them.
Here “GCM” is Judge Massei. As the defenses fully acknowledged, this was merely a recap/summary, a simple checking of facts with someone who might be helpful which could have been done on a street corner. It was not a witness or suspect interrogation. Claims that it was are a key part of the great hoax.
2. Continuing the cross-examination of Rita Ficarra
Lumumba Attorney Pacelli
CP: Listen, if I have understood properly, Miss Amanda came to the Questura [Police Station] the evening of the 5th without having been sent?
RF: Without having been called.
CP: Did she say to you the reason for which she had gone to the Questura?
RF: She had accompanied her boyfriend, because they never quit each other [i.e. they are always together], because it had already happened previously that she had been called on her own, and Sollecito – they called us from the guard house, saying that he was creating problems, they were not able to detain him/hold him back because he absolutely wanted to come up to be with her – and [then] when they were both above, they were always together clearly – bah, well, they’re boyfriend-and-girlfriend, [it’s] understandable.
CP: Thus, when you, following the investigative activity that you had carried out during the course of the day, came back to the Questura, you found her already in the Questura?
RF: Yes, I found her there in the little waiting room that is just before the offices of the Flying Squad.
CP: Do you recall more or less at what time you came back, Inspector?
RF: At 2300 hours. It was late.
CP: Listen, afterwards, then, you had this quiet conversation in the terms which you recalled for us? [For the prosecutor, see post #1]
CP: After which, you take on Miss Amanda for the recap/summary. In that circumstance, other than you, who was present in the room?
RF: Assistant Chief Zugarini and a colleague from the Rome SCO, Ivano - I don’t remember the surname of this [person], since we don’t always work together, I don’t remember well. Ivano Raffo, that’s it, and then there was the interpreter, Donnino.
CP: Anna Donnino?
CP: In this circumstance, and I am referring to the recap/summary of 0145 hours, was Amanda by any chance beaten/punched?
RF: Absolutely not. I’ve already answered [that] to the Public Prosecutor.
CP: Was she hit with punches and with slaps?
RF: No, absolutely not.
CP: Was she mistreated/manhandled?
CP: Was she threatened?
GCM: Excuse me, Attorney, they have already made…
CP: No, it’s to say that the Perugia Questura is not Quantanamo, Mr President.
GB: Bah, well, let’s avoid ...
GCM: Excuse me, please.
CP: In the circumstance, Inspector, were the circumstances and the facts that were reported by Miss Amanda suggested by one of those present?
RF: Excuse me, who knew Mr Patrick Lumumba?
GCM: So the answer is no, you did not know him?
RF: We did not know him, we asked her who this Patrick was.
GCM: Please, Attorney.
CP: Thank you, Inspector. Listen, still [with regard to] this circumstance, had someone - and in particular for a par of factual circumstances - suggested to Amanda that Patrick had had sex, had had sexual relations with poor Meredith before killing her?
RF: Absolutely not. There are declarations, oral testimony, that she gave spontaneously. No-one ...
CP: Still with regard to this factual verification, was there someone who had compelled, suggested to, Amanda to declare that she had heard Meredith scream, shriek?
GCM: If there were suggestions/prompting in the declarations.
RF: Absolutely not. Absolutely not.
CP: Listen, Inspector, I am asking you ...
RF: Yes, you are being a Attorney, and rightly so.
CP: You certify/testify to me what happened. So all this that you reported/recounted as a point of fact and of circumstance, Amanda reported [them] to you spontaneously, on her own initiative?
CP: Listen, coming to the summaries/recaps, after which you said that you suspended [proceedings].
RF: I closed the hearing/questioning because there were indications…
CP: And you took steps to call whom?
RF: The judicial authority.
CP: Very well, to whom she made once again these ...
RF: She again made the same spontaneous declarations in this case, in the presence of myself and of Dr Mignini.
CP: In the ways that you described above?
CP: Also in this circumstance, was she struck/beaten?
GCM: She has already said.
CP: In the manner [described] above, ok?
RF: As above, ok.
CP: These are elements of fact. I ask if at 0545 hours she was beaten, Mr President.
MDG: This is a tanquam non esset [NdT: “as if it did not exist”] act
CP: No, but what tanquam non esset? It is acquired as physical evidence.
GCM: We are only at [the stage of] questions.
CP: No, no, Mr President. Mine is a question, so I will repeat and reword it: was she struck with punches or slaps?
RF: Absolutely not.
CP: Thank you Inspector. Afterwards, in the appending of signatures by Miss Amanda with regard to the recaps/summaries both of 0145 hours and that of 0545 hours, was Miss Amanda struck with punches and slaps, I repeat when ...
RF: Absolutely not.
CP: Was she compelled/forced ...
RF: She was not compelled/forced by anyone.
GCM: Attorney, this reiteration of questions ...
CP: No, but ...
GCM: Excuse me a moment. You recall also clause/provision 198, so she has already replied, and in any case we are at this, at the answers that she has given us, because otherwise it becomes ...
CP: Question [sic] in point of circumstance of fact for clarifications that were needed with regard also to the interrogation rendered by Miss Amanda, in short.
GCM: No, no. The questions. Let us turn to the premises/preliminary remarks.
CP: After which, on the factual level, shall we say, of actions/gestures, how did Amanda behave in these circumstances?
GCM: She has already reported something [on this].
RF: I have already reported, but in what circumstance?
CP: Immediately after ending the hearing of 0545 hours, the one given before the Public Prosecutor, just to ...
RF: No, she was calm, I told you that she asked me if she could rest because she felt a bit tired.
GCM: You already reported that.
CP: Coming to the afternoon, in effect, the arrest happens, and Miss Amanda is notified of the arrest warrant.
RF: Yes, around midday.
CP: And it seems to me, I want to make a specification/clarification because it seems to me that there was a slight confusion between the 5th and the 6th. In effect, the request for sheets [of paper], Amanda made that [request] to you on the afternoon of 6 November, the sheets for writing?
RF: Excuse me, the notification of the arrest warrant occurred on the 6th, it took place at midday?
RF: But midday and two minutes, I tell you that she asked me for the sheets, the interpreter was still there, Colantoni, who had replaced Donnino, who had been there during the night.
CP: Yes, I thank you, because it seemd to me that…
RF: It was in that moment when she had [been] read, in English, the reasons for the arrest, immediately after she said to me “please, give me a pen and some sheets, because I must write?” and we gave her a pen and sheets to write [with].
CP: It was for my historical record, in the sense that she made a note around 2000 hours on the day of the 6th, in this note she reports facts from a conversation of the evening ...
RF: I necessarily went [away] to sleep, indeed!, after two days.
CP: And this circumstance in the afternoon of the 6th.
RF: I returned in the evening and I did ...
GCM: Have we clarified, are there other questions, Attorney?
CP: Yes, I have one. I believe, however, that someone has preceeded/pre-empted me, I think [it was] the Public Prosecutor.
GCM: [Only] questions for the purpose of [obtaining] answers are of interest.
CP: It [the question] was referring, Inspector, to the ... There you go, look, I am showing you the print of the SMS sent by Amanda’s mobile phone to Lumumba on the date of 1 November 2007 at 2032 hours, if you recognize it, it was in a ...
GCM: But is the same, Attorney?
CP: I think so, I haven’t checked that, Mr President.
GCM: It is still the same.
RF: It’s only that one. There is only that one.
GCM: Is it this one, Attorney? The Public Prosecutor has already shown it, and the witness ...
CP: Thank you, I have not other questions.
Series to be continued up to the present day.
Archived in Officially involved, Amanda Knox, Police and CSI, Diversion efforts by, The Knox-Mellases, Hoaxes about the case, Knox interrog. hoax
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (25)
Thursday, May 15, 2014
The Knox Interrogation Hoax #3: More Defense Pussyfooting Toward Rita Ficcara, Key Witness
Posted by The TJMK Main Posters
1. Overview of this hoax series
Numerous Knox forces have claimed, very loudly, far and wide, that a dozen Italian cops organized in tag teams assaulted a starving and sleepless Knox for 20/30/40 hours with anti-terrorist techniques.
We still await even the slightest proof.
In our hoax series first post we provided a carefully checked scenario of what really happened on 5-6 Nov, and we started to flesh it out with the testimony of Knox’s only questioner, Inspector Rita Ficarra, on the night.
Inspector Ficarra had observed to the prosecution that this was not a real interrogation: Knox complains that she is tiring of the investigation. Ficarra says she should go home and catch some sleep, but Knox says no. Ficarra then says that one thing that would move things along would be a list of those who came to the house or might have had malicious intent.
Knox happily obliges. For about half an hour after the translator arrives, Knox and Rita Ficarra work on that list. Knox pushes her cellphone across, and seven names with maps and phone numbers emerge. Six names Knox shares with zero concern. The seventh, Patrick’s, provokes in Knox a yelling, head-clutching conniption - the first of several that night.
In their four cross-examinations it sharply stands out that none of the defense lawyers wants to challenge Rita Ficarra hard about the undue pressure Knox had claimed. Rita Ficarra had already made clear that no pressure at all had been applied.
There would have been zero point. Knox was hard to shut up that night. In fact, the only insistence by anyone about anything that night was by Amanda Knox herself. She insisted to stay around, and later to hold everybody up (including Dr Mignini later that night) while she laboriously wrote her scenario out - twice. She even wrote it out a third time later, on the morning of the 6th.
In our hoax series second post we quoted two cross-examinations of Rita Ficarra by Sollecito’s lead lawyers. Here we quote two more, by two of Knox’s lawyers, Luciano Ghirga, and Maria Del Grasso.
Here “GCM” is Judge Massei. As the defenses fully acknowledged, this was merely a recap/summary, a simple checking of facts with someone who might be helpful which could have been done on a street corner. It was not a witness or suspect interrogation. Claims that it was are a key part of the great hoax.
2. Continuing the cross-examination of Rita Ficarra
Defence Attorney Luciano Ghirga
LG: Ok. Describing/recounting the night between the 5th and the 6th, you say that you encountered Amanda at 2300 hours approximately, in a place near the elevator, that she was doing gymnastics and you admonished her. What do you mean? Who was present besides Amanda in that moment?
RF: As I have already reported, there were a few SCO colleagues, there was myself, who exited …
LG: A few colleagues…
GCM: Let’s let the witness finish and then …
RF: Three colleagues.
GCM: And then we will ask for clarifications.
RF: Then, with me, there was Chief Inspector Fausto Passeri, then at a certain point Zugarini Lorena came in through the doorway to the Flying Squad offices, and Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni, at a certain point, opened the other door that gives access to the corridor, to the biggest lobby, and there was even deputy Commissioner Rapetti, as I recall, that evening.
LG: So colleagues of yours.
RF: All colleagues.
LG: And you admonished her because you found ...
RF: I admonished her because it is neither the place nor the right moment for doing certain things, but over and above the place, it was the moment [that was ill-chosen] more than anything.
LG: We are at the 5th, at 2300 hours approximately, the 5th of November at 2300 hours.
LG: Ok. Then you took her with you?
RF: Yes, into the office.
LG: Because, at least from the note that you fully reported, you took her with you and out came … “Tell us something, if you …” in short, out came the names?
LG: But also lies came out, [as] you call them yourself.
LG: And you admonish her another time, is it so?
RF: No, I she ….
LG: You said yes, you admonished her yes.
RF: Yes, but I admonished her in a good-natured way, I don’t even know what rebukes I used to her.
LG: What does “rebuke” mean? you used that term.
RF: Yes, I admonished her because, I told you [NdT: can also mean “her”] at the beginning, if I find someone who is doing twirls in the waiting room of the Questura…
LG: No, we’ve [already] done this.
RF: It is for the same reason, because I told her that in this way one makes oneself hard to believe. It was almost a maternal rebuke, I say: if you tell me lies the first time they might be understandable, if [you do so] the second [time] I say to you that there are both testimonial and fact-checking circumstances that demonstrate that you have told a lie: don’t insist on the same lie, because it might be little, but it makes you scarcely credible for your subsequent affirmations.
LG: We can clarify the concept better ...
GCM: We have clarified, please Attorney.
LG: The lies consisted in the use ...
RF: I cannot report on ...
LG: The lies, according to what you have reported, consisted in admitting that ...
RF: The use of narcotics, exactly.
LG: If it was a use of substances ...
LG: Something that earlier ... This is the episode that she reported to you [NdT: or possibly typo: “che Lei ha riferito” = “that you reported”].
RF: Yes yes yes.
LG: Eventually the recaps/summaries of 0145 hours begin, because God willing there is the opening time of these ...
LG: While this interrogation - let’s call it thus - was in progress, some colleagues arrive ...
RF: It was not an interrogation, Attorney.
LG: They are called recaps/summaries. Had it [sic] already begun when your colleagues arrive and say “Sollecito no longer gives an alibi to Amanda”? Were these interrogation operations already in progress?
RF: The recording/writing down of the witness recaps/summaries.
LG: And colleagues arrive from somewhere else?
RF: Yes, from the office where they were hearing/questioning Sollecito.
LG: You ask Amanda what she did that evening, is that so?
RF: Exactly, yes yes.
LG: So Amanda’s telephone was taken or handed over spontaneously, would you like to specify whether she gave it ...
RF: She was asked to show us her mobile phone in order to carry out checks, and she spontaneously gave it to us, and together with her, that is to say, near to her, we began to scroll…
LG: No. It was handed over without any problem.
RF: Yes yes.
LG: So then the little message to Patrick emerged, is that so?
RF: Along with the others, that one emerged too.
LG: This Patrick is the same Patrick about whom [reference was made] in the note that had been made earlier?
LG: The owner [of] the Chique where Amanda worked, etc., etc. ... Can I ask ...
RF: I had already written, perhaps I didn’t explain myself well…
LG: You wrote it [the note] earlier/first.
GCM: Excuse me, Attorney.
LG: No no no.
RF: I wanted to specify that she had made [NdT, i.e. said/given] that series of names of persons of which [it is spoken in] the note. I was starting to write and I had started with Patrick because he was the owner of where she worked, when then, that is to say, I didn’t have time to write because otherwise you would have found also all the subjects that I wrote in the note, it was in that moment that the information reached me that there were contradictions, that she no longer had an alibi, [that] I should ask what she might have done at that hour and ...
GCM: And so there was the request for the mobile phone.
LG: And then Patrick’s name emerged.
GCM: Excuse me Attorney, we are at what the witness…
LG: From the little message [NdT: i.e. SMS] Patrick [NdT: i.e. Patrick’s name] emerged in that moment?
GCM: Even from before that, in any case, Lumumba emerged.
RF: It emerged even earlier.
GCM: That is what I am saying.
LG: I asked, me: it is the same Patrick as is mentioned in the note?
RF: It is the same Patrick, yes.
LG: Perfect. So Amanda, what did she do? Did Amanda’s manner change?
RF: At first she remained amazed.
LG: This discussion on Patrick, since we do not have a question in any report, [it is] all ADR, ADR, ADR [NdT: “ADR” in a “Sommarie informazione” means “A domanda risponde” = “in answer to a/the question”], what type of question you asked her, if you remember it, since you have such precise/accurate memories.
RF: We asked her what that message meant, because from looking at the message it was a message of reply to another, because otherwise I don’t write to you certainly, [is that not] correct? What was the tenor of the message, if that meant an appointment [was made], if therefore she had gone out after that message or if she had remained at home, besides saying who is Patrick and having the confirmation of who he was.
LG: This type of ….
GCM: Please, Attorney.
LG: [It’s] Ok like this. This type of dialogue between you and Amanda always took place as [if] in great harmony, in great calmness, or else speak, tell the truth, it’s better for you, was there some kind of … Not threat, I would never allow myself [to say that]. How [it] come about, did this type of … Given that the questions are not known.
RF: I have to make a simulation… I already said it, we carried out….
GCM: Whether she remained calm, whether there were, I don’t know, crises.
RF: I’ve already answered that everything took place calmly, actually, after …
LG: You said calmly.
RF: It happened calmly.
LG: So calmly that you had to interrupt the questioning/report.
GCM: Did you suspend the questioning/report?
RF: I stopped the questioning/report because there are indications of guilt. If someone tells me that they are in the house of the crime, excuse me, Attorney, what [else] should I do?
LG: But I …
GCM: Excuse me.
LG: Calmly/Tranquilly [sic] that indications of guilt emerge and of what type that suspend/interrupt the questioning/report and make Amanda at the disposition of the judicial authority [sic. NdT: this sentence makes no sense in the Italian]
GCM: Excuse me, excuse me.
LG: Is it so?
GCM: But she was ... Excuse me, Attorney. She was describing/portraying the behavior, such as it could be remarked/observed externally .This is what we’re at.
RF: In the moment when she saw the message initially, it is as though she were astonished. Can I give my impression? Well, if I cannot give it, then we cannot continue. I [will] give my impression and you will understand…
LG: You cannot do that.
LG: You made it the same, you, because ...
GCM: Excuse me, please Attorney.
LG: And the questioning/report was suspended/paused…
RF: For a moment she is not looking [NdT: also “you are not looking”].
GCM: Please, let’s avoid overlapping each other with our voices, maybe let’s leave that question to rest for a bit…
LG: The Public Prosecutor arrives…
GCM: Excuse me Attorney, we’re there, the suspension/pause…
LG: We have suspended/paused the questioning/report and Amanda was made available …
FM [sic – i.e. Maresca]: She was answering.
GCM: She was answering, but she has already answered.
LG: But now …
GCM: Attorney, Attorney, if there are other questions, please.
LG: Look! [Now] I’ve been interrupted, me.
FM: Excuse me, she was answering.
LG: Excuse me, it is I who have been interrupted, not me who interrupts. Certainly there are other questions.
GCM: Can we close this parenthesis [NdT: i.e. “interval”], perhaps? Excuse me. Earlier she/you made a reference, it seems to me that I recall that at a certain point Amanda Knox burst out weeping, as connected with this.
LG: Yes, this too.
GCM: Can you pinpoint this moment…
RF: I was pinpointing, and I was interrupted. I am saying it. If you make me [NdT: or also “let me”] also give my impression, you will understand better what I want to say.
GCM: No, no, no. The impression [sic. NdT, typo: should be “non l’impressione” = Not the impression]. The crying …
RF: In the moment when she was [sic], she saw, the message from Patrick on the mobile phone, for a moment she stayed there looking at it, and then I can’t tell you my impression that she gave me in that moment, her manner, after which she burst out weeping and accused him of being the perpetrator of the murder and of having been, herself, there in the house of the crime that evening, together with him.
LG: We have reported everything. Very well.
GCM: Excuse me, Attorney, this, well, please. [sic]
LG: The Public Prosecutor arrives, what happens? Was a defence [lawyer] appointed to the young lady?
RF: The defence [lawyer] for the girl had been requested, even though probably ...
LG: But I asked you if he/she had been appointed.
RF: He/she had not been appointed.
GCM: But Attorney, excuse me Attorney, you have every possibility ...
RF: He/she was not appointed because there wasn’t one.
GCM: ... to make all the questions you want, however let’s let the witness finish when the questions are asked, otherwise it is useless to ask questions.
RF: The lawyer was not appointed because there was no lawyer.
LG: You know that on this point there is a ruling [made] by the Cassation… I ask, if you know, if you don’t know we will try it in a different way…
FM: No, Mr President, there’s opposition. It is we who make the evaluations/assessments about the Cassation, and not the witness.
LG: Then I will repeat the question, since I did not understand clearly the answer. Was a court-appoint lawyer/legal aid lawyer or a personal/private lawyer?
FM: She has already answered.
GCM: Please, let’s not interrupt. Please Attorney.
LG: Was he/she appointed or not, this Attorney?
RF: He was not appointed because there were none. If you look at the sequestration [arrest?] report, my next one [NdT. i.e. report] of that morning, I acknowledge that she could be assisted by a defence [lawyer], and she renounced that option, but if she renounced it, it is because there were none, and it is understandable because she is not Italian, not …
RF: That is to say, the one who appoints.
LG: I wanted to ask a question. All these quote-unquote courteous activities - a hot tea, the brioche/cake - they took place, if I have understood correctly, after the spontaneous declarations given to the Public Prosecutor, and before the notification of arrest, or after the notification …
RF: Look! They took place even the day before.
LG: I’m asking you that. No, you say she was tired, I put the seats, I made her rest …
RF: Yes, she was tired afterwards, this after ...
GCM: Wait, wait for the question to be finished.
LG: This type of activity - so commendable - did it take place after the spontaneous declarations to the Public Prosecutor had finished, or not?
RF: Before and after.
LG: After the notification, you said that it was late in the morning.
LG: After the notification of arrest? If you remember.
RF: She at a sandwich.
LG: I am asking you after the notification of the arrest or before, if you recall?
RF: But what?
GCM: Excuse me, this behaviour, she has said that she ate a sandwich, after the notification of the arrest or before …
RF: I don’t remember clearly whether the sandwich was ...
GCM: But after the notification of the arrest, do you recall something/anything?
RF: Of after the notification I remember that she asked me immediately for the sheet, paper and pen, however it even be that she stopped at a certain point because it was late.
LG: In fact, I made a mistake, you are right.
RF: Furthermore, I remember that in any case she, that is to say, we had to waste time before accompanying her to the jail in any case, because there were the doctors to carry out the inspection, she had to do a urine test and she couldn’t manage because she had done it [NdT: i.e. urinated] earlier, because she had drunk tea and other things, and so we had gone down to get water, I remember. Now I can’t place [that], whether it was 5 minutes to 12 or 1230 hours, but I think that this doesn’t change very much.
LG: I will ask you a final question.
GCM: Please, Attorney.
LG: Because it seems to me. At any time were the handcuffs, or anything of the sort, put on [her] in the Questura?
RF: Absolutely not. I repeat to you that I was rebuked because I took her to the bar without handcuffs with respect to ...
LG: Clarify this then ...
RF: This comes back to my mind, it makes me remember, thank you Attorney, that I took her after the notification of the arrest.
LG: Clarify for everyone, for the Court, for the lay judges, the manner [NdT: i.e. the way things took place] of the little sheets [of paper], the expression I want to make you… That is, the “memoriale”, the first “memoriale”: were the little sheets [of paper] requested before being translated in jail, after the notification of the arrest and before the translation in jail, the expression that Commissioner Napoleoni and also you reported – “I want to give you a gift” – how did… If you have doubts, ask me first, but anyway Amanda said these words in the moment when …
RF: Yes, when she asked me for the sheets. The interpreter was also there…
LG: Both of you used the same sentence: “I want to give you a gift”.
RF: Yes, she said “I want to make you a gift”, we understood there [sic. NdT: typo? “lì” (there) instead of “li” (them)] as gift.. I said “what gift are you giving me?” [NdT: or “what a gift you are giving me”]. As a gift, it was meant/understood as “I want to give you a thing”, but then the fact that she said to me “I want to give it to you so that you can read it before taking me to jail, so that you, if you have other questions to ask me, you [can/will] do that…”
LG: This is everything I wanted to know. Thank you.
Defense attorney Maria Del Grosso
MDG: I wanted to know, if you remember it seeing as the closing time of the recaps/summaries is not given, how much time, more or less, Amanda was heard for?
MDG: The first questioning/report.
RF: The first questioning/report finished late.
MDG: Do you recall is it a case of 0100 hours, 0200 hours?
RF: No, more [i.e. later], more, because first we had the general chat on what she had seen… To me, in that moment, more than writing [what] interested me was understanding whether there were clues, whether there were elements [on which] one could immediately carry out checks, and so communicate to my colleagues what there was to be done.
MDG: It sufficed, the answer that you gave me. How many times did you admonish Amanda, because it seems to me that I understood that she had been rebuked for her behaviour with Raffaele, she had been rebuked for the cartwheel, she had been rebuked on other occasions.
RF: Amanda was rebuked every time that the circumstances were not appropriate for her behaviour and I tell you what those are, Attorney: they are the times when she was found kissing/cuddling/smooching with Raffaele along the corridor the very day in which the cadaver was found: tell me yourself whether it seems suitable, in an office of the Questura, with a dead body still inside the house, if this one [NdT: i.e. Amanda] should continue to smooch/kiss and cuddle?
MDG: Mr President, that is an evaluation/assessment.
GCM: Very well, Excuse me please, we are only at the answers.
MDG: I said how many times, not…
RF: It was the first.
GCM: Then without going on to give a reason.
MDG: I did not ask for an assessment of the expediency/suitability or otherwise of the rebuke.
RF: Very well Attorney. Well, that was the first time, and then the second that [was] when I found her outside the elevator/lift, giving a demonstration of her abilities, and she continued to chuckle/snigger and to skip [about].
GCM: The second time you have already spoken about. And then was there another occasion?
RF: If in the same circumstance when I told her that – I already reported that I rebuked her in a maternal manner to tell her that we had understood that she had said some lies, even …
GCM: That’s enough like that, please.
MDG: You also rebuked her with reference to the SMS found in her mobile phone [that had been] sent to Patrick Lumumba?
RF: What should I have rebuked her about there?
MDG: What did you say to her?
RF: I asked her who he is, why she had send him that message, if …
GCM: Excuse me, answer yes or no.
MDG: Because earlier you spoke of contradictions.
GCM: Excuse me, we are at the answers of the witness, please Attorney, so you said no about the message.
MDG: What did it mean for you, the SMS sent to Lumumba, in the moment when you read it?
RF: For us, it could signify an appointment that evening, after the time of sending of the message – which was around 2030 hours – because if one says “certainly”, answers a message and says “we’ll see each other later” [NdT: the literal translation of “ci vediamo più tardi” is “We will see each other later”, usually understood as “See you later” in English], “Good evening”.
MDG: Did you ask her: “why did you never tell us about this appointment”?
RF: No, we asked her what it meant and whether there was in fact, or not, an appointment – and with whom.
MDG: Do you know the meaning of the expression in English “see you later”?
MDG: What does it mean?
RF: We will see each other after, later.
MDG: In the sense that one is giving [NdT: i.e. arranging/setting up/confirming] an appointment?
RF: No, I know that it means we will see each other later.
GCM: Maybe the witness is not ... One can give various interpretations to the expression, for goodness sake…!
RF: It was written in Italian.
GCM: This cannot be the subject of a question to the witness, please.
MDG: So you never suggested names to Amanda?
RF: Names, no.
GCM: Excuse me, Attorney, the question?
MDG: Have you ever suggested names to Amanda?
MDG: Because a little earlier you reported, with reference to the indication of Rudy, that it was on [your/her] initiative that Amanda spoke of Rudy.
RF: To remember that subject, I asked her what he was called because we had not yet identified him in that moment, we did not know who he was. We knew he was called “the Baron” by the boys below, from the flat/apartment below, but we did not know his identity.
MDG: Did Amanda know the nickname “the Baron”?
RF: No. Amanda did not give us any indication. She said that she did not exactly remember.
MDG: Did you report/record [in writing] everything that Amanda related?
RF: I reported/recorded [in writing] in the note what she related to me that night; I report/record [in writing] the things that relate to me.
MDG: Yes yes. But I am talking also about the recaps/summaries; did you report/record [in writing] everything related by Amanda?
GM: There is the report.
MDG: I am asking since first the witness referred to declarations that were not reported/recorded [in writing], I wanted to understand…
RF: Un-reported/un-recorded [in writing] declarations are in the note.
MDG: No, in the same context, Mr President, otherwise I would not have asked it.
GCM: The situation was different. Were there other similar/analogous conversations that were not reported/recorded [in writing]?
MDG: I am referring to the context of the undertaking in recaps/summaries, not outside of that.
RF: No, in the context, no.
MDG: I have no other questions.
Public Prosecutor Mignini
GM: Just one thing, Amanda, when you/she submitted the report/record, did the report/record in front of you, when she gave the spontaneous declarations, was she forced/compelled to give them, or was she, did she do it spontaneously?
RF: No, she did it spontaneously.
GM: Do you recall who was present at that moment?
RF: I was certainly together with her.
GM: Was there the interpreter?
RF: There was the interpreter, certainly, there was Donnino. Then there was present other staff who had reported/recorded [in writing] together with me the preceding oral evidence recaps/summaries, Zugarini and Ivano, only that maybe they were going in and out, then at a certain point they went out to give greater tranquility/calmness to the drawing up of the deed/case file, in short.
GM: I have no other questions.
Civil Party, Attorney Maresca
FM: Just one question, if I may show – it has already been acquired by the Court – the manuscript that was written/drawn up by Amanda Knox and handed over to the Inspector, if you are able to recognize it.
RF: Yes. It’s the one that I have, me. I don’t understand a word, but it is that one. Yes, because I have a copy of it, I made a photocopy.
GCM: So it is this?
RF: Yes yes.
FM: It is already acquired in the case/court files. This handing-over, did it happen spontaneously on the part of the accused to yourself?
FM: I have finished. Thank you.
Defence Attorney Bongiorno
GB: In the context/case of this note of 6 November 2007, did you also describe this cartwheel, these “oh-so-particular” behaviours?
RF: To whom?
GB: Since you were making a note in which you described these conversations that you had …
RF: Certainly. But we speak between ourselves and the others of the other squadrons, we speak. I described it, certainly.
GB: Then explain to me …
RF: No, you have to tell me to whom I should have described it.
GCM: No, excuse me, ask Attorney Bongiorno thus for the purposes of the transcription…
GB: I arouse a bit of hostility in effect…
RF: No, I don’t understand…
GB: There is a note in the context of which you describe this pre-recap/summary conversation with Amanda and give a series of details, behaviours, all that. Since it doesn’t seem to me that I see, it seems to me that this circumstance of the cartwheel - which we are now giving significance/importance to even from a procedural/trial point of view – is not noted therein, I was asking myself the reasons for this missing indication, that’s all.
RF: The reasons because it is a behaviour, she had already been quietly admonished for that behaviour, then in the end …
GB: That is to say, you did not consider it relevant for ... Since there is a series of indications of Amanda’s behaviour there …
RF: Yes, I understood what were the indications that were useful [for] the activity of the investigations. In a note, I report those that are the indications or the elements that are useful for advancing the inquiries: if I were to report about the cartwheel, what advancement to the inquiries would that have?
GCM: We have understood the meaning of the answer.
RF: I say, it might have a meaning today, when I say it for … But not yesterday, not in the note.
GCM: Excuse me, look, the questions that are posed are only in order to acquire information, even if to you they may seem perhaps …
RF: To me they seem a bit strange.
GCM: Useless, superfluous, however to us … So they are always useful.
LM: If the parties are all in agreement, I would like to request the acquisition of the note signed by Inspector Ficarra of 6 November 2007 at 2000 hours.
GM: It is already acquired for the case/trial file, Mr President.
GCM: Nonetheless, if there is no opposition, we can acquire it, yes. Its production has been requested and it has been acquired for the purposes of useability, on the consent of all parties. If there are [any] questions.
Defence – Attorney Del Grosso
MDG: I wanted to know only if Mr Patrick Lumumba, if you know, was arrested before or after the writing of the “memoriale”.
RF: By “arrested”, what do you mean? The notification of arrest, or that he had been physically taken first?
MDG: Both those circumstances.
GCM: If you know it.
RF: Since it was other colleagues who went to seek him, while I had … I don’t recall, honestly, I don’t know how to place it [in time] because I don’t recall. Maybe I had the door closed and I didn’t see the precise moment in which he came in.
MDG: You did not proceed with [deal with] the notification of arrest with regard to Lumumba?
RF: The notification, yes.
MDG: Then at least with reference to the notification you can tell us.
RF: In reference it was first the one for Amanda, if I don’t remember wrongly, but I don’t remember well.
GCM: The Attorney is asking [if it came] first with respect to the drawing-up of that writing [NdT: i.e. the “memoriale”] by Amanda Knox, or else after?
RF: If I don’t recall clearly the notification of arrest for Lumumba, how can I manage to remember whether it came first or afterwards?
GCM: She doesn’t remember it./You don’t remember it.
RF: I don’t remember it.
MDG: No other questions.
GCM: I wanted just to ask you: earlier, you spoke of one of your investigation activities with regard to the route [taken by] Meredith the evening before.
GCM: If you could say what route, what it was you reconstructed.
RF: I, like others, we redid the same route several times, so we left from the house of the girls where Meredith had been to dinner during the evening before going back home, so we did the route to go down, now I can’t indicate the exact names of the roads, until we arrived at the little stairs, also to calculate also [sic] the time, in short, that it took and see if there were places/pubs open at that time, if there could be subjects, [and] where, [and to] seek to understand also the siting of any videocameras, and we arrived then at the end, in fact, near the little basketball court where, moreover, we sought, as I have already said, to identify subject that might give evidence of the presence, even in the past, of …
GCM: The travel time?
GCM: Travel time.
RF: About 10 minutes, it seemed to me.
GCM: There are no other questions, so …
FM: Mr President, the Inspector’s note was already acquired nonetheless with the “memoriale” of the 6th; it is a duplicate.
GCM: Ok, we will acquire it; in any case, we will only re-read it at the declarations given by the witness for … [Ficarra] is dismissed. It is 12 and three quarters. We could hear a witness before ending the morning, thus continue until one and three quarters, or 1400 hours, then we’ll have a break from 1400 hours to 1430 until 1500 hours, roughly. Thank you, good day. Unless there are different needs.
This English translation of the relevant part of Rita Ficarra’s testimony on 28 February 2009 was by main poster and professional translator ZiaK. Her full translation will appear soon on the Meredith Case Wiki. This should not be stolen (as other translations were) and posted as their work by Amanda Knox and her light-fingered gang.
Series to be continued up to the present day.
Archived in Officially involved, Amanda Knox, Police and CSI, Diversion efforts by, The Knox-Mellases, Hoaxes about the case, Knox interrog. hoax
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (38)
Tuesday, May 13, 2014
The Knox Interrogation Hoax #2: At Trial More From Rita Ficcara On Realities 5-6 Nov
Posted by The TJMK Main Posters
1. Previously in this extended series
In Post #1 we observed that Knox’s acolytes have long been claiming that a dozen cops in tag teams assaulted a starving and sleepless Knox for 20/30/40 hours.
On the night of 5-6 November, they claim, Knox was finally broken and a coerced “confession” emerged - the “confession” that actually framed Patrick. What this runaway accusation of serious crimes by Perugia police seems to lack is even the slightest evidence. It’s a hoax, pure and simple. Just that.
Prior to the 2009 trial early versions of these coercion claims which Knox herself began had zero traction. Knox’s own lawyers specifically denied them. Read what The Machine posted on 11 February 2009 which was about two weeks before the Knox “interrogators” were cross-examined.
And of course Judge Massei, the discredited Judge Hellmann, and Cassation all disbelieved them, and Knox served her three years. But still the hoax keeps on going, on TV and books and websites.
2. The huge opportunity for the defenses
In Post #1 we presented a carefully checked scenario of what really happened) (see part 2) plus the supporting testimony of the lead questioner Rita Ficarra (part 3).
Note that Inspector Ficarra observed that this was not a real interrogation: Knox had complained that she was tiring of the investigation. Inspector Ficarra said that one thing that would move things along would be a list of those who came to the house or might have had malicious intent toward Meredith.
Knox happily obliges. For about half an hour after the translator arrives, Knox and Rita Ficarra work on that list. Knox pushes her cellphone across, and seven names are arrived at. Six names Knox shares with zero concern. The seventh, Patrick’s, provokes in Knox a yelling, head-clutching conniption - the first of several that night.
It would have been a really huge gain for the defenses at trial - a not-guilty verdict would have been almost guaranteed - if they had rattled Rita Ficarra and had her admit to Knox’s coercion. Especially by the supposed alternating tag teams. Especially of a Knox without food, drink, sleep, or breaks for the bathroom.
But note that in their cross-examinations NOT ONE defense lawyer even tried to go there. In their questioning of Rita Ficarra, that mundane scenario of the two brief sessions we describe seems a given - their point of departure.
What follows is the cross-examination of Inspector Ficarra by all four cross-examining defense lawyers: in this post Maori [LM] and Bongiorno [GB] and in the next post Ghirga [LG] and Del Grosso [MDG].
Here “GCM” is Judge Massei. As the defenses fully acknowledged, this was merely a recap/summary, a simple checking of facts with someone who might be helpful which could have been done on a street corner. It was not a witness or suspect interrogation. Claims that it was are a key part of the great hoax.
Inspector Ficcara’s testimony continues in Post #3.
3. Defenses cross-examinations of Rita Ficarra
1. Defense attorney Maori [LM]
LM: I heard, in your answers to the Public Prosecutor, you were very precise, accurate, so you had a photographic vision/image of that situation, and so on the basis of these you have also prepared very detail reports and service notes.
So, how many times did you see Miss Amanda from the moment when you [NdT: or also “she”] actually arrived at the Questura?
RF: I already said it earlier, I saw her on the 2nd when I heard/questioned her, in the afternoon, on the 3rd.
I don’t remember clearly whether it was the 3rd or the 4th that I accompanied her at the instruction of the judicial authority to Via della Pergola. Then at any rate, the 2nd in the afternoon, I heard her again, then on the 3rd…
At any rate, when I saw her I always took minutes/wrote a report with her[NdT: RF actually seems to use “verbalizzare” in the sense “talk with” or “question”, but I have used the correct translation as “report on/take minutes on”], except on that occasion…
LM: The 4th?
RF: No, the 4th, no. I did not take minutes/write a report on her the 4th.
LM: And also on the 6th, you saw her.
RF: And the night of the 5th, so between the 5th and the 6th.
LM: For how long did you remain together with Amanda, in the sense of [being] in the same room?
RF: Quite a bit.
LM: So you saw the person of Amanda Knox for quite some time?
LM: Did you see that the latter had any wounds or had any scratches or ...
LM: Or some ...
LM: I asked you if she had any wounds or any scratches and you answered no. Thank you.
RF: You’re welcome.
2. Defence Attorney Bongiorno [GB]
GB: Inspector, with respect to all these names that Amanda gave you, and that you reported in this note with your signature, what type of checks were carried out?
RF: On these people? There were made, I know, checks on every one of these people, however not personally by me.
I was, for example, charged with the person who then was [revealed as] Rudy Guede. I was charged with pinpointing, with identifying this person that we all know [NdT: ironic] who had had contact in some way with Meredith, because he had been, one evening, to the house of the students because he gravitated around the area of Piazza Grimana, and just like [with] him, I had [sic], I was charged with finding other subjects who gravitated around that place.
So much so indeed, that I then - if you see the subsequent oral evidence recaps/summaries - I found other subjects: someone who clearly indicated/suggested to me who that person was, and that enabled us to arrive at the identification of Rudy Guede.
GB: Yes, in fact, on Rudy there was effectively a whole thread/line of investigations and we know how that ended up.
RF: Yes. So I can report on that to you because I did it myself, and I was engaged in that type of checks myself.
GB: In reality, my question was, since in this note, as you recalled earlier, there were indicated so many names, Peter, Ardak, Juve, Spiros, Shaki.
RF: Spiros, for example, I myself heard/questioned him on [his] recap/summary.
GB: There you go. I wanted to understand what type of checks and investigative leads/threads had opened.
RF: I can tell you that Spiros, for example, I heard him myself, on [his] recaps/summaries, oral evidence.
GB: After having heard/questioned him, did you carry out checks, did you verify anything?
RF: Certainly, yes, Attorney. I didn’t do them myself, and I cannot report [on them] because, as I have already said to the President, I am part of a section of the Flying Squad that is not the Homicides section. I limited myself to helping - I and others - to helping colleagues of the Homicides section at the time when the event occurred, because we all collaborate.
GB: Do you know who carried out the checks, in fact?
RF: It was certainly Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni who did them, with the men of her squadron.
GB: So we will find checks…
RF: And the men also of the SCO.
GB: On all these, on all these ...
RF: Certainly. I remember some of them. I remember Spiros, I remember Shaki, who was the Moroccan or Algerian citizen, I don’t know that [sic, i.e. whether] he was indicated also by other girls, known.
GB: However you cannot tell me the threads/leads. Ok.
RF: I cannot tell you, myself.
GB: With regard to Lumumba, I want to know only one thing. Other than Amanda’s declarations, what objective elements were present in order to proceed then with Lumumba’s arrest? - SMSs and Amanda’s declarations - I want to know what are the other elements.
RF: I know that there were other checks carried out, sincerely, Attorney, I am an executer of orders. There was an [order for] arrest from the Public Prosecutor, it’s not as though I can criticize [NdT: also “examine”] the reasons [for it].
GCM: Excuse me. The Attorney is asking: there were the declarations of Amanda Knox, the message on the mobile phone taken, [were] there other elements… She is not asking for an evaluation/judgment.
RF: No. The other elements were those that the Public Prosecutor highlighted earlier, that on the scene…
GCM: No, with regard to Lumumba.
RF: Yes, on the crime scene, from the outset it was clearly a sexually-motivated crime, the declarations by Amanda in some way gave us to understand that the person that she had indicated had a sexual interest with regard to the victim, there had been the declarations that said in effect, in corroboration with the mobile phone, that there had been an appointment, that they had seen each other.
GCM: So the little message [SMS], yes.
RF: There and then, however, I don’t know then [what] the reasons ...
GCM: That ...
RF: The reasons for the arrest.
GB: I meant to say this: given that - let us forget the declarations and the SMS - were there, I don’t know, any papillary prints, blood, attributed to Lumumba, that is, was there any element, even objective? This is what I’m asking you.
RF: How could we say that about prints in that moment?
GCM: Excuse me, what seems to you, it was illustrative/as an example, the indication made…
GB: That is to say, if there was any other element other than these two?
RF: I don’t know.
GB: You are not able to say.
RF: No, I am not able to say.
GB: You said that, precisely, when you went to seek that wild cat, and then the cat remained there, and you said: “Ok, if someone wants to return to give food to the cat, they can return”. Did anyone return to give food to the cat?
RF: I don’t know that.
GB: Thank you.
RF: I repeat that at a certain point, I took myself off/left, I went back to my section to do the activities of my section, so I cannot say much about the progress/development [of the investigations]: I can report if they task me, if they say to me “Please, do this check for me, please”. I reiterate to you, I was concentrated on the subjects who gravitated around Piazza Grimana, on the identification of those subjects. Thus the investigative developments were the task of the section, therefore, of other investigators.
GCM: Good. Thank you. Please.
This English translation of the relevant part of Rita Ficarra’s testimony on 28 February 2009 was by main poster and professional translator ZiaK. Her full translation will appear soon on the Meredith Case Wiki. This should not be stolen (as other translations were) and posted as their work by Amanda Knox and her light-fingered gang.
Inspector Ficcara’s testimony continues in Post #3.
Archived in Officially involved, Amanda Knox, Police and CSI, Diversion efforts by, The Knox-Mellases, Hoaxes about the case, Knox interrog. hoax
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (8)
Sunday, May 11, 2014
The Knox Interrogation Hoax #1: Senior Inspector Ficarra Invites Knox’s Help In A Recap Session
Posted by The TJMK Main Posters
1. Multiple Witnesses On Knox’s Conniption And False Accusation
Senior Inspector Rita Ficarra arrives back at the police station late on 5 November and finds her way blocked by a cartwheeling Knox.
She rebukes Knox, who testily responds that she is tired of the investigation. Rita Ficarra tells Knox to go home and get some sleep. Knox refuses.
Shortly after, Ficarra suggests to Knox that if she really wants to help, she could add to the list of possible perps - men who Meredith knew and who might have visited the house -in a recap/summary session.
Knox eagerly agrees. So they begin on the list.
This goes slowly because of language problems, until an interpreter, Anna Donnino, arrives. In total Knox and four others (three of them women) are present. Knox builds a list of seven people, including Guede, and adds maps and phone numbers in a calm proceeding.
At several points in the evening Knox is provided with refreshments.
Suddenly, to the considerable surprise of all the others present, Knox has a yelling, head-clutching conniption (the first of several that night) when they observe a text she had denied sending, saying she would see that person later. Knox explains that it was Patrick, along with a torrent of accusations.
Warned she should not do so without a lawyer, Knox insists on a recorded statement which says she went out to meet Patrick that night and accuses Patrick of killing Meredith.
Knox is put on hold, given more refreshments, and made comfortable so she might get some sleep. A second session ending at 5:45 is intended as merely a reading of Knox’s legal rights, with Dr Mignini presiding. Having just been warned she should not do so without a lawyer present, Knox insists on a second recorded statement which also says she went out to meet Patrick that night and also accuses Patrick of killing Meredith.
Just before noon, now under arrest and about to be taken to Capanne Prison, a third statement this time in English, and seemingly gleefully hands it to Rita Ficcara. She yet again accuses Patrick but also ponts some suspicion toward Sollecito.
2. False Claims At The Heart Of The Interrogation Hoax
Amanda Knox has on and off ever since 2007 serially misrepresented the cause of her conniption and false accusation of Patrick, for which she has served three years with no further recourse possible.
For examples read what The Machine posted on 11 February 2009 which was about two weeks before the Knox “interrogators” were cross-examined at trial and several months before Knox herself took the stand.
Knox’s acolytes have blown this hoax up into lurid proportions. Ever since Knox’s trial in 2009 many have claimed that maybe a dozen cops in rotating tag teams of two assaulted a starving and sleepless Knox over 20/30/40 hours, threatened her, and refused her a lawyer. .
Over the entire night of 5-6 November, they claim, Knox was finally broken, and a coerced “confession” emerged - the “confession” that actually framed Patrick and was in fact a false accusation.
Remember this huge hoax is at the heart of Amanda Knox’s book Waiting To Be Heard, of her American and UK TV claims, of her Oggi claims, of her long email to Judge Nencini’s court, of her appeal to ECHR Strasbourg, and of her new appeal against Judge Nencini.
It is also the basis for a tidal-wave of charges of police crimes, by Doug Preston, Ciolino, Heavey, Kassin, Steve Moore, John Gordon, Hampikian, Halkidis, Waterbury, Doug Bremner, Fischer, Dempsey, Burleigh, and several dozen other badly-researched fabricators.
But Knox’s own lawyers specifically denied her accusations and no complaint against the police was evr lodged. And of course Judge Massei, the discredited Judge Hellmann, and Cassation all disbelieved them, and Knox served her three years. But still the hoax keeps on going, on TV and books and websites.
3. The Intended Course Of Our Interrogation-Hoax Series
We will be posting starting below the trial testimony of Inspector Ficarra, newly translated by the professional translator ZiaK. Rita Ficarra presided over the first recap/summary with Knox (again, a recap/summary is not an interrogation) on 5-6 November and was later present when Knox was read her rights.
We’ll then post more newly-translated trial testimony of other police present at the central police station on the night, and what the magistrates in 2008 and 2008 and trial and appeal judges from 2009 to 2014 made of this.
Then we enter the alternative universe of the numerous conspiracy claims, extending to Sollecito’s 2012 book and Knox’s 2013 book, her lengthy email to Judge Nencini in 2014, and so to her appeal against his final report, just released.
“GCM” below is Judge Massei who watches over Knox’s legal interests but who also seeks to clarify. Inspector Ficcara’s testimony continues in Post #2.
4. Testimony Of Inspector Rita Ficarra At Trial
Giuliano Mignini [GM]: Carry on. We have arrived at the evening of the 5th.
Rita Ficarra [RF]: The evening of the 5th, then, I returned to the Questura around 2300 hours, with another of my colleagues, and I found - when the lift/elevator door opened – I saw, I met Amanda. I saw that she was with other of my colleagues. In effect, the door of the lift/elevator opens on a lobby that is [situated] even before [you reach] the entry to the offices of the Flying Squad: there’s quite a big space.
My astonishment was that I saw, I found her there, and I found her doing – demonstrating – her gymnastic abilities: she was doing a cartwheel; she had shown the back arch, she had done the splits, and it seemed to me, sincerely, a bit out of place, that is to say given the circumstances, the moment and the place. For which [reason] I admonished her, and I even asked her what she was doing there.
She, and my colleagues also confirmed this, said to me that she had come because they had called Raffaele Sollecito, he had been invited that evening to give another recap, and she had accompanied him.
Judge Massei [GCM]: You said this to her in English or in Italian?
RF: In Italian. I reiterate that she speaks Italian, with me she speaks only in Italian. I do not understand a word of English, so … My colleagues confirm that there was Sollecito who was there in another room and in that moment the Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni and other colleagues were listening to him. And continuing to speak, the girl told me that she was rather shocked at the fact, annoyed at the fact that she had been called and recalled several times by the Police and [that] she was totally tired.
At that point, I also admonished her because I said: you’re tired, yet nonetheless you came this evening, when nobody has invited you: you could have gone to rest. And furthermore – I said – you don’t understand that we are talking about a murder, of a person that you say was your friend, [who] lived in the same house as you, it happened in your house. If the Police call you, put yourself in our shoes: we need useful information.
GCM: So there’s this …
RF: More than anything else ... Yes, in the end I had a quiet talk because I was trying to make her understand that our intention was to to seek [her] collaboration: for me, she was a precious witness precisely because she had been close to the victim, she had been – she lived – in that house, they had gone to pubs/clubs together.
And so I explained to her that the reason for which she had been called and recalled several times, it was because I was [sic.: NdT: typo? “ero” instead of “erano” = “there had”] emerged some significant contradictions between what she had declared and the subsequent information that other subjects had given us, that there had even emerged some lies in the end, [which were] nonetheless ascertained by the person who had carried out the crime-scene inspection, who had been on the scene of the crime, or at least in the vicinity.
I said: we are asking for collaboration. I, from the first time that I heard her, I always insisted on knowing what the victim’s associations might be, whether she knew which people had known her [i.e. the victim], with friendly relationships, with mere acquaintanceship, who had been to the house, above all subjects who had been to the house there.
GCM: Yes, activities to which ...
RF: Activities, this I say because I [will] then explain why she gave me the names, named a few persons in the end, that is to say, in the end she understood, she said. I also explained to her that some of the lies that at the beginning might be understandable, such as the fact of saying “No, I don’t use drugs”, in the end…
GCM: [You/One] cannot report, obviously, on the declarations …
RF: Yes, but if I don’t say this, it will not be understood why then [later] she told me many things in the note.
GCM: Yes, it can be said in relation to the investigations, to the investigation activities that were subsequently executed.
RF: Yes, exactly.
GCM: Only in this limit and in this limit, that is, they are not useable when you refer to [speech] from …
RF: Yes, to understand why she told me things that I was not quick enough to write afterwards; they had necessarily/therefore to be written in the later note. I’m coming to this to say that, on that evening, therefore, she understands [sic: RF uses present tense] my intentions and says to me: “Ok, I now will tell you the names of other persons” because I invited her myself to look at her mobile phone, at the phonebook/contacts list, I say [sic, i.e. “said”]: “Bring someone to your mind [i.e. = “remember”]. It’s not possible that no-one ever entered this house, or only two people. Call to mind who might have known her”.
So she runs through her mobile-phone contacts list and starts to look at a series of numbers, and then she remembers and says to me “Look, it’s come [back], there were another four-five people that I know who knew her, some of these actually came to the house, some of them I brought myself”. She gives me the references of telephone numbers and for some she also gives me references of where, in particular of Patrick Lumumba, she gives me the particulars of where, of the area where he might live.
She says to me that she even worked with him and from there she tears, that is to say she makes me this little drawing on a big notebook pad she always had with her, after which she tears it out for me and so it was then “acquired” [NdT: as an exhibit], in short, I attached/appended it to the note.
At that point I say to her: “for me it is important then that we write these [names etc down], that therefore, since you are waiting [NdT. i.e. for Raffaele], let’s go do a follow-up to the recap that you have already given me, have already submitted to me”. So I go to the office, that is to say, I go into the office room, and we begin to write.
GM: Listen: before continuing, she wrote a note?
GM: The note: you can, I believe you can consult/examine/refer to it.
GCM: Yes, certainly, it is permitted to consult/examine/refer to her records.
GM: I am referring to everything that that note reported.
RF: Yes, I’ve already said that, in effect… The note of 6 November, at 2000 hours, I made it in the evening because having then not slept for two days, I went [straight] to bed in morning when I finished. Morning and afternoon.
The first part I’ve already related and it gives me indications about these boys, about non-Italians, about a certain PJ Peter Svizzero, who had seemingly been several times in their home and who lived nearby the area of via della Pergola 7.
Patrick, of the [sic] owner of the pub, Le Chique [sic], where she herself worked, I’ve already said, she gives me the mobile-phone information.
Then she speaks of a certain Ardak, a North African citizen, and gives me the mobile-phone information.
A certain Juve, an Algerian citizen, who worked occasionally at the Le Chique [sic] pub and who apparently lived in the vicinity of the home of another of the victim’s friends, of Sofie [sic], also for him she gives me the mobile information.
Spiros, a young lad of Greek nationality, for whom she givers me only the mobile-phone information.
Shaki [Hicham Khirir], a Moroccan citizen who works in a pizzeria, frequents the [same] pubs [as those] frequented by all the girls of the victim’s group, and [is] also friends with Sofie [sic].
She furthermore reports about a black South African boy, short, who plays basketball in the Piazza Grimana court, [and] who on one occasion had apparently visited the home of the boys who lived underneath the apartment.
GM: Was “South African” an exact term?
RF: No, no. In fact, I wanted to explain that she didn’t recall the particulars of this boy, or at least she did not tell me about them, so I said to her that if she recalled also any boy who had been in the home of the neighbours, of the students who lived below, because we had found out from these other boys that there had been a meeting between them; one evening they had had a little party in their home and that they had [sic], in which there was also [sic], in that circumstance there was also Amanda and Meredith.
And she said to me: “Yes, it’s true, I remember that boy. But I know neither his name nor can I give you his telephone number because I never saw him again. I can’t say anything else.” This is what she said to me, therefore she was ...
GM: But she said South African or [Côte d’]Ivorian?
RF: South African in the sense that I wanted to mean of a dark colour, that is a person, excuse me, not …
GM: Go on…
RF: South African. [It’s] nothing. Then she confided other things to me, because I had in fact - as I said earlier Mr President, that otherwise I couldn’t explain what she reported to me in the note – she had told me several times that she had never seen …
GCM: Excuse me please. She had never seen? These will not be useable, but let’s hear.
RF: In short, she never saw or smoked joints, had never used drugs, but here instead she says, contrary to what she had told me, she says to me that yes, a few times I’ve used, or at any rate I’ve used …
GCM: But only that which you have …
RF: She tells me this, I say it in the note, she tells me herself.
GCM: Yes, in the note, in this conversation…
RF: She tells me also who supplied it in this circumstance.
GCM: In the informal conversation.
RF: In that conversation, exactly.
GCM: Before the taking [down] of information.
RF: And so, she says to me that she had used substances such as hashish together with her boyfriend Raffaele. She says to me that, according to what he had confided to her, he had also used other substances in the past, but that for the moment, to her knowledge, it was only the fact that he used hashish.
GM: To narcotic substances, obviously, of various types.
RF: Yes, of the type… She tells me of hashish type, in the past, she says that he seemingly confided that had used other substances but even stronger, stronger substances.
GM: Cocaine, for example?
RF: Other substances.
GM: I ...
RF: yes, types [such as] cocaine, yes, yes, yes. I wrote that, in fact. And nothing that actually [NdT: or “currently”] instead he used only, that they together used smoke [sic – NdT: slang for “hash”].
GM: Here we go, and ok. So then she continued. What did you do… Ok, then ...
RF: Then what happens? I acknowledge/admit that Knox, following the notification of the order for arrest issued by the Public Prosecutor, actually immediately after, that it was notified to her and that its content was translated into English by the interpreter, she gives me, that is, she asks me to give her a pen and papers because she intends to write.
In my presence she did this, [and] that [i.e. presence] of the interpreter, there was Colantoni in the late morning and there was Inspector Sergio Ragni, because we were in their office. We gave her pen and paper and she began to write, honestly I didn’t understand what … What was her intention?
She asked me: “please give me a pen and paper” and says to me: “I want to give you a gift”, where by “regalo” I understood that she meant a pardon, she meant “I want to give you a thing, I want to give it to you please, I would like that you read this before accompanying/taking me to jail, so that you can have clearer ideas about what I’m thinking and about what I have already told you, and if you have any questions to ask me, you read it”.
She said to me and together with all the other policemen/women, “this way, if you have any questions to ask me because you have doubts, please ask me them first”. Justly I, apart from the fact that it was written in English, and then they were calling for me at the [very] moment she handed it over, precisely, traded [sic: NdT: “commercial” in Italian. Perhaps typo for “commensurato”? i.e. “at the very moment”] of being taken to jail.
Already they were stressing to me that it was late and we could not tarry any longer, so she gave me that sheet and pointed out to me that she would have [liked to have] delivered it to the judicial authority, because it was this [authority] that was proceeding: I could not do anything more. So this was the evening of the 5th, but here, this is it, the contents of my note. Then here, the recaps/information that she gave me earlier however should be incorporated.
GM: In fact, let’s go back to the evening of the 5th.
RF: On the evening of the 5th, after having made these declarations to me about these people who might in some way have known Meredith, might in some way have had something to do with the victim, I say to “so, let’s go in and write down the content, what you’re telling me”.
GM: Do you remember what time it was, more or less?
RF: Well, look, we had called the interpreter first/earlier, so then I started to chat with her informally at 11 when I arrived, so therefore not before one-thirty [i.e. 0130 hours], perhaps enough time ...
GM: So it was in the very early hours of the 6th?
RF: Yes, in the very early hours of the 6th, the time it took for the interpreter to join us, and we started to write.
GM: Listen, how was Amanda? I ask you [what was] her behaviour, how she was behaving, shall we say, in the various ...
RF: I repeat, I already said it earlier, about how I was astonished already when I was coming out of the elevator/lift by what I saw, and I had already admonished her. I admonished her even more so because I saw that in the preceding days she had had - contrary to all the other people that I saw there, who were all sad, all afflicted - I had always seen her either skipping around or flirting with Raffaele, smothering each other with kisses [NdT: i.e. smooching/snogging].
She had been admonished more than once for this behaviour that did not seem fitting for either the place or the situation.
GM: So, even while you were listening to her, she was as unworried/unconcerned as she had been?
RF: I told you that she was doing cartwheels…
GM: No, no, that was when you arrived. But I’m saying, even when, shortly after midnight, you had started to hear her [NdT: i.e. listen to what she had to say]?
RF: She was very calm, she was calm because we had a quiet chat, I said “Since you came here yourself, no-one called you, you’re giving me extra information, let’s write it down properly, because there could be very important details for us”. She had understood very well that ...
And she was calm, she says [sic]: “Yes, yes, ok. let’s wait for the interpreter that way we avoid misunderstandings”, and that is what we did. The problem [is] that at a certain point, the problem, that is to say, the fact that at a certain point there was a colleague from the SCO [NdT: “Servizio centrale operativo”, Central operations service], who came from the place where they were listening to Raffaele Sollecito.
And then after that came the Deputy Commissioner Monica Napoleoni, who says to me that Sollecito had said different things, that in effect he was no longer giving an alibi to Amanda, and therefore to ask Amanda, since I was recording [NdT: in the sense “writing down what was said”] her - [or] I had started to report/write down - to ask what the latter had done that evening in particular, in other words, to focus on that evening more than on anything else: we were interested in the hour more or less preceeding ...
Giulia Bongiorno [GB]: Mr President, until now we, obviously, we have not opposed each other because what was being referred to was an information [note], etc., if [i.e. perhaps] now we start the analysis of the memoranda we are “punto e daccapo” [sic. NdT: probably “punto e a capo”, i.e. “start a new paragraph”].
RF: No, I am not hurting [sic] any of those that ...
GCM: Yes, yes, excuse me. You cannot report, unless it is necessary/useful, “we are closed in this”?? [sic. NdT: possible misunderstanding from verbatim typists? possibly “if in this there were”?] in the event that there were declarations made they would not be useable.
GM: With these clarifications/explanations, you illustrate that which happened, without of course reporting the content of the declarations, save for if these are indispensable for making us understand…
RF: So, they called me to tell me that there were contradictions and I heard her [i.e. what she had to say] about these contradictions.
At the time when she was heard, she was asked to show us her mobile phone in order to check just in case whether in the memory there were messages that referred to appointments that evening, and we were able to see, myself and the other colleagues who were present, [while] scrolling through that mobile phone, that there had been easily, that there were various messages from the days preceding the 1st.
We even saw that there were messages with the victim from the 31st [October] that they should meet in some way or another, or at any rate they made a semi-appointment to see each other later, and then there were no others [messages].
GM: The evening of the 1st? The evening of the 31st?
RF: Of the 31st. On the day of the 1st, then, there was only one message. I remember that it concerned the night, around 0145 hours between the 31st and the 1st, with a subject with whom [she] said they would meet up, that they should meet up on the stairs of the Duomo, and then there are no further messages and we found a message sent around 2000-2030 hours it seems to me, around that time but at any rate it is in the files because we also photographed the mobile phone with the message where the name of Patrick appeared, and there was this message that said… Can I report it?
GCM: Yes, did you see it?
RF: Yes, certainly I saw it. We saw it together. It said “Certainly”...
GM: We saw it or else I will show you it if ....
RF: Yes. “Certainly. See you later. Good evening.” [Certo. Ci vediamo più tardi. Buona serata.]. It was the only [message] of that evening, and we asked who this Patrick was, and this seemed to us an appointment, see you later, certainly, in response to another [message]. We did not find any messages received around that time, so we did not find the message to which she was responding.
We found only that one sent by her. She, in the moment in which was, she was given the mobile into her hand, so it was said who is this person, so did you go out later or not, she said the name of Patrick Lumumba and gave the declaration that then ...
GM: And what behaviour did she then adopt/assume?
RF: She suddenly put her hands to her head, burst out crying and said to us “It’s him, it’s him, it was him, he killed her”. It was the only time that I saw her cry.
GM: This behaviour, did she then continue like that during the course of that morning, by now we were at what time?...
RF: No, she was as if she was giving vent in that moment, she cried, she began to say that he was crazy, he was crazy.
LG: No, that’s not possible, excuse me…
GCM: No, the question ...
GM: I was still talking about the behaviour.
GB: The behaviour is [described] in all the reports.
GCM: No, the behaviour, what was it?
RF: But this is not in the reports.
GCM: Sorry, the behaviour, what was it [like]?
RF: The behaviour was that she brought her hands ...
GCM: Were there fits of crying, were there ...
RF: Yes, yes. She brought her hands to her head, she started to “sgrullare” [NdT: Tuscan dialect: = either “shake” or “hit”] her head, she started to weep, she burst out crying and said that it was him.
LG: And suspends the report.
RF: I suspended the report obviously so that she could say what she said to me.
GM: There you go. And after that, what happened?
RF: After that, that morning, she then at a certain point said to me that she needed to rest because she was tired, and I left her rather than take her down to the cells below.
GM: Did she make any further declarations?
RF: I suspended the report, we took the declarations together with you, Doctor [Mignini], she maintained the same behaviour, and also there she began again to cry then.
GM: So we have arrived [at the point] after the “hearing” [i.e. the questioning], the spontaneous declarations, she wanted to sleep, wanted to rest?
RF: Yes, she wanted to rest. She said to me that she was tired, wanted to rest, felt a bit ill. We made her take something warm from the bar, it was already the early hours, it was well into the morning in short. I joined some chairs/seats together for her, I made her rest/lie down.
I tried to close the door so no-one would enter, because otherwise there was too much coming and going of people since they were going about preparing other reports/files, so at a certain point we were left [with] just me and Inspector Ragni, who arrived in the morning, and we did the reports, the arrest reports, we did them in there while she was resting.
GM: After which?
RF: Afterwards, when she got up, I took her to the bar to eat something and I was even admonished for that, because I took her without, that is I calmly [took her] here and there even though she was already under arrest.
GM: Do you recall, shall we say, that night between the 1st and then the spontaneous declarations and then the order for arrest, who and what was with her, other than you, whether there were other subjects that spoke with us, how they behaved? Did [she] undergo/experience violent [sic: NdT: “violente” in Italian, probably typo for “violenze” = “violence/force/assault”] by any chance?
RF: Absolutely not.
GM: Was she intimidated, threatened?
RF: No. I, as I said earlier, I came in that evening and there were some colleagues from the Rome SCO, I was with Inspector Fausto Passeri, then I saw come out, that is come out from the entry-door to the offices of the Flying [Squad] the Assistant Zugarini and Monica Napoleoni, who appeared for an instant just outside there, then we went back in calmly, because the discussion we had with her was quite calm.
Everything that she asked [for] we gave it to her, I repeat, she was treated with firmness and severity whereby by “severity” I mean that she was admonished in the moment when circumstances called for admonishment. She was treated with kindness and courtesy by all, because nothing was denied to her that she wanted.
In fact I made her sleep, I took her down for breakfast, I took her back [NdT: down to the canteen] before she left for jail to eat something because it was late by then. It seems to me that nobody in there treated her badly, absolutely [not].
GM: Listen, then after that there was the arrest, after how much time?
RF: The arrest happened after midday, she, immediately after the notification of arrest, after having read the contents in English, was there saying to me: “Please, can you give me some paper, I must write [something]”/
GM: Listen, this “memoriale” [NdT: a report/a note/a memoir] of the 6th, do you know if there were checks carried out, what was done in relation to this “memoriale”?
RF: Look here, on the che… the “memoriale” was in English, so surely it was … I gave it to the Murder Section, so to the Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni, who looked after sending it to the judicial authority with the related translation, clearly, the translation in Italian, the checks were surely carried out.
GM: In relation to Lumumba’s position?
RF: Yes. What should I say?
GM: Whether you know [sic]. Do you know whether the checks were carried out regarding this “memoriale” on Lumumba’s position?
RF: That night?
GM: No, subsequently.
RF: Subsequently, yes. I even did some myself. I went to carry out a search at Lumumba’s house, I went to carry out a search at the pub. We heard/questioned various witnesses on the possible opening or closing of the Pub during the incriminated [sic] evening.
GM: So that memoriale gave you the prompting/cue/idea/starting point for carrying out these investigations on Patrick?
RF: Certainly, because …
[questiong moves on to what happened next]
Inspector Ficcara’s testimony continues in Post #2.
Archived in Officially involved, Amanda Knox, Police and CSI, Diversion efforts by, The Knox-Mellases, Hoaxes about the case, Knox interrog. hoax
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (10)
Friday, May 09, 2014
Amanda Knox’s Awkward, Robotic TV Appearances: New Science Will Blow Open Any Such Hoax
Posted by Peter Quennell
In Italy the zillion or so Italians that Amanda Knox has framed are starting to push back on steroids in the Italian media and courts.
More on that coming up. Meanwhile Americans have been a tad less nimble to realize that they’ve swallowed a gigantic hoax.
Unsurprising, perhaps, given years of uniquely one-sided TV coverage of the case. But thanks to the good English-language reporters in Italy who have persevered. And thanks to CNN’s Nancy Grace for her biting segment this week, making it quite obvious where she stands on guilt.
Knox’s TV appearances and written statements are ringing more and more hollow as they lose all touch with reality. See our post immediately below. Such a brazen mangling of hard facts is absolutely absurd.
The professionals Vivianna and Friendofstfrank, main posters here, each have posts in the works for us on what they have been reading from Knox’s persona on the TV screen.
In the meantime, please check out these videos on the new science. Each is an hour long. They show just how hard it could get for any future Knoxes and Sollecitos to sustain a similar hoax in future.
Here’s an overview of the videos from the New York Times.
The program looks at how developments in neuroscience are affecting court cases and might do so even more radically in the future. It sets up a fictional trial involving a shooting during a convenience store robbery, cutting between courtroom scenes and visits with researchers and legal scholars who are working on the front edge of this world.
By mapping brain activity, scientists know quite a bit about which regions are involved with processes like facial recognition, as well as the differences between mature adult brains and the brains of young people. (The fictional shooting suspect is 18.) The program has segments on how this research might be applied to issues like determining whether a witness is correctly identifying someone, whether a defendant is lying about not having been at a particular location, even whether potential jurors have racial biases.
Researchers, able to see the implications of their work, are also already studying whether knowledgeable test subjects can subvert the technology, rigging test results by how they think or where they focus their eyes.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (13)
Tuesday, May 06, 2014
Judge Nencini Issues Harsh Warning To Tell The Truth - So Amanda Knox Does The Precise Opposite
Posted by The TJMK Main Posters
1. Substance Of The Nencini Explanatory Report
The Florence Court of Appeals released the Nencini Motivations Report in Florence one week ago today.
This report explains the rejection of Knox’s and Sollecito’s own first appeal against the Massei trial outcome of 2009. Four years were lost because the Hellmann court, which heard the first iteration of that appeal was bent as Cassation, the competent judge displaced, and now Judge Nencini have all concluded.
The Hellmann outcome of 2011 was mostly annulled, as in “ceased to exist”. The main findings and verdict have zero legal standing, and zero relevance to today’s process though (see below) Knox and Sollecito repeatedly try to ride that dead horse again.
Cassation confirmed Knox’s three-year prison sentence for framing Patrick (for which she has served the time). And Cassation referred the methods and recommendations of the Conti & Vecchiotti consultancy, which Cassation had hammered on legal grounds, to the Florence appeal court for the substance to be reviewed.
Our evidence and law experts here and in Italy have been looking at Judge Nencini’s 347 page report and find it hard-hitting and unequivocally blunt.
It will be extremely hard to appeal against within the very narrow limits Cassation allows. It removes all of Judge Massei’s ambiguities about motives, it reaffirms the witness statements of Curatolo and Quintavalle, and it judicially affirms the validity of the DNA and other forensic evidence against Knox and Sollecito.
There is overwhelming proof of the presence of all three perps, Knox, Sollecito and Guede, in the cottage that night. Guede is considered to have been brought inside by Knox, who had the only key, and he could not possibly have broken in through Filomena Romanelli’s window in the manner asserted by their defense.
Especially troubling for the defense, the report hints at an illegal suborning of the independent forensic experts appointed by the Hellmann court, and it also hints that the two “supergrass” witnesses, the prisoners Aviello and Alessi, may have been illegally tampered with by Sollecito’s lawyer Giulia Bongiorno, as first claimed 30 months ago.
The report warns that criminal slander of justice officials and other contempts of court will be heavily leaned on.
So the report demolishes the last remnants of Judge Claudio Hellmann’s now annulled acquittal, and substitutes for its fatally flawed reasoning a tightly crafted report that confirms the convictions of Knox and Sollecito.
It confirms that they acted in concert with Guede as Cassation itself long ago concluded had to be the case, and it appears to close any possible argument against the verdict that will carry weight at the Supreme Court.
2. Amanda Knox’s Press-Release Statement In Response
Knox issued a seven paragraph statement later the same day. Maybe not the smartest bit of work.
It is riddled with factual inaccuracies and innuendo, is typically arrogant and condescending in tone, includes the trademark racial innuendos about Italians and the black guy in the case, and shows no signs in its compiling of competent legal help.
Here below we show the various ways in which Knox flouts Judge Nencini’s warning and attempts to mislead. None of what Knox stated was the truth.
Claim: The Hellmann Court Found Knox “Innocent”
I have stated from the beginning of this long ordeal that I am innocent of the accusations against me. I was found innocent by the only court in Italy that retained independent forensic experts to review my case. I want to state again today what I have said throughout this process: I am innocent of the accusation against me, and the recent motivation document does not – and cannot – change the fact of my innocence.
First even if she was provisionally released following the now-annulled appeal, Amanda Knox was never, repeat never, found innocent. Only Cassation can make that final ruling, and they strongly found against the lower court that had jumped the tracks midway-through.
Even Judge Hellman himself said after his verdict that ‘the truth might be otherwise’ and suggested any reasonable doubt as to guilt has not been categorically and legally dismissed. He seemed to divine that he had failed in his task of bending the outcome in a way that would stay bent.
Second the court that Knox thinks found her innocent no longer exists as a legal fact. It seems to endemically escape Knox that the Hellmann outcome was annulled. Annulled. As in: wiped off the books. It is surprising that even Curt Knox and Ted Simon and David Marriott, while admittedly themselves no masters of Italian law, cannot help Knox to grasp that simple fact. It weakens her to keep clinging to a myth.
One reason it was annulled (and the reasons were overwhelming, one of Italy’s most decisive annullments ever) was that both Cassation and Dr Nencini had good reason to suspect the Hellmann court had been corrupted and had deliberately departed from the evidence and the law. Knox needs to ask herself why the highly qualified Judge Chiari was pushed aside (and immediately resigned in anger) in favor of a wrongly-qualified business judge (who is now ignominiously retired).
Third, it needs to be grasped by Knox that the Conti/Vecchiotti consultancy, far from being legally right and acting independently (and scientifically), was suggested as illegal by Perugia’s chief prosecutor Dr Galati, as appeal judges are forbidden from appointing consultants at that stage. While Cassation passed in ruling on that one, the consultancy outcome was criticised as illogical and legally unsound by both Cassation and Judge Nencini, as biased, full of baseless innuendo about contamination, and possibly tampered with by an American academic hired by the defense.
Conclusion: none of what Knox stated was the truth.
Claim: Only Rudy Guede’s DNA Was Found
The recent motivation document does not – and cannot – change the forensic evidence: experts agreed that my DNA was not found anywhere in Meredith’s room, while the DNA of the actual murderer, Rudy Guede, was found throughout that room and on Meredith’s body. This forensic evidence directly refutes the multiple-assailant theory found in the new motivation document. This theory is not supported by any reliable forensic evidence.
The forensic evidence is not just the DNA on the knife or in the room. It also includes the extensive traces deposited by Knox in the rest of the crime scene (bathroom, corridor and Filomena’s bedroom), and it also includes all of the autopsy.
Meredith’s room itself was not comprehensively tested for DNA. The room was dusted only for fingerprints, as the investigators had to make a call on prints or DNA.
Guede’s DNA was not found “throughout that room” or all over Meredith’s body. Guede’s DNA was found only in one instance on Meredith’s body, on a part of Meredith’s bra, mixed with Meredith’s blood on a sweatshirt cuff and the purse, and on toilet paper in a bathroom.
Knox’s DNA was found mixed with the blood of Meredith in multiple places, the only known source for which was the pool of blood in Meredith’s bedroom: multiple prints of Knox’s bare right foot in the hallway and in Knox’ bedroom, and at least five instances of mixed samples containing the DNA of both Meredith and Knox, including in the north bathroom and Filomena’s room, places where Guede did not go.
The court ruled that the blood and mixed DNA evidence found throughout the crime scene places her and Sollecito there at the time of the murder at the same time as Rudy Guede.
Though not DNA, there was one bloody shoe print in Meredith’s bedroom estimated to be Euro size 36-38, compatible with Knox size 37 and with no one else known of who could have left it there.
No fingerprints of anyone were found in the room, just a palmprint of Rudy Guede. Fingerprints were not found even on Knox’s own lamp, which she only confirmed grudgingly at trial was her own, and not found even in Knox’s own bedroom. Overwhelming sign of a cleanup? The courts all believed so.
Conclusion: none of what Knox stated was the truth.
Claim: The Knife As Murder Weapon Was Disproved
The forensic evidence also directly refutes the theory that the kitchen knife was the murder weapon: the court-appointed independent experts confirmed that neither Meredith’s blood nor her DNA was on the alleged murder weapon, which experts also agreed did not match the stab wounds or the bloody imprint of a knife on her pillow.
Judge Nencini’s finding is that two knives HAD to have been involved from both side of Meredith’s throat and the final blow was by a large knife the same size as the one in evidence.
The only DNA tests that matter with regard to the big knife are (1) the sound finding by Dr Stefanoni that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade - Knox is wrong, the independent experts did not refute that; (2) the sound findings by Dr Stefanoni and the Carabinieri lab that Knox’s DNA was on both the blade and the handle of the knife. None were overturned; contamination was ruled out; and the defense was left without a shot.
The Hellmann-appointed experts confirmed that the genetic profile found on the knife blade was the genetic profile of Meredith Kercher. The TMB test did not confirm if it was blood, but defense experts were forced to concede that TMB erroneously fails to confirm that blood is present about half the times in assessing minute quantities.
The Hellmann-appointed experts tried to explain away the genetic profile as being the result of contamination, but were never able to identify any scenario by which a knife that had supposedly never left Sollecto’s kitchen contained biological material yielding a clear genetic profile of Meredith Kercher.
Accordingly the Appeals court has ruled the kitchen knife is in fact the one that was wielded by her to strike a final blow, and at the same time there was a second knife in the room used by Sollecito to torture Meredith.
London DNA expert Dr David Balding certified Raf’s DNA as being on the bra clasp. This proves by itself that Sollecito was there. Knox belatedly claimed she stayed at the Via Garibaldi apartment with Sollecito all evening and now and then Sollecito belatedly backs her up. But how could that be if the court has positives of his footprint on the bathroom rug and on the bra, showing he was over at Meredith’s cottage that night? Proof of him present equals proof of her.
The Hellmann-appointed experts were not charged with analyzing the stab wounds, or whether the imprint on a sheet was of a knife or of something else and the result of the fabric being folded - nor was this within their field of expertise. Defense experts testifying on these issues were in conflict.
Conclusion: none of what Knox stated was the truth.
Claim: The Circumstantial Evidence Is “Unreliable”
In fact, in the prior proceeding in which I was found innocent, the court specifically concluded that the forensic evidence did not support my alleged participation in the crime and further found that the circumstantial evidence was both unreliable and contrary to a conclusion of guilt.
The recent motivation document does not – and cannot – change the fact that the forensic evidence still does not support my participation and the circumstantial evidence still remains unreliable and contrary to the conclusion of guilt.
Knox appeals to Hellmann’s ruling on the circumstantial evidence being unsound. But the Supreme Court, in annulling Hellmann, explained why it found his arguments illogical, and reminded the court of the standards by which circumstantial evidence must form a coherent whole. Judge Nencini in our opinion amply meets those standards in an elegantly argued report which will be hard to defeat at Rome’s Supreme Court.
Knox herself has proved the “unreliable” one, proven over and over again to be a liar who attests to her own bad memory in written statements, who talks of “dreams her mind made up”, who repeatedly goes vague.
We cannot rely on Knox’s recall of phoning mom, the timing of which moves and sometimes disappears. Knox claims she can’t remember where she was that night, she told a whopper of a lie on her boss, she can’t remember if the door to Filomena’s room was open or closed, she can’t remember her own lamp, she claims she rarely looks at a clock. On and on.
The strongest example of circumstantial evidence Knox can’t shake is the five spots of her DNA mixed with Meredith’s blood. Maybe 2 or 3 spots could be put down to unlucky chance, but five really removes reasonable doubt.
Conclusion: none of what Knox stated was the truth.
Claim: No “Legitimate” Motive Is Identified
And the recent motivation document does not – and cannot – identify any legitimate motive for my alleged involvement in this terrible crime. No fewer than three motives have been previously advanced by the prosecution and by the courts. Each of these theories was as unsupported as the purported motive found in the new motivation document, and each of these alleged motives was subsequently abandoned by the prosecution or the courts. Like the prior “motives”, the latest “motive” in the new motivation document is not supported by any credible evidence or logic. There is simply no basis in the record or otherwise for this latest theory.
“Proof” of motive is not required in any legal system in the world. The serial misleader Ted Simon should at least admit to that. The motives advanced were not withdrawn or abandoned by successive judges; they were fine-tuned chronologically only within very narrow limits. The sex hazing that went too far was weighted downward and pushed back, and a battle over theft of money was weighted upward and pushed forward.
The court found very compelling evidence that Knox committed the murder and led the pack. It postulates that Meredith and Amanda were incompatible with each other, and that Knox, Sollecito and Guede, high on drugs, first assaulted Meredith, restrained and abused her, and then murdered her with two knives.
Knox was known to be in serious rejection by those she encountered in Perugia for her sharp-elbowed brashness - growing rejection by her flatmates, her employer and the bar customers, and just about everyone she encountered except initially for Sollecito. But soon even he was being given a hard time and has semi-rejected Knox in return ever since. The first words of his 8 November 2007 statement to Judge Matteini were “I wish to not see Amanda ever again.”
And money was a huge looming problem which could have had her back in Seattle in weeks. Knox was known to want to head for China, and was known locally to have an expensive drug habit which had cut her savings in half. She really needed to hang on to that job at Patrick’s bar, especially as she had no work permit.
Sollecito’s bank balance was minimally topped up by his father each month. Francesco seemed to realise cocaine is an expensive habit and didnt want to see his son off down that slippery slope. So with Knox’s own habit, her remaining savings would have run out in weeks. How then to explain to Curt Knox that she really needed a whole lot more? He would have given her a very hard time before any more money flowed.
Conclusion: none of what Knox stated was the truth.
Claim: The Supreme Court Will Allow Another Full Appeal
I will now focus on pursuing an appeal before the Italian supreme court. I remain hopeful that the Italian courts will once again recognise my innocence. I want to thank once again, from the bottom of my heart, all of those—family, friends, and strangers—who have supported me and believe in my innocence.
Cassation wont “once again” recognise innocence. Knox should be encouraged to get real. So should her dummy followers - all her immediate circle know she was involved. There are no obvious grounds for Cassation to second-guess Judge Nencini, a very senior and very respected judge, considering the thoroughness of the Nencini Report. The disjointed series of statements on her blog arguing to the contrary look like the opinions of her friends and fans, not legal minds, and it is time she realizes they have feet of sand and no power to help.
Conclusion: none of what Knox stated was the truth.
Three lawyers and five others supplied the rebuttals for Amanda Knox’s false claims here and elsewhere, such as Knox’s email to Judge Nencini and her interviews on TV. Posts on those follow soon. Below: the careful way in which Italian media explain what Judge Nencini released.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (84)
Thursday, May 01, 2014
Was The Guardian Told Andrew Gumbel Made Myriad False Claims And Will Soon Face Felony Charges?
Posted by The TJMK Main Posters
Did Gumbel Mislead The Guardian’s Editors?
Gumbel co-wrote Sollecito’s book.
So Knox deserves “a new trial”? This is the same third-rate reporter who has damaged not only himself but Knox and Sollecito with myriad false claims over two years. He fails to mention to the Guardian and its readers that he has a major vested interest here.
Gumbel seems quite incapable of getting even simple plain facts about the case right. First, note two false claims right there in the Guardian: this was a new trial, and the protracted legal process is Italy’s fault.
Actually no. This was Knox’s and Sollecito’s own first appeal.
And in the UK and US any approval of any appeal after the very decisive trial outcome of 2009 would have been extremely unlikely. The Hellmann court was in effect hijacked, and the courts all know this, and Hellmann is paying a price for it. That added several years to the process.
And in the appallingly inaccurate book Honor Bound which Gumbel co-wrote with Sollecito, he included factual errors and false criminal accusations on every page and often in every paragraph.
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.
Bruno Vespa, the persistent host of Porta a Porta, Italy’s most popular crime show (for the equivalent of which American TV cries out) forced Sollecito’s father in national prime-time to admit that at the core of the book was a huge lie.
Other claims about the case and the officials were shown to be wrong on that show too.
Huge numbers of professional book reviews and Amazon reader reviews swallowed Gumbel’s and Sollecito’s false claims in the book whole. The nastiness toward Italy and its justice system and officials was ratcheted onto a whole new plane.
Charges Expected Against Andrew Gumbel
For the legal reasons explained in this key post an investigation by the Florence Chief Prosecutor’s Office was mandated to begin.
In that same post it was warned that for the period the investigation would require, it would be taken below the radar, so that the Sollecito and Gumbel team would have no way to respond through dishonest PR or legal dirty tricks.
A not-unsurprising result of that stealth move was that in the meantime, in the last year, very full of themselves and feeling no constraint, Sollecito and Gumbel went hog-wild in adding more crazy claims. And still more.
Now Prosecutor Gianbartolomei has issued his announcement of the conclusion of his investigation. Felony charges will be brought, though the specific focus has at present not been revealed except to the defenses.
As we reported several weeks ago, the defense had 20 days to say something, such as to request that Sollecito or Gumbel be interrogated or allowed to declare or explain something.
Then the prosecution will file charges against Sollecito and Gumbel, and possibly their foolish book promoter, Sharlene Martin, and Simon & Schuster, their sloppy and highly irresponsible publishers in New York.
Which precise false claims Prosecutor Gianbartolomei has made the target of his report we do not know. But this is a target-rich environment, that is for sure:
Examples: 20 False Claims In Seven Pages
These twenty examples of felony claims all appear in the book’s preface which is only seven pages. Such claims continue throughout the book at approximately the same rate.
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 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 interrogated 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 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 annulled Hellmann appeal that they hadn’t flailed uselessly against in the trial. Except of course maybe shopping for an inexperienced and pliable business judge, and for DNA consultants who they could then spoon-feed. Much of the hard evidence they simply kept well away from 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 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 pretty straight.
Remember, Meredith 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, she was headed to being among the least popular of 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. There are several dozen other houses behind it in the dark which any smart burglar would have chosen first. 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. It has in fact been demonstrated in numerous ways that the attack involved multiple assailants and this was accepted 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. Also 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 rather credibly fingered Patrick.
There is no proof Guede was an intruder. 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 remarks. 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 falsified.
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 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 has to arrive at a 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. This is hardly a requirement to be sneered at.
Gumble 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. And Italy has a vastly lower rate of false imprisonment than the US does.
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.
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 none have the slightest gain to make from false convictions.
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 not lining up to pay taxes. Italy’s murder rate is 1/6 that of the United States and its prison incarceration rate 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 could 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 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 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 in a later chapter have clearly not been read through or okayed by even a single Italian lawyer.
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.
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.
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.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (40)
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
The Nencini Report Complains About Multiple Instances Of Evidence Tampering And Criminal Slander
Posted by The TJMK Main Posters
[Edda Mellas, Curt Knox and Chris Mellas might be among those knee-deep in the soup]
Already investigations were under way into a PR campaign that in Italian juidicial terms seems little difference from a criminal enterprise.
Now Judge Nencini has included strong complaints in his sentencing report about nefarious behavior. This might now set a number of people to wondering if they have painted felony targets on their own backs, though the seriously dopey ones may have to have it spelled out for them.
This summary of the complaints is from Andrea Vogt’s excellent report in The Week/First Post which also highlights the appeal findings.
1. Interference with the courts
...during the course of Knox’s long and drawn out judicial process, Judge Alessandro Nencini claims, serious attempts were made to tamper with evidence in a way that would favour her….
In the scathing report that spells out the evidence, logic and reasoning that led to his guilty verdict in Florence on 30 January, Judge Nencini also says Knox and her defence tried to tamper with evidence and pervert the truth by introducing prisoners as witnesses, whose testimony turned out to be false and induced by “other interests”.
“It is clear how this trial was subject to heavy evidence tampering, both internally (slander) and externally,” Nencini writes.
He calls the media interest in the case “fertile ground” that led a number of witnesses to give misleading testimony in exchange for their moment in the limelight.
He also slams the first appeal court’s independent experts for having been oddly superficial and illogical in their analysis of the DNA evidence, especially regarding the potential for contamination, noting that controls were in place to prevent it….
2. Vilification campaign post 2011
Knox and Sollecito were released from prison in 2011 after an appeals court sensationally acquitted them of nearly all charges (one charge against Knox stuck: the slander of Congolese pub owner Patrick Lumumba, who she initially blamed for the crime).
The acquittal ruling, however, was later annulled by Italy’s Supreme Court and a second appeal trial in a jurisdiction outside Perugia was ordered. By that time Knox was safe and sound back in Seattle and chose not to return to Italy for her Florence appeal, instead emailing a statement to the judge, proclaiming her innocence. Sollecito attended.
On 30 January, Judge Nencini and a lay panel of jurors issued a guilty verdict and handed down an even harsher sentence: 25 years for him and 28.5 years for her.
Knox went on national television back in the US the following day claiming, as she always has, that she continues to be the victim of a gross miscarriage of justice carried forward by inertia by dozens of Italian judges.
But in his report, Nencini suggests the gross miscarriage was by Knox and her defence lawyers: indeed, he gave her a longer jail sentence precisely because of the gravity of the slander against Patrick Lumumba aimed at getting investigators off her back.
A small group of fervent supporters continue to lobby on Knox’s behalf and earlier this month she attended an Innocence Project conference with other exonerees, even though Italy’s courts have upheld her convictions….
With this latest development… there appears little wriggle- room for either Knox or Sollecito. Italy’s Supreme Court is expected to give the final ruling on the case after September.
This post was about Amanda Knox’s seriously surreal appearance at that conference of the Innocence Project.
We will soon post a helpful roadmap to all the other numerous suggestions of nefarious behavior on which we have posted. We dont mean to isolate out just Edda Mellas, Curt Knox and Chris Mellas.
Amanda Knox with her highly defamatory website and new charges pending for her book is one of the worst offenders.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (46)
Why Knox & Sollecito Appeal Against Guilty Trial Verdict Fails: Multiple Wounds = Multiple Attackers
Posted by The TJMK Main Posters
[This list will be added to] The best of the English language media coverage is here.
No especially accurate reports in English have appeared yet and the erroneous “new trial” is still surfacing. Andrea Vogt tweets that she will be posting an analysis soon.
The mischievous defense-inspired “sex game gone wrong” and “satanic theory” mantras are still widely showing up in the duped media, but are nailed hopefully finally in this new report.
Judge Nencini has closely followed and endorsed the “from all angles” Massei trial analysis, but with the inclusion of some more credible explanations from Prosecutor Crini which Judge Micheli had also espoused back in 2008.
In particular, Rudy Guede is not now highly improbably seen as the one initiating the attack on Meredith, and sex was not at all the primary driving force for the attack (the prosecution never ever said it was). Knox carried the big knife from Sollecito’s for a purpose.
The bad blood between the girls resulting from Knox’s crude, brash, very lazy, drug-oriented behavior was well known in Meredith’s circle. All of them had backed away from her, as also had her employer and the patrons in his bar.
There was a probable theft of money by Knox who was unable to account for a sum similar to what Meredith would have stashed away for the rent and that is seen as the probable spark for the explosive argument and attack.
Bullet points from the Italian media.
- The big knife from Sollecito’s house held by Amanda Knox caused the fatal wound to Meredith while the other was held by Raffaele Sollecito.
- There is strong “multiple and consistent” evidence of all three in the house immediately following the murder. All three worked to suppress Meredith.
- There was an escalating quarrel between Knox and Meredith leading to a progressive aggression and murder with sexual components.
- Between Amanda and Meredith there was no mutual sympathy and Meredith harbored serious reservations about the behavior of AK.
- The biological trace found on the bra clasp that Meredith Kercher was wearing the night she was murdered was left by Raffaele Sollecito
From Il Messagero kindly translated by Miriam:.
FLORENCE - The knife that was seized at Raffaele Sollecito house is the knife that killed Meredith Kercher, and the blow was delivered by Amanda Knox. So writes the President of the Court of Appeal of Florence, Alessandro Nencini, in the motivation report of the sentence that was passed on Jan. 30th that saw Amanda Knox sentenced to 28 and a half years and Raffaele Sollecito to 25 years.
Over 330 pages in which the court covers the appeal and explains the conviction. Starting with the knife considered “not incompatible with the wound that was carried out on Meredith Kercher. “In the present case, writes Nencini what counts is the accessibility of the weapon by the accused, it’s concrete portability from house to house, it’s compatibility with the wound, and the presence of Meredith’s DNA on the blade. All of these elements ascertained by the court lead to the conclusion that the knifed evidenced as no. 36 was one of the knifes used in the attack, and was the knife that Knox used to strike the fatal blow to Meredith’s throat.”
The court retains to have sufficient evidence of “certain reliability” of Rudy Guede (convicted to 16 years) Amanda and Raffaele in the house where Mez was killed, on the night between the 1st and November 2, 2007 in 7 Via della Pergola “in the immediate phases following the murder.” The Court then tells how she was immobilized and Mez “was not able to put up some valid resistance because she was dominated by multiple assailants and cut at the same time with the blades of several knives.”
Rejected therefore the defense’s strategy of both of the convicted, that have always maintained that the killer was only one.: the Ivorian Rudy Guede.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (17)
Sunday, April 27, 2014
Knox & Sollecito Actions In The Week Prior To Arrest: An Incriminating Behavior Pattern For Sure
Posted by James Raper
[Video above: Sollecito slams Knox’s weird behavior; video below: Sollecito exhibits his own weird behavior]
1. Today’s Context To This Post
A very strong case for guilt has been made at trial and endorsed at the first-level appeal.
This series hammers home the growing hundreds of incriminating stark differences between the official evidence record, Sollecito’s and Knox’s two books, and Sollecito’s and Knox’s multiple conflicting claims since.
The focus of this post as with the one immediately below is upon the described behaviours of Knox and Sollecito, from the very beginning to this very day. This pattern has more than contributed to the certainty of their involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher.
2. How The Behavior Speaks To Guilt
The early pointer of the staged break-in aside this behaviour gave investigators an insight into the pair’s possible involvement back on Day One: Behavioral pointers have continued on a par with corroborated developments in the case.
It has even continued, incredibly, since their release from prison. For me it is the thread that runs through this case having as much to do with the overall picture of culpability as the other elements .
This behaviour - to include what they have to say for themselves - is a catalogue of the inappropriate, of the implausible, of inconsistencies and contradictions, of evasions and obfuscations, to be gleaned from the accounts of Knox and Sollecito themselves and highlighted in the accounts of other witnesses. It is also to be gleaned from phone and computer records.
Taken together it is a formidable body of evidence which goes to character and culpability. It cannot be attributed to a railroading job, the machinations of a corrupt and evil prosecutor or character assassination by the media. It is also implausible if not impossible to explain it as being due to naivety, confusion or some quirkiness of character.
It amounts to the pair of them concocting stories, telling lies and misleading investigators and the general public.
3. Physical Evidence Array Is Already Substantial
There are numerous items of evidence which are building blocks in the prosecution case and with which we are all familiar.
- 1. The staged break-in via Filomena’s window with pointers to this outside, on the windows and shutters, and throughout the bedroom.
2. The evident partial clean up proved by footprint trails with footprints missing and what was behind the locked door.
3. Amanda Knox’s lamp on the floor behind Meredith’s locked door which she only conceded was her own at trial, under pressure.
4. Knox’s dried and congealed blood on the tap in the small bathroom that Amanda Knox and Meredith shared.
5. The bloody footprint on the mat in that bathroom definitively attributed to Sollecito rather than Guede
6. The mixed DNA of Knox and Meredith Kercher found in blood in the basin, the bidet and on the box of Q tips in that bathroom
7. Two luminol enhanced mixed traces containing DNA belonging to Knox and Meredith Kercher, one in the corridor and the other in Filomena’s room
8. Two luminol enhanced footprints of Knox in the corridor and one of Sollecito immediately outside Meredith’s room.
9. The knife taken from Sollecito’s apartment with Meredith Kercher’s DNA on the blade and Knox’s DNA on the handle and on the blade
10. Meredith Kercher’s bra clasp with Sollecito’s DNA on a hook and contamination possibilities definitively ruled out.
4. Behaviors In The First Week Of November 2007
I don’t want to make this an unduly long post. Accordingly I am going to concentrate on the period up to that famous police interrogation analysed just below. As to that critical period I will be selective but it should be enough.
The Lady With The Mop?
The story (in Knox’s e-mail) that she had visited the cottage to collect a mop, have a shower and get a change of clothing, earlier on the morning of the 2nd November, but did not notice that Filomena’s window had been broken and her room trashed is just that - a made up story. It is entirely implausible and the account unreliable for a number of reasons including-
- (a) it is hard to believe that she did not notice the hard to miss fact that the shutters to Filomena’s window were (as they were found) open - this would have alerted her to the likelihood that Filomena was back home which she would, of course, have checked out of curiosity if nothing else given that she found no one home.
(b) her claim that Filomena’s door was shut is contradicted by Sollecito who wrote (prison diary) that when he later entered the cottage with Knox Filomena’s door was wide open.
(c) it is hard to believe that she took a shower without noticing until after her shower (as she claimed) that there was blood on the bathroom mat, including a bloody footprint. In fact she didn’t even claim to notice that it was a footprint despite the fact that it was obviously so.
(d) it is hard to believe that having found the front door wide open and having found blood, and having opted for a shower and to blow dry her hair, she never got round to checking for any sign of Meredith’s presence. Any one else would have tried her door to check whether or not she was home.
(e) from her appearance at the cottage that morning it is hard to believe that she took a shower at all (let alone blow dried her hair) and the cops remarked that she reeked of body odour.
(f) less problematic but nevertheless still somewhat surprising is that as she is drying her hair she makes a fuss over shit (left by Guede) in the toilet, describes herself as being “uncomfortable” about it but does not flush it away before grabbing the mop and leaving.
The Two Stayed At Home?
The story that Knox and Sollecito had spent the previous night (the night of Meredith’s murder) indoors, critically from 9 pm onwards, that both had slept and that Knox had been the first to rise at about 10.30 am the next morning is implausible and uncorroborated, not only because this alibi is directly contradicted by the testimony of Curatolo and Quintavalle, and Sollecito’s statement to the police that Knox had gone out and not returned until about 1 am, but also in view of the following facts.
- (a) Curatolo claimed to have first seen the Knox and Sollecito in Piazza Grimana shortly after 9.30 pm but Knox claimed in her trial testimony that she and Raffaele had cooked and eaten a meal between 9.30 and 10 pm.
GCM: Can you say what time this was?
AK: umm, around, umm, we ate around 9.30 or 10, and then after we had eaten, and he was washing the dishes, well, as I said, I don’t look at the clock much, but it was around 10. And…he…umm…well, he was washing the dishes and, umm, the water was coming out and he was very bummed, displeased, he told me he had just had that thing repaired. He was annoyed that it had broken again. So…umm
LG: Yes, so you talked a bit. Then what did you do?
AK: Then we smoked a joint together……we made love…..then we fell asleep.
Unfortunately Sollecito’s father himself torpedoed this dodge by telling the court that when he phoned his son at 8.42 pm Sollecito had told him that there had been a water leak while he was washing the dishes. Taking into account Knox’s testimony that they had eaten before the dish washing, this places the meal and dish washing before that call.
(b) Sollecito told the police that at about 11 pm he had received a call from his father on his land line. Not only is that not confirmed by his father but there is no log of such a call.
(c) There is no log of a call to his mobile at that time either though his father had sent a text message at that time but which Sollecito did not receive until 6. 03 am the following morning. We know that he had received it at that time because that is the time at which it is logged in the phone records. Sollecito had just turned his phone on and clearly the phone had been off when the text message was sent.
(d) There is no record of any phone activity for either of them from after the 8.42 pm call to, in Sollecito’s case, receipt of that text message at 6.03 am, and in Knox’s case her call to Meredith’s English phone at 12.07 pm the next day.
A further word about this Point (d) here as Knox has released her phone records on her web site. In her case it has to be said that this is not so unusual. Up until the 30th October there is no regular pattern of late or early morning phone activity.
It is interesting to note, however, that as of the 30th October there is a spate of texts and calls between her and a young Greek known to us as Spiros. Communication between them had in fact been going on since the beginning of October but there are 5 texts in the afternoon of the 30th, two telephone calls in the afternoon and a call at 11.38 pm on Halloween.
In the early hours of the following morning there are a couple of calls between the two. In fact we know that the two met up together for Halloween as Knox was at a loose end. Meredith had shrugged her off and Raffaele was attending a friend’s graduation dinner out of town.
Sollecito is different as his father was in the habit of calling at all hours just to find out what his son was doing and, as we know, he had called late only to find that his son’s phone was switched off.
In the case of Knox she admitted in any event that her phone had been switched off, “to save the battery”.
(e) There is no record of any activity on Sollecito’s computer after 9.15 pm and until 5.32 am the following morning when music was played for half an hour. This contradicts the claim that Sollecito had smoked pot and interacted with his computer until midnight and that they had both slept until late the following morning.
(f) The fact that the next morning, outside the cottage, both Knox and Sollecito looked utterly exhausted. This belies the alibi that they had spent a quiet night indoors and had only risen late that morning.
The Fake Call To Knox’s Mum in Seattle?
Knox falsely claims in her book that having had her shower she called her mother on her way back to Sollecito’s apartment as she was beginning to have concerns as to what she had seen at the cottage. Her mother tells her to raise her concerns with Raffaele and the other flatmates and Knox says that she then immediately called Filomena. Filomena tells her to get hold of Meredith by phone which she tries to do by calling Meredith’s English phone first, then her Italian one.
- (a) How does this correlate to the contents of her e-mail of the 11/04/07?
(b) How does this correlate to Knox’s phone records?
(c) There is no mention of a call to her mother at all in the e-mail. This from her e-mail -
“….and I returned to Raffaele’s place. After we had used the mop to clean up the kitchen I told Raffaele about what I had seen in the house over breakfast. The strange blood in the bathroom, the door wide open, the shit in the toilet. He suggested I call one of my roommates, so I called Filomena………..
Filomena seemed really worried so I told her I’d call Meredith and then call her back. I called both of Meredith’s phones the English one first and last and the Italian one in between. The first time I called the English phone it rang and then sounded as if there was disturbance, but no one answered. I then called the Italian phone and it just kept ringing, no answer. I called the English phone again and this time an English voice told me the phone was out of service.”
(d) the phone records are as follows for 2 November 2007:
Ist call of the day @ 12.07.12 (to Meredith’s English phone) - 16 seconds
2nd call @ 12.08.44 (to Filomena) - 68 seconds
3rd call @ 12.11.02 (to Meredith’s Italian phone) - 3 seconds
4th call @ 12.11.54 (to Meredith’s English phone) - 4 seconds
8th call @ 12..47.23 (first call to her mother) - 88 seconds
(e) The discrepancies are numerous, see these examples:
1. The first call to her mother was not just after leaving the cottage but 40 minutes after the call to Filomena, and the call to Filomena had been placed after she had returned to Raffaele’s place and after they had used the mop and had breakfast. In fact, say about an hour after she left the cottage.
2. The first call to Meredith’s English phone was placed before the call to Filomena, and not after as Knox would have it in her e-mail. A minute before, but Knox did not mention this to Filomena, as confirmed by the e-mail and Filomena’s testimony.
3. The first call to Meredith’s English phone disappears entirely in Knox’s book.
4. The call to the Italian phone did not just keep ringing. The connection was for 3 seconds and this was followed by a connection to the English phone for 4 seconds.
5. The English phone was not switched off or out of service. Mrs Lana’s daughter had found it. She said that she would not have done so but for it ringing (the 12.07 call for 16 seconds?). She picked it up and took it into the house where it rang again (the 12.11 call - 4 seconds?). A name appeared on the screen as it rang : “Amanda”.
6. The 3 and 4 second calls are highly suspicious. The Italian phone was undoubtedly in the possession of the postal police. According to Massei it’s answering service was activated, accounting for the log. Clearly Knox did not even bother to leave a message for Meredith as it would take longer than 3 seconds just to listen to the answering service. This is not the behaviour of someone genuinely concerned about another.
1. In her e-mail, and repeated in her trial testimony, Knox says that she woke up around 10.30 am, grabbed a few things and walked the 5 minutes back to the cottage. If the first call to her mother was about an hour after she left the cottage (see before), then she left the cottage at about 11.47 am, which means that she spent over an hour there. Either that or she spent more (a lot more) than 20 minutes at Raffaele’s place before calling Filomena. The latter would be more likely as it is difficult to conceive that she spent over an hour at the cottage. She didn’t have the heating on when she was there. Either way there is a period of about an hour and a half between when she might have tried to contact Meredith or raise the alarm and actually doing so.
2. That we are right to be incredulous about this is borne out by the false claim in Knox‘s book. That false claim is significant and can only be because Knox is aware of the problem and feels she needs to add some support to her implausible story of the mop/shower visit and to conceal the real reasons for the inactivity and delay connected with it.
3. That it is incredible is even belatedly acknowledged by Sollecito’s feeble but revealing attempt to distance himself from Knox in a CNN interview on the 28 Feb this year. “Certainly I asked her questions” he said. “Why did you take a shower? Why did you spend so much time there?”
4. That she makes that false claim and has constantly stonewalled and/or misplaced the 16 second call to Meredith’s English phone is indicative of her guilty knowledge. Her guilty knowledge with respect to the 16 second call was that it was made to ascertain whether or not the phones had been located before she called Filomena, and hence for her it was not (incredulous though this is without such explanation) a pertinent fact for her to bring up with Filomena.
The Real Call To Knox’s Mum In Seattle?
As to the 12.47 call to her mother itself (4.47 am Seattle time and prior to the discovery of Meredith‘s body) Knox not only did not mention that in her e-mail but in her trial testimony she steadfastly declined to recall that it had occurred.
She clearly did not want, or could not be trusted, to discuss why the call had occurred and what had transpired in conversation with her mother before the discovery of Meredith’s body.
Not only was the timing of the 12.47 call inconvenient to her mother but I found it interesting to note from Knox’s phone records (covering 2nd Oct - 3rd November) that mother and daughter do not appear to have called or texted each other once up until that 12.47 call.
It would appear then that in so far as they remained in direct communication with each other for that period it must have been by e-mail. One can therefore imagine that her mother was very surprised to receive that call.
It is also very difficult to accept that Knox could not recall a phone call she was not in the habit of making. (On the other hand the same records show that it was not at all unusual for Knox and Meredith to communicate with other on Meredith’s English phone.)
Sollecito’s Call From His Dad?
At the cottage, and prior to the above call, Sollecito received a call from his father at 12.40 am. Do we know what they discussed? It would in any event have been after the discovery of Filomena’s broken window and (allegedly) Sollecito’s (rather feeble) attempt to beak down Meredith’s door.
Did the responsible adult advise his son to do the obvious and call the police? One would think so, but then why was there a 10 minute delay before he called his sister in the Carabinieri at 12.50 am? Indeed, why call his sister at all? Filomena had also urged Knox to call the police when she called at 12.35.The delay might be explained by the unexpected arrival of the postal police and if this was the case then it was before Sollecito called the 112 emergency services.
The Claims Of Finding Meredith’s Body?
Neither Knox nor Sollecito saw into Meredith’s room when the door was broken down and her body discovered on the floor under a quilt. Yet in the immediate aftermath it is as if they have wanted others to believe that it was they who discovered her body and in the bragging about this there have been disclosures, not only as to what they should not have been aware but also suggestive of disturbed personalities. This behaviour was remarkable for all the wrong reasons.
- (a) Luca Altieri‘s testimony makes it clear that Knox and Sollecito had heard about Meredith‘s cut throat directly from him during the car ride to the police station.
However her bizarre and grotesque allusion in the early moments of the investigation to the body being found stuffed into the closet (wardrobe) is not just factually incorrect (it was lying to the side of the closet) but bears correlation to the later forensic findings based on blood splatter in front of and on the closet door, that Meredith had been thrust up against the closet after having been stabbed in the throat.
(b) The behaviour of Knox and Sollecito at the police station is documented in the testimony of Meredith’s English girlfriends and of the police. Whilst it is true that people react to grief in different ways it is difficult to ascribe grief to Knox’s behaviour. Emotionally she was cold towards Meredith’s friends and occasionally went out of her way to upset them with barbed and callous remarks.
The fact that Knox was not observed to cry and wanted to talk about what had happened is not of itself indicative of anything but remarks like “What the fuck do you think, she bled to death” and her kissing and canoodling with Raffaele (including them making smacking noises with their lips when they blew kisses to each other) in front of the others was not normal.
Rather chilling in retrospect was a scene between the pair of them when Knox found the word “minaccia” ( in english - threat) amusing and made a play of it with Sollecito in front of witnesses.
(c) Grief is in any event reserved for friends and relations, or people one much admires. The evidence is that the initial short friendship between the two had cooled to the extent that Meredith was studiously, if politely, avoiding being around Knox. For the narcissistic and attention seeking american girl this would have been difficult to ignore and may well have offended her.
(d) The next day Sollecito was willingly collared by a reporter from the Sunday Mirror and told her about the horror of finding the body.
“Yes I knew her. I found her body.”
“It is something I never hope to see again,” he said. “There was blood everywhere and I couldn’t take it all in.”
“My girlfriend was her flatmate and she was crying and screaming, ‘How could anyone do this?’”
Sollecito went on to tell the reporter that “It was a normal night. Meredith had gone out with one of her English friends and Amanda and I went to party with one of my friends. The next day, around lunchtime, Amanda went back to their apartment to have a shower.”
About the only thing that is true here is that he knew Meredith.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (21)
Saturday, April 26, 2014
Knox’s Multiple Accounts Of Her Witness “Interrogations”: An Incriminating Behavior Pattern For Sure
Posted by James Raper
1. Today’s Context To This Post
In a day or two Judge Nencini’s sentencing report will be released. Are we all clear on precisely why the Nencini appeal court in Florence had to meet?
It did not meet at the request of the prosecution. They had nothing to appeal, subsequent to the convictions they won at the 2009 trial. This was certainly not a new trial.
In fact, the Nencini appeal court met only at the requests of Sollecito and Knox. It met exclusively to hear their appeal.
Did you notice who the court did not hear from? Knox herself. She did send from Seattle a misleading and somewhat insulting note to the judge, attempting to explain why she was choosing to stay away.
Judge Nencini might have issued an immediate arrest warrant for Knox. But instead he merely confined himself to some sardonic remarks, while dropping Knox’s note disdainfully on his bench.
Judge Nencini would know that Knox’s note may be a first in legal annals: a convicted perp chooses not to show up in court for their own appeal.
2. Knox’s Book: A Minefield For Her
Knox’s note in effect claimed she was full of fear. Fear of what? Purportedly fear that the prosecution would make too strong a case.
The prosecution would make too strong a case? But they had done that already, in 2009. At appeals it is the defense teams calling the shots. Those convicted show up and advise their teams how to overturn the prosecution’s case.
Most likely the real source of Knox’s fear was her feckless paper-trail over some 30 months.
Knox has a trail of multiple contradictory outpourings since her late-2011 release. To this day, Knox still continues to throw things at the wall, in the hope that maybe one day a few of them will stick.
Knox’s book Waiting To Be Heard of one year ago more than anything is Exhibit A here. It was surely her easy-to-fault book that sparked extreme reluctance to look the judges and prosecution and those many in Perugia she had reviled in the eyes.
This is the first of two posts on the formidable evidence that Knox’s behavior in the days prior to her arrest constitutes, and Knox’s erratic attempts in the past 30 months to convince us, hey folks, don’t believe your lying eyes: there’s really nothing here.
My post here is about what actually happened on the 5th November 2007 when Amanda Knox was sort-of helping the police at the central police station.
3. Realities 1 And 2: Knox Book v Knox On Stand
The police had called her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito in to the station for questioning and Knox had accompanied him because she did not want to be alone. They had already eaten at the house of a friend of Sollecito’s. Knox’s interrogation was not tape recorded and in that sense we have no truly independent account of what transpired.
Anna Donino’s testimony, which is like night and day when compared with Knox’s claims, is summarised below. Rita Ficcara was exclusively or almost exclusively the questioner. At most only four officials (Rita Ficcara, Lorena Zugarini, Ivano Raffo, and Anna Doninno the interpreter) were there. Monica Napoleoni did not enter the room. Refreshments were brought in several times.
There are accounts in books that have been written about the case but these tend to differ in the detail. The police and the interpreter maintain that she was treated well. Conflicting with their evidence, which meshes neatly, is what Knox says happened, and our sources for this are transcripts of her trial evidence and what she wrote in her book.
I shall deal with the evidence of the interpreter representative of the four officials in “Reality 3” below.
I am going to compare what she said at trial with what she wrote in her book but also there was a letter she wrote on the 9th and a recording of a meeting with her mother on the 10th November which are also relevant.
What she wrote in her book is fairly extensive and contains much dialogue. She has a prodigious memory for detail now which was almost entirely lacking before. I am going to tell you to treat what she says in her book with extreme caution because she has already been found out for, well let us say, her creative writing if not outright distortion of facts. I shall paraphrase rather than quote most of it but a few direct quotes are necessary.
Knox arrived with Sollecito at the police station at about 10.30 pm (according to John Follain). The police started to question Sollecito at 10.40 pm (Follain).
In her book Knox describes being taken from the waiting area to a formal interview room in which she had already spent some time earlier. It is unclear when that formal questioning began. Probably getting on for about 11.30pm because she also refers to some questions being asked of her in the waiting room following which she did some stretches and splits.
She then describes how she was questioned about the events over a period from about the time she and Sollecito left the cottage to about 9 pm on the 1st November.
Possibly there was a short break. She describes being exhausted and confused. The interpreter, Knox says, arrived at about 12.30 am. Until then Knox claims she had been conversing with the police in Italian.
Almost immediately, the questioning resuming -
“Monica Napoleoni, who had been so abrupt with me about the poop and the mop at the villa, opened the door. “Raffaele says you left his apartment on Thursday night,” she said almost gleefully. “He says that you asked him to lie for you. He’s taken away your alibi.””
Knox describes how she was dumfounded and devastated by this news. She cannot believe that he would say that when they had been together all night. She feels all her reserves of energy draining away. Then -
“Where did you go? Who did you text?” Ficarra asked, sneering at me.
“I don’t remember texting anyone.”
They grabbed my cell phone up off the desk and scrolled quickly through its history.
“You need to stop lying. You texted Patrick. Who’s Patrick?”
“My boss at Le Chic.”
Stop right there.
First, the interpreter, Rita Ficcara and Monica Napoleoni herself testified she never even entered the room.
Second, how were the police able to name the recipient of the text? The text Patrick had sent her had already been deleted from Knox’s mobile phone by Knox herself and Knox hasn’t yet named Patrick. In fact she couldn’t remember texting anyone.
It is of course probable that the police already had a log of her calls and possibly had already traced and identified the owner of the receiving number for her text, though the last step would have been fast work.
In her trial testimony Knox did a lot of “the police suggested this and suggested that” though it is never crystal clear whether she is accusing the police of having suggested his name. But she is doing it here in her book and of course the Knox groupies have always maintained that it was the police who suggested his name to her.
The following extract from her trial testimony should clear things up. GCM is Judge Giancarlo Massei.
GCM: In this message, was there the name of the person it was meant for?
AK: No, it was the message I wrote to my boss. The one that said “Va bene. Ci vediamo piu tardi. Buona serata.”
GCM: But it could have been a message to anyone. Could you see from the message to whom it was written?
AK: Actually, I don’t know if that information is in the telephone…………………..
GCM : But they didn’t literally say it was him!
AK : No. They didn’t say it was him, but they said “We know who it is, we know who it is. You were with him, you met him.”
GCM : Now what happened next? You, confronted with the message, gave the name of Patrick. What did you say?”
AK : Well, first I started to cry…....
And having implied that it was the police who suggested Patrick’s name to her, she adds….. that quote again -
“You need to stop lying. You texted Patrick. Who’s Patrick?”
“My boss at Le Chic.”
Here she is telling the Perugian cops straight out exactly to whom the text was sent. “My boss at Le Chic”.
But that does not quite gel with her trial testimony -
And they told me that I knew, and that I didn’t want to tell. And that I didn’t want to tell because I didn’t remember or because I was a stupid liar. Then they kept on about this message, that they were literally shoving in my face saying “Look what a stupid liar you are, you don’t even remember this!”
At first, I didn’t even remember writing that message. But there was this interpreter next to me who kept saying “Maybe you don’t remember, maybe you don’t remember, but try,” and other people were saying “Try, try, try to remember that you met someone, and I was there hearing “Remember, remember, remember…..
Doesn’t the above quote make it clear that the police were having considerable trouble getting Knox to tell them to whom her text message was sent? It would also explain their growing frustration with her.
But perhaps the above quote relates not to whom the text was sent but, that having been ascertained, whether Knox met up with that person later? Knox has a habit of conflating the two issues. However there is also the following quote from her trial testimony -
Well there were lots of people who were asking me questions, but the person who had started talking with me was a policewoman with long hair, chestnut brown hair, but I don’t know her. Then in the circle of people who were around me, certain people asked me questions, for example there was a man holding my telephone, and who was literally shoving the telephone into my face, shouting “Look at this telephone! Who is this? Who did you want to meet?”
Then there were others, for instance this woman who was leading, was the same person who at one point was standing behind me, because they kept moving, they were really surrounding me and on top of me. I was on a chair, then the interpreter was also sitting on a chair, and everyone else was standing around me, so I didn’t see who gave me the first blow because it was someone behind me, but then I turned around and saw that woman and she gave me another blow to the head.
The woman with the long hair, chestnut brown hair, Knox identifies in her book as Ficarra. Ficarra is the policewoman who started the questioning particularly, as Knox has confirmed, about the texted message. “Look at this telephone! Who is this? Who did you want to meet?” Again, surely this is to get Knox to identify the recipient of the text, not about whether she met up with him?
In the book though, it is all different.
In the book, the police having told her that the text is to someone called Patrick, Knox is a model of co-operation as, having already told them that he is her boss at Le Chic, she then gives a description of him and answers their questions as to whether he knew Meredith, whether he liked her etc. No reluctance to co-operate, no memory difficulties here.
Notwithstanding this, her book says the questions and insinuations keep raining down on her. The police insist that she had left Sollecito’s to meet up with - and again the police name him - Patrick.
“Who did you meet up with? Who are you protecting? Why are you lying? Who’s this person? Who’s Patrick?”
Remember again, according to her trial testimony the police did not mention Patrick’s name and Knox still hasn’t mentioned his name. But wait, she does in the next line -
“I said “Patrick is my boss.””
So now, at any rate, the police have a positive ID from Knox regarding the text message and something to work with. Patrick - boss - Le Chic.
Knox then refers to the differing interpretations as to what “See you later” meant and denies that she had ever met up with Patrick that evening. She recalls the interpreter suggesting that she was traumatized and suffering from amnesia.
The police continue to try to draw an admission from Knox that she had met up with Patrick that evening - which again she repeatedly denies. And why shouldn’t she? After all, she denies that she’s suffering from amnesia, or that there is a problem with her memory. The only problem is that Sollecito had said she had gone out but that does not mean she had met with Patrick.
Knox then writes, oddly, as it is completely out of sequence considering the above -
“They pushed my cell phone, with the message to Patrick, in my face and screamed,
“You’re lying. You sent a message to Patrick. Who’s Patrick?”
That’s when Ficarra slapped me on my head.”
A couple of blows (more like cuffs) to the head (denied by the police) is mentioned in her trial testimony but more likely, if this incident ever happened, it would have been earlier when she was struggling to remember the text and to whom it had been sent. Indeed that’s clear from the context of the above quotes.
And this, from her trial testimony -
Remember, remember, remember, and then there was this person behind me who—it’s not that she actually really physically hurt me, but she frightened me.”
In the CNN TV interview with Chris Cuomo, Knox was asked if there was anything she regretted.
Knox replied that she regretted the way this interrogation had gone, that she wished she had been aware of her rights and had stood up to the police questioning better.
Well actually, according to the account in her book, she appears to have stood up to the police questioning with a marked degree of resilience and self- certainty, and with no amnesia. There is little of her trademark “being confused”.
So why the sudden collapse? And it was a sudden collapse.
Given the trial and book accounts Knox would have us think that she was frightened, that it was due to exhaustion and the persistent and bullying tone of the questioning, mixed with threats that she would spend time in prison for failing to co-operate. She also states that -
(a) she was having a bad period and was not being allowed to attend to this, and
(b) the police told her that they had “hard evidence” that she was involved in the murder.
Knox has given us a number of accounts as to what was actually happening when this occurred.
In a letter she wrote on the 9th November she says that suddenly all the police officers left the room but one, who told her she was in serious trouble and that she should name the murderer. At this point Knox says that she asked to see the texted message again and then an image of Patrick came to mind. All she could think about was Patrick and so she named him (as the murderer).
During a recorded meeting with her mother in Capanne Prison on the 10th November she relates essentially the same story.
In her book there is sort of the same story but significantly without mention of the other officers having left the room nor mention of her having asked to see the texted message again.
If the first two accounts are correct then at least the sense of oppression from the room being crowded and questions being fired at her had lifted.
Then this is from her book -
In that instant, I snapped. I truly thought I remembered having met somebody. I didn’t understand what was happening to me. I didn’t understand that I was about to implicate the wrong person. I didn’t understand what was at stake. I didn’t think I was making it up. My mind put together incoherent images. The image that came to me was Patrick’s face. I gasped. I said his name. “Patrick—it’s Patrick.
It’s her account, of course, but this “Patrick - It’s Patrick” makes no sense at this stage of it unless it’s an admission not just that she had met up with Patrick but that he was at the cottage and involved in Meredith’s death.
And this is from her trial testimony -
GCM : Now what happened next? You, confronted with the message, gave the name of Patrick. What did you say?
AK : Well, first I started to cry. And all the policemen, together, started saying to me, you have to tell us why, what happened? They wanted all these details that I couldn’t tell them, because in the end, what happened was this: when I said the name of Patrick I suddenly started imagining a kind of scene, but always using this idea: images that didn’t agree, that maybe could give some kind of explanation of the situation.
There is a clear difference between these two quotes.
The one from her book suggests that she was trying hard but that the police had virtually brought her to the verge of a mental breakdown.
Her trial testimony says something else; that a scene and an idea was forming in her mind brought on by her naming of Patrick.
In her book she states that a statement, typed up in Italian, was shoved under her nose and she was told to sign it. The statement was timed at 1.45 am. The statement was not long but would probably have taken about twenty minutes to prepare and type.
The statement according to Knox -
... I met Patrick immediately at the basketball court in Piazza Grimana and we went to the house together. I do not remember if Meredith was there or came shortly afterward. I have a hard time remembering those moments but Patrick had sex with Meredith, with whom he was infatuated, but I cannot remember clearly whether he threatened Meredith first. I remember confusedly that he killed her.
The fact that the statement was in Italian is not important. Knox could read Italian perfectly well. However she does insinuate in the book that the details in the statement were suggested to her and that she didn’t bother to read the statement before signing.
Apart from what has been mentioned above, there are some other points and inferences to be drawn from the above analysis.
- 1. Knox’s account destroys one of Sollecito’s main tenets in his book Honour Bound. Sollecito maintains that he did nothing to damage Knox’s alibi until he signed a statement, forced on him at 3:30 am and containing the damaging admission that Knox had gone out. But Knox makes it clear that she had heard from the Head of the Murder Squad that he had made that damaging admission, at or shortly after 12.30 am. Or is Knox is accusing Napoleoni of a bare-faced lie?
2. It is valid to ask why Knox would not want to remember to whom the text had been sent. Who can see into her mind? Perhaps Knox realized that discussion of it would confirm that if she had indeed gone out then it was not to Le Chic, where she was not required. However even if she thought that could put her in the frame it’s not what an innocent person would be too worried about. Perhaps she did just have difficulty remembering?
3. If there was no fuss and she did remember and tell the police that the text was to Patrick, and the questioning then moved on to whether she met up with Patrick later that evening, what was the problem with that? She knew the fact that she hadn’t met up with him could be verified by Patrick. She could have said that and stuck to it. The next move for the police would have been to question Patrick. They would not have had grounds to arrest him.
4. Knox stated in her memorial, and re-iterates it in her book, that during her interrogation the police told her that they had hard evidence that she was involved in Meredith’s murder. She does not expand on what this evidence is, perhaps because the police did not actually tell her. However, wasn’t she the least bit curious, particularly if she was innocent? What was she thinking it might be?
5. I can sympathise with any interviewee suffering a bad period, if that’s true. However the really testy period of the interview/interrogation starts with the arrival of the interpreter, notification of Sollecito’s withdrawal of her alibi and the questioning with regard to the text to Patrick, all occurring at around 12.30 am. There has to be some critical point when she concedes, whether to the police or in her own mind, that she’d met “Patrick”, after which there was the questioning as to what had happened next. Say that additional questioning took 20 minutes. Then there would be a break whilst the statement is prepared and typed up. So the difficult period for Knox, from about 12.30 am to that critical point, looks more like about 35 to, at the outside, 50 minutes.
6. Even if, for that period, it is true that she was subjected to repeated and bullying questions, and threats, then she held up remarkably well as I have noted from her own account. It does not explain any form of mental breakdown, let alone implicating Patrick in murder. In particular, if Knox’s letter of the 9th and the recording of her meeting with her mother on the 10th are to believed, that alleged barrage of questions had stopped when she implicated Patrick. An explanation, for what it’s worth, might be that she had simply ceased to care any longer despite the consequences. But why?
7. A better and more credible explanation is that an idea had indeed formed suddenly in her mind. She would use the revelation about the text to Patrick and the consequent police line of questioning to bring the questioning to an end and divert suspicion from her true involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher. She envisaged that she would be seen by the police as a helpless witness/victim, not a suspect in a murder investigation. As indeed was the case initially. She expected, I am sure, to be released, so that she could get Sollecito’s story straight once again. If that had happened there would of course remain the problem of her having involved Patrick, but I dare say she thought that she could simply smooth that over - that it would not be a big deal once he had confirmed that there had been no meeting and that he had not been at the cottage, as the evidence was bound to confirm.
Reality 3: The Interpreter Anna Donnino Speaks
Here is a link to the translation of the evidence of the interpreter, Anna Donnino. I will simply summarise the main points from her evidence but it will be apparent immediately that she contradicts much of what Knox and her supporters claim to have happened.
Donnino told the court that she had 22 years experience working as a translator for the police in Perugia. She was at home when she received a call from the police that her services were required and she arrived at the police station at just before 12.30 am, just as Knox said. She found Knox with Inspector Ficarra. There was also another police officer there whose first name was Ivano. At some stage Ficarra left the room and then returned and there was also another officer by the name of Zugarina who came in. Donnino remained with Knox at all times
The following points emerge from her testimony :-
- 1. Three police officers do not amount to the “lots of people” referred to in Knox’s trial testimony, let alone the dozens and the “tag teams” of which her supporters speak.
2. She makes no mention of Napoleoni and denied that anyone had entered the room to state that Sollecito had broken Knox’s alibi. (This is not to exclude that this may have happened before Donnino arrived)
3. She states that Knox was perfectly calm but there came a point when Knox was being asked how come she had not gone to work that she was shown her own text message (to Patrick). Knox had an emotional shock, put her hands to her ears and started rolling her head and saying “It’s him! It’s him! It’s him!”
4. She denied that Knox had been maltreated or that she had been hit at all or called a liar. She stated that the officer called Ivano had been particularly comforting to Knox, holding her hand occasionally.
5. The sole purpose of the “interrogation” was for Knox to list possible perps which she did in writing with maps; the meetin was not to say anything more about Knox herself;
6. She stated that prior to the 1.45 am statement being drafted by Knox (her own idea) she was asked if she wanted a lawyer but Knox said no.
7. She stated that she had read the statement over to Knox in english and Knox herself had checked the italian original having asked for clarification of specific wording.
7. She confirmed that that she had told Knox about an accident which she’d had (a leg fracture) and that she had suffered amnesia about the accident itself. She had thought Knox was suffering something similar. She had also spoken to Knox about her own daughters because she thought it was necessary to establish a rapport and trust between the two of them.
The account in Knox’s book is in some ways quite compelling but only if it is not compared against her trial testimony, let alone the Interpreter’s testimony: that is, up to the point when she implicates Patrick in murder. At that point no amount of whitewash works. The Italian Supreme Court also thought so, upholding Knox’s calunnia conviction, with the addition of aggravating circumstances.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (11)
Wednesday, April 23, 2014
How Saul Kassin Framed Many Fine Italian Justice Officials - And Then Played Victim When Corrected
Posted by Cardiol MD
A Common Phenomenon
We take note of a common “they can’t take what they dish out” phenomenon among the Sollecito & Knox supporters.
If you show unequivocally that their FACTS are wrong and that they have illegally framed (in English) good Italian officials, they melt down with numerous shrill claims that the meanies ridiculed them - because their mission and the two perps they champion are so moral and so divine.
Doug Preston, Nina Burleigh, Greg Hampikian, Steve Moore, Doug Bremner and others have all exhibited this victimhood phenomenon. Doug Preston even wrote an entire book-long wail about his victimhood.
Foolishly perverse behavior. No police or prosecutors anywhere ever appreciate being framed. In the US it is rare indeed. In Italy a single official complaint can spark a prosecutor’s investigation, and probable felony charges against any or all of them for obstruction of justice.
The Saul Kassin case surely has to be the worst of all cases, because his huge slam at Italy, with dozens of wrong facts and false accusations, was delivered as a keynote address at a John Jay College of Justice conference, to dozens of top justice officials from around the world - and to this day he perpetuates this massive academic fraud.
Presumably roughly 100% of that global audience, ignorant of the real story (a probable serious new felony by Knox), believe Knox was tortured by Italians into some kind of forced confession.
A Historical Synopsis Of Kassin’s Role
Saul Kassin, an academic psychologist, established himself as an acknowledged authority-figure on the subject of prosecutor-induced false confession, describing a profile of such confessors.
Prosecutor-induced false confession is, of course, a real phenomenon, which has existed throughout recorded history, notoriously exemplified in modern history at the Moscow Show-Trials of the 1930’s.
Years ago supporters of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito (FOA), claiming that the pair were wrongly convicted of murdering Meredith Kercher, alleged that their “wrongful” conviction was based on a prosecutor-induced false confession, among some other things.
FOA concocted a false description of the events surrounding the interrogation, using as many as 50 barefaced falsehoods to create a match to the characteristics of false-confessors described by Kassin.
This creation in turn resulted in the exposure of the numerous falsehoods and deceptions, in the course of which Kassin’s work was also criticised. Offended by such criticism, Kassin wrote a paper defending his work, but sustaining the multiple falsehoods and deceptions created by the FOA.
On April 30th 2012 The American Psychologist [AP] published an Advanced Online Paper titled “Why Confessions Trump Innocence” authored by Saul Kassin (final version here) see in which he “described” the case of Amanda Knox, an American college student who had been convicted of murder in Italy, arguing that Knox was not guilty, and had been induced by prosecutorial-oppression into making a False-Confession.
In June 2012 Kassin presented his misleading keynote address to the John Jay College global conference (see page 31 of the program). Soon after he made TV and radio appearances.
In September 2012 the American Psychologist journal published Kassin’s paper in print-form (AP Vol.67 (6) Sept. 2012, 431-445). When it did so, the paper was newly accompanied by Corrections and Updates, in which Kassin states that minor (sic) corrections “should be made in the description of the Amanda Knox case.” They are not minor in their effect on the meaning of his text.
The first change substitutes for one misleading false statement, a more clearly worded false statement; changes 4. and 5. modify the allegation that Guede had raped Meredith, and that Guede’s DNA had been found in sperm at the crime scene. Not only are Kassin’s changes by no means “minor”, they are only a few of the many changes needed to acknowledge the true facts. They amply confirm the depth of Kassin’s fall into self-deception.
And in a ludicrously surreal development, Amanda Knox’s 2013 book Waiting to be Heard at great length parotted Kassin’s wrong claims about her wrong claims, the same ones for which she may face new charges.
The Pro-justice Community Takes Exception
TJMK and the two PMF forums and other pro-justice, pro-victim and pro-Italy websites have long explained in Posts and Comments that the Kassin paper containing the 50 or more false or deceptive statements is so contrary to the actual facts as to be sheer obfuscation.
The first TJMK reference to False Confession was a comment by Faustus on Jan. 13th 2009. The first TJMK post questioning Saul Kassin was written by the Machine and published on 10 July 2012.
Since then TJMK has published more than a dozen articles focusing on the false facts and false accusations in Kassin’s presentations, with scores of comments expanding the corrections further. This rebuttal and this one were particularly key.
Aspects of Saul Kassin’s Background
Saul Kassin is a Distinguished Professor of Psychology at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. Recently, he was listed as in a “phased retirement” as Massachusetts Professor of Psychology from Williams College, in Williamstown, Massachusetts. He received his Ph.D. at the University of Connecticut.
Kassin’s Resume’ also reveals that he was once very aware of the phenomenon of self-fulfilling prophecy, and very scornful of people to whom he attributed-it.
In 2004, C.U.P. published a book entitled “The Detection of Deception in Forensic Contexts”, defining ‘forensic context’ as any context in which legal questions are raised. Kassin was the author of chapter 8, entitled “True or False: ‘I’d know a false confession if I saw one’.”, in which Kassin repeats the well-known fact that Oppression-Induced False Confession is a real phenomenon, ridiculing other professionals with the quote ’ I’d know a false confession if I saw one’.
Then he describes his own recipe for ‘knowing one’, providing a profile ideal for use by Knox, and FOA, after Meredith’s murder in 2007.
Kassin’s ridicule relies upon what he, himself, describes variously as ‘self-fulfilling prophecy, interpersonal expectancy effect, and behavioral confirmation’. He provides the reader with 6 references to the phenomenon, the first 2 focusing on Pygmalion, as the classic exemplar of seeing what you want to see.
[Pygmalion was a Cypriot sculptor who carved a woman out of ivory. His statue was so realistic that he fell in love with it. Making offerings at the altar of Aphrodite, he quietly wished for a bride who would be “the living likeness of my ivory girl”. When he returned home, he kissed his ivory statue and found that its lips felt warm. He kissed it again, touched its breasts with his hand and found that the ivory had lost its hardness. Aphrodite had granted Pygmalion’s wish. Shaw used this story as the subtext for his play ‘Pygmalion’, the musical version of which is ‘My Fair Lady’.]
Kassin’ s Resume’ also records that he served as a U.S. Supreme Court Judicial Fellow, working at the Federal Judicial Center .... Dr. Kassin is past president of Division 41 of APA (aka the American Psychology-Law Society).
Given these items from Dr.Kassin’s impressive resume’ a reader would expect Dr. Kassin to be professionally knowledgeable in the law relevant to his specialty; Kassin definitely OUGHT to be that knowledgeable.
In “Why Confessions Trump Innocence” readers are directed by Kassin to Dempsey, 2010, and Burleigh, 2011, noting “personal communications with Amanda Knox, Madison Paxton, and Nina Burleigh”. Consistent with Kassin seeing what he wants to see, his paper contains phrases such as “the case of Amanda Knox and others who are wrongfully convicted”. Kassin’s own self-deception seemingly promotes receptivity to deception by others.
In January the Nencini Appeal Court in Florence declared Knox and Sollecito to be Guilty-Beyond-Reasonable-Doubt. All that remains is the Supreme Court’s expected firm endorsement.
As we await the Nencini Motivazione report, the senior Florence prosecutor Dr Giuliano Giambartolomei has recently announced his findings that many claims in Sollecito’s “Honor Bound”are spurious and justify new charges being brought against Sollecito.
Shadow-writer Andrew Gumbel, who recently published a self-incriminatory rant in The Guardian, has also been named, so now seems a great time to refresh TJMK’s reader’s awareness of Kassin’s arguments. Kassin’s arguments were apparently communicated to Hellmann/Zanetti by Knox’s lawyers, and Kassin himself may be liable under Italian Law.
How Saul Kassin Now Plays The Victim
Here are some quotes from an article by the duped Scott Sleek excusing Kassin’s serial framings and obfuscations in “Why Confessions Trump Innocence”:
“…He noted [now begin Kassin’s obfuscations:] that Knox had been immediately identified as a suspect and presumed guilty, confessed after three days of denials and interrogations, and did not have any attorney present when undergoing questioning.”
TJMK readers know very well that the above précis is an outright falsehood. That is not what took place.
In his defence Kassin also claimed: “I used it as an example, not realizing the depth of a couple of Amanda Knox hate groups that track professionals who support Amanda Knox.”
WHAT mere example? Actually Kassin placed his framing and wrong facts front and center, again and again and again. WHAT professionals support Knox? And the real professionals posting and reading here handily exceed Kassin’s pay-grade.
Kassin also claimed that the hate emails he received, and the blog posts criticizing him, didn’t focus on the science itself, but on his motives for analyzing Knox’s case. In essence, the attacks were personal, he stated.
Kassin also claimed that some of the messages he received felt threatening, and included statements such as: “We know where you work” and that a few bloggers wrote posts lambasting Kassin’s integrity, in one case even calling him a “shill”.
Really? TJMK is as opposed as Kassin to hate-mail. We can correct wrong facts and serial defaming right here. But we also believe that Kassin’s adoption of Knox’s, Sollecito’s, Paxton’s, Dempsey’s, Burleigh’s, and other FOA&S’s falsehoods, deceptions, and serial framings of Italian officials was far more improper, biased, and compromising of his own integrity.
The attempt to do real damage begins and ends with Kassin. And far from not focusing on Kassin’s “science” his TJMK critics have focused sharply on the falsehoods Kassin has used to support his self-fulfilling prophecies. Click on links to past posts above.
The historical trap Kassin has fallen into is that of “Experimenter Expectancy”, or seeing what you want to see [c.f. Chapter 6, pp107-108 Betrayers Of The Truth, OUP, 1982, By Broad & Wade]:
“Expectancy leads to self-deception, and self-deception leads to the propensity to be deceived by others.”
Having fallen into the very trap Kassin himself had described in great detail in 2004, and recited in his Resume’, a legal background that ought to inform him that he was entering a potential legal minefield, Kassin proceeded, in writing, to satisfy the common-law definition of Defamation-Malice [making false statements, knowing them to be false, or made so recklessly as to amount to willful disregard for the truth].
Under Italian law, if any of those he framed complains, Kassin may be chargeable with a felony. Kassin’s MO does entail defaming the conduct of Italian Police, and Prosecutors. He has adopted many falsehoods. There is good reason to bring his integrity into question.
His best course now would be to publicly withdraw all the many versions of his false claims. And, finally, apologize to all those he framed and the real victim’s circle,
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (15)
Wednesday, April 16, 2014
The Incriminating Bathroom Evidence: Visual Analysis shows the Footprint IS Sollecito’s
Posted by Machiavelli (Yummi)
The sheer depth and width of the hard evidence
The defenses really don’t want you to know this: in both width and depth, the full panoply of the evidence against Knox and Sollecito is absolutely overwhelming.
As we remarked in our post below there are far more and far stronger evidence points than UK and US courts normally require for conviction. But only the trial panel of judges observed anything like their full array.
The 2010 Massei Trial Report (which the Nencini Appeal court validated this past January) is a SUMMARY of what was presented to the judges in the courtroom. Those presentations in court were in turn something of a SUMMARY of the hard evidence buried in all the evidence files and the minds of witnesses.
Italian media SUMMARISED for Italians what was to be seen in the courtroom and to be read in the Massei Report. They were barely able to do even summaries for the 1/4 of all the trial hearings that were not open to the media or the public.
UK and US media for the most part didnt even bother to provide comprehensive summaries (the very fine on-the-spot reportings of Andrea Vogt, Barbie Nadeau and Ann Wise were the main exceptions).
So in effect people in the UK and US attempting to follow the story didnt for the most part receive even a summary of a summary of a summary!
Not one US or UK newspaper or TV network translated the Micheli Report, or the vital Massei Report, or the Supreme Court appeal, or the Supreme Court outcome - only the (mostly professional) translators on PMF dot Org did all that translation.
This post is another example of how far down - beyond even Massei - it’s possible to drill into the evidence, and see it still hold up.
Some past posts on TJMK drilled down to similar depths, on the knives, on the DNA, on the mixed-blood traces, on the phone-events, on the motives and psychologies, and so on. All that evidence too all held up.
Visual analysis of the bathroom-mat footprint
This post mainly consists of high-resolution pictures and measurements. Presented like this, the pictures and measurements largely speak for themselves, and show the real strength of the bathroom-mat footprint evidence.
You will see that as SomeAlibi previously concluded using other methods, this footprint was quite undeniably Sollecito’s. It bears no similarity at all to Rudy Guede’s.
Please click on all images for larger versions in scalable PDF format
1 . [Below] the bathmat and the print, with measurement reference
2 . The bathmat print and the surrounding area
3 . The bathmat print (photo from Polizia Scientifica).
4 . The bathmat print, with vertical and horizontal sizes, from Rinaldi’s report
5. The bathmat print, photo with enhanced contrast.
6 . Enhanced contrast helps to spot some features
For example the area on the left labeled as “important area” in the picture (which was “forgotten” in the notorious photo elaborations disseminated by the ‘Friends of Amanda’ group), shows the actual left outline of the ‘big toe’ of the bathmat print.
The toe includes the area indicated in this picture (here the picture is shown again in its original colours).
7. The bathmat, with enhanced contrast
There are other stains on the carpet (about another 10, factually occupying half the entire mat area), and also there shows a second diluted footprint (apparently from a foot of smaller size).
8. The selection of a set of red colour shades, outlined by an automatic outline generator
Reference measurements indicate the width of the ‘big toe’ in millimetres.
9 . A hand drawing of the outline (detail).
The modifications are: +28% contrast, -8% luminosity, + 20% colour saturation, from the original.
An outline has been drawn manually on the photoshop image, trying to be as faithful as possible to the actual stain.
You can notice that, apart from some minor ‘disputable’ very faint areas (such as the area between the toe and the metatarsus) there are only minimal differences between an automatically generated outline and a manually drawn one.
The shapes of the ‘big toe’ are extremely similar in both contours (images 8 and 9), in fact all meaningful features are basically identical.
We consider this manually drawn outline as good for comparison.
10 . The complete hand-drawn outline
11 . Minor detail: small dots separated from the main stain
Although we can’t draw any conclusion about their possibly significance, we note the existence of these very small ‘spots’ of a faint red colour shade, separated from the big stain.
They are detected by the computer generated outline above, and that we also see as distinguishable with the naked eye thus we considered them in drawing manually the outline.
We don’t draw any conclusion about them; but because of their sensitive position (they may suggest a ‘small toe’ mark) we take note of them.
The green arrows in the picture point out their position (green circles).
12 . An image in electronically modified colours
As a part of the preliminary study of the stain, we also produced this image above where the computer assigned an artificial colour to an array of shades of ‘red’, thus allowing to further isolate the stain from the background for further assessments about its shape.
This picture shows the distribution and intensity of the colouration. (note: the existence of some above mentioned tiny marks is recorded by this technique too)
13 . The bathmat has a spiral-shaped relief decoration
We think the outline of the ‘toe’ mark of the bloody footprint is affected by the shape of the decoration, in particular the missing part of the toe on the right side, which is remarkably coincident with the margin of the decoration.
So that on that side there is a striking correspondence between the outline of the ‘negative area’ – the fabric surface around the spiral, which is lower – and the big toe’s outline
This indicates that the outline of that mark on that side was affected by the decoration margin, thus the print there has a ‘missing part’. So the ‘crooked’ bloody area in fact follows the margin of a larger toe.
Because of such coincidence, we can logically assume that the actual shape of the big toe mark appears to be part of a big toe, with larger surface which left its print only partly because part of its surface did not have contact with the fabric, in correspondence of the ‘negative area’.
14. The “negative area”
15. Mat decoration in relief and the toe mark
The remarkable coincidence between the outlines of the decoration in relief and of the toe mark is shown in the picture above.
The rough contour of the print obtained through a smooth curve highlights the shape of the big toe.
Part of the relief decoration outline coincides with the toe mark outline, which shows, highlights and explains how all parts of the red toe mark, that you can see left of the relief decoration, they all belong to one single, unitary stain.
Thus we can deduce that the “missing” area on the right of the toe is determined by the decoration, and coincides with the negative area.
16. Picture (by Kermit) showing a rough shape of the stain
This drawing by Kermit above highlights the rough shape, curvature of left margin and overall size of the big toe.
17. Rudy Guede’s sample print
A copy of this picture together with one of Sollecito’s print at the same scale will be used for comparisons.
18 . Raffaele Sollecito’s sample print
A copy of this picture together with one of Guede’s print at the same scale will be used for comparisons.
19. Part of Rudy Guede’s sample print with Rinaldi’s reference measurements
20. Part of Sollecito’s sample print, with Rinaldi’s reference measurements:
21. Bringing all photographs down to the same scale
This was based on Rinaldi’s referenced pictures. Each one of the Rinaldi’s sample pictures has multiple measurements on several points of reference which allow a high precision determination of their scale and sizes, and thus comparison at the same scale.
In order to further increase scaling precision, the scale was calculated previously and separately for each comparative measurement in the three photos; this was done multiple times for each measurement and the average was picked in order to reduce error as for statistical measurement method.
The resulting final error in the scale is extremely small, far below a threshold of significance that could affect comparison (which was set arbitrarily at 1%, but it’s probably significantly higher, while the actual error is much lower).
In other words, the scale error that may affect your screen pictures will be definitely smaller than any possible perceivable (either significant or tolerated) difference that would be noticed or that may affect the attribution of the stain, when this is compared to the sample.
22. The hand drawn outline is shown again here
23 . The outline (matched scale) overlapped on Sollecito’s sample footprint
The bathmat stain does not seem to have major incompatibilities with Sollecito’s print; it shows rather an array of compatibilities that can be perceived visually.
One interesting feature is the shape, size and position of a ‘big toe’, that appears as a remarkable coincidence; the toe also has a kind of cleft on the curvature of its left margin. Another outstanding coincidence is the curvature of the plantar arch on the left.
24 . The same outline overlapped on Guede’s footprint
If you look at the overlapping of the stain outline (see pic 22.) with the sample of Guede’s print (see pics 17. 19.), you may notice 7 major differences, showing a failure of compatibility. Those differences are indicated by numbers (1-7) in the picture .
Each one indicates an area of major difference between the outline of the bathmat stain and the outline of Guede’s sample print. Those measurement differences are remarkably larger than those that can be detected on the overlapping with Sollecito’s sampe print.
On the other hand, the compatibility between Sollecito’s print and some very peculiar aspects of the bathmat print (such as a 30mm wide and short toe) were absoluteley remarkable.
The differences between the bathmat stain and Guede’s print are are:
1) Toe mark of stain is significantly SHORTER than the big toe in Guede’s sample print (a difference of about 7 millimetres). Some people may want to attempt an objection, by suggesting that such difference may be a just a consequence of the the position chosen for the overlapping, that maybe the bathmat print was just positioned too low in the picture, the problem may be solved by shifting the outline of about 7 millimeters so to make the tip of the bathmat toe ‘coincide’ with the tip of Guede’s print toe.
However, such objection wouldn’t work; it’s a wrong argument. In fact the only only possibly correct position for overlapping the bathmat stain outline is determined by the left curvature of the ball of feet and plantar arch (the area of the picture ner number 6), which is by the way the most clearly outlined part of the bathmat stain. If you shift the bathmat stain upwards, the outline will miss the match with the curvature of the left margin of the ball of the feet. You will notice that the plantar arch in this area is already very incompatible with Guede’s plantar arch. It tends to become even more incompatible the more you shift the bathmat stain outline towards the toe.
The problem has no solution, since the more you shift the stain outline upwards (in direction of the toe) in the attempt of making it look more ‘compatible’ with the lenght of Guede’s toe (or with an upper margin) the more it will become incompatible with the plantar arch. In order to limit the incompatibility of the plantar arch, and in order to keep an overlapping of at least the left margin of the ball of the feet, you need to place it as shown in the picture, this is the position of ‘maximum’ of compatibility between the bathmat stain and Guede’s print. Conclusion: the bathmat toe is too short.
2) Toe mark of stain is TOO WIDE (30 mm). It is much wider (30 mm) than Guede’s toe. The number 2. indicates the protruding mark at the upper right, the mark which Giulia Bongiorno desperately insisted calling it a “second toe” mark. In fact, not only such mark would miss completely any hypothetical Guede’s ‘second toe’ in any possible position of the print; also you may notice (highlighted by pics 8. and 9.) how it is not a “mark” itself, but actually it just part of the same area which is entirely continuous in shape and coloration with the rest of the toe mark, and - the most remarkable feature - its right outline is coincident with the outline of the spiral-shaped relief decoration, so that you can reasonably conclude that it is determined by that (the missing area at the lower right of the ‘big toe’ is determined by the existence of the “negative area” of the bathmat decoration).
Conclusion: the bathmat stain has a wider toe mark, however one likes to call it (“big toe”, or “big toe + second toe”) that fails to match any possible part of Guede’s print. The bathmat print is clearly different and incompatible with Guede’s print. It simply cannot be overlapped to any part of Guede’s sample print. Such area is a very significant difference that points outright to incompatibility between the stain and Guede’s print.
3) The toe mark is larger also in the area located at the lower portion of the toe. The toe of the bathmat print in fact has a ‘right margin’ which actually has some additional small marks, small drops prortuding towards the right, like droplets maybe produced by the wet cotton fibres of the part in relief which protrude towards the right. This tends to suggest the toe area of the stain may be in fact just considered wider: the object that produced it was definitely wider than 22mm, in this area of the toe as well. So also a look at this area confirms that the bathmat stain is wider than 22-23 mm (more towards 30 mm) not just when measured at the upper corner (number 2.) but also at its “lower” parts; here, the small marks caused by the liquid suggest that a larger surface has squeezed liquid from some fabric threads leaving some trace also on the lower area.
4) Bigger incompatibility of Guede on the metatarsus front outline. This area is the front outline of metatarsus: the stain is almost 1cm shorter than Guede’s metatarsus. This happens when you chose the overlapping so to make the left outline and plantar arch (6.) of metatarsus coincide, as in the picture. Sollecito’s sample print also shows some difference from the stain in this area (pic. 23.) but the difference between the stain and Sollecito’s print is significantly smaller than what you can see in Guede’s print.
5) There are NO SMALL TOES in the bathmat stain. Small toes are completely absent from the bathmat stain (while the tiny blood marks around the stain don’t coincide with their expected position if it was Guede’s print). Such lack of small toes is a peculiarity of the bathmat print. This is a remarkable difference from Guede’s print, and a at the same time, a considerable analogy with Sollecito’s print. In fact one outstanding feature of Guede’s print is evidence that Guede places a big load of weight on his small toes while walking, while instead Sollecito has a posture with a weight distribution with the contrary tendence, and obviously he almost does not touch the ground with his small toes.
Thus, Guede’s small toes are all very well pressed on the ground and thus, we can reasonably infer they are somehow naturally likely to get wet if he steps on any wet surface, and anyway they should get wet for sure if the foot is immersed in water or washed (the foot that left the bathmat print must have been immersed in bloody water). The murderer supposedly washed his foot then stepped on the bathmat, in order to attribute the print to Guede we should assume that Guede “forgot” to touch the carpet with his small toes (while instead he puts a lot of weight on them) or that he managed to not rinse them.
6) The outline of the stain has a PLANTAR ARCH that COINCIDES, by curvature an angle, with the plantar arch in Sollecito’s print, while instead it is very different from the plantar arch of Guede’s print.
7) The stain is larger than Guede’s print metatarsus as visible in the right area of the stain. The difference is rather significant, almost half a centimetre, that is bigger than the difference with Sollecito’s print which instead coincides for a trait. This difference cannot be “solved” in any way since, even if one wanted to claim that the scale is wrong and that the stain should be seized down, this would make the toe, already too short (as in 1.) become even shorter.
If instead the toe length is adjusted the metatarsus becomes even less compatible with Guede. We recall that Massei found that Guede’s feet had a print overall more slender than Sollecito’s.
25 . Other features:
The plantar arch curvature, highlighted in two different drawings (the second highlights also the upper outline “hunches”); the plantar arches in the two sample prints of Sollecito and Guede are shown below. The curvatures of plantar arch are very different.
26. The outline curvature generates different angles
Sollecito’s and Guede’s plantar arch curvatures have very different angles. Also the left outline of metatarsus maintains a different curvature. Sollecito’s outline has an angle (see outline tangent) intersecting the toe (the metatarsus has a “bunion”); in Guede’s print there is basically no intersection, the outline and the toe form almost a straight line.
27 . Plantar arch curvature angle differs between Sollecito and Guede
If you consider the vertical axis of the sample footprint, and its orthogonal line, you may notice how the plantar arches curvature of the two prints they accomplish different angles: the two angles are VERY different, not just three or four degrees.
The (too) narrow angle of Sollecito’s plantar arch probably has a relation with the protruding outline and angle seen in pic 26., and seems related to a hallux valgus (which Guede does not have).
28 . The “cleft” on the left side of the stain
29 . Table of metric comparison (by SomeAlibi)
SomeAlibi’s post of a year ago
Comparison of measurements and analysis of correspondence degree of bathmat print, with both Guede’s and Sollecito’s sample prints.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (38)
Friday, April 11, 2014
Why “Buyer Beware” Re Amanda Knox Could Be A Very Good Idea For The Innocence Project
Posted by The TJMK Main Posters
Dozens of American who claim they were unfairly treated by the American justice system (and in some cases probably were; there is a growing recognition in the US that excessive harshness is a costly, losing policy) will share their stories and give pointers for measures that paid off for them.
But Amanda Knox may be the least useful convicted perp on the planet for the conference to get behind or to learn from.
- First, the Italian system is not remotely as she and her colleague Sollecito describe it. It is in fact a system the United States is starting to emulate. If widely adopted the Innocence Project would have a very light load and most of those at the conference would not even have had cause to be there.
- Second, the case against Knox and Sollecito is an overwhelming one with far more and far stronger evidence points than UK and US courts normally require for conviction. The 2011 and 2013 appeals were automatic; in the US and UK grounds for allowing an appeal would have been considered lacking.
- Thirdly, the Knox-Mellases have run a despicable multi-million-dollar PR campaign which has proved not only ineffectual but massively damaging to many good people, and a source of tension between two countries. The blood money Knox and Sollecito have achieved from their dishonest books and endless money-grubbing create a new world record for illegally profiting from a crime.
Unfortunately, a drooling and irresponsible academic who represents the Innocence Project in Idaho, and who may have criminally inserted himself into the legal process in Italy, may be beating the drum for Knox at the conference.
Barry Scheck and REAL victims everywhere would be best served by (1) kicking the grandstanding academic out of the Innocence Project, (2) learning things from the very impressive Italian system, which could help many REAL victims, and (3) deny Knox yet another forum to frame Italians, mislead Americans, and make even more illegal blood-money .
For Barry Scheck and genuine justice and REAL victims everywhere, distancing themselves from Knox would be the smart outcome.
Let her stick to autographing this in the lobby.
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (37)