Monday, June 23, 2014

The Knox Interrogation Hoax #7: Further Testimony Of Key Witness Zugarini To Knox Conniption 5-6 Nov

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters

Long post. Please click here to go straight to Comments



[Perugia cental police station: Meredith’s house is several miles away directly behind]

Context Of This Post

This translated transcript continues the testimony of Inspector Lorena Zugarini quoted in the post directly below.

It is a further description from the fourth of about eight police staff who testified to Knox agreeing to help out with a list of possible perps and then melting down at the central police station on 5-6 Nov.

We’ll have one more eyewitness post and after that what the oversight judges made of this in 2008. Thereafter, Knox’s disbelieved claims on the stand at her trial in 2009 when she tried to deny framing Patrick, and accused the police of crimes, and the reasons why all the trial and appeal judges from 2009 to 2014 concluded she had lied, and all the many witnesses had told the truth .

Then we enter an alternative universe, that of Amanda Knox herself (really) and the many Knox addicts mainly in the US who amazingly have shrugged off all of this rock-solid arc, and have pushed the interrogation hoax to its present ludicrous shape and size.

Those alternative-universe posts should put the shrill conspiracists on the put-up-or-shut-up spot and determine whether Knox continues on the same futile, damaging tack.

This new translation again is by the professional translator ZiaK. “GCM” is Judge Massei who watches over Knox’s legal interests but who also seeks to clarify.

Cross-Examination Of Inspector Lorena Zugarini

Patrick Lumumba Attorney Pacelli

CP:  Just a few clarifications on the questioning by the Public Prosecutor, to follow up on a question that Dr Mignini made a short while ago, with regard to how your investigations turned to the, shall we say, sexual aspect, or as if to the sexual backdrop of the crime, because in fact, in answering the Prosecutor, you said “I had formed my own personal opinion of a sexual backdrop, seeing the body of the poor victim semi-naked, or at any rate, naked.

Inspector Lorena Zugarini:  Naked.

CP:  So, to follow up in what was perhaps the Prosecutor’s intentions, I wanted to understand: was it also because of the content of the declarations made by Knox on the night of 5 November that your investigations turned towards the sexual backdrop? That is, was it also because of what Knox said to you that night?

LZ:  I’ll return to reconfirm, Attorney, that from the moment when Amanda – who previously had been [one of the] most calm people in the world, because after we had given her hot drinks, water, she had kept her cellphone with her, and all that – from the moment in which a colleague, together with Inspector Rita Ficarra, showed her the message and from the tone of the message – it is a very normal message as far as I’m concerned, it’s an extremely normal message – [so], not understanding Amanda’s reaction, if until three minutes before she was [one of the] most calm people in this world, not understanding Amanda’s reaction in relation to the message, logically questions were asked of her: “but why do you have this behaviour as soon as you read this message?”

CP:  So after her answers, also because of her answers, you turned towards …

LZ:  When a person says to you: I see, I hear Meredith’s screams…

CP:  Yes, but you were perfectly clear. A final clarification: at a certain point, you go away. However, before leaving, [did] you witness/were you present at Amanda’s declarations of accusation, what Amanda declared with respect to Patrick Lumumba?

LZ:  Absolutely, yes, because I turn again to reassert that if you read the message…

GCM:  Yes, absolutely, yes. Please, Attorney. The question?

CP:  In making these affirmations, before making these affirmations, or while she was making these affirmations, was Amanda struck with kicks or punches or slaps?

LZ:  In the most absolute way [No].

CP:  Was she in any way, by any one of you, forced to make declarations, or … the declarations that she made, some of the declarations, or all of the declarations that she made in that moment?

LZ:  Attorney, I tell you again that what we are doing, it is not an interrogation, [but] what we are asking …

GCM:  Yes, yes. Excuse me, but it’s enough to simply say no.

LZ:  When we ask things of a person, we ask them [sic], it’s logical. Maybe tiredness might take over…

CP:  Were any of the subjects that Amanda made declarations about suggested to her in any way, or were they all carried out on her own completely spontaneous will? There was no suggestion of names, of ways, of circumstances?

LZ:  Me, I never saw Amanda before, before 2 November.

CP:  No, but I’m saying 5 November. Was something of what she had [NdT: “had” as in “posssessed” not as in “was made to”. I.e. it is the Past Simple of the verb “to have] to declare that evening suggested to her?

LZ:  Absolutely not.

CP:  So you can confirm to us that, at any rate, even in those circumstances and for the whole period from 2 to 5, until all her declarations, even until the arrest, she was always treated with respect, with humanity, and with absolute…

LZ:  I repeat again, I made that joke with Inspector Rita Ficarra, even the current owner at that time of the bar inside the Questura, brought her I don’t remember if it was a camomile tea or a black tea, with little pastries and a croissant.

CP:  I have no further questions.

Sollecito Defence Attorney Bongiorno

GB:  You participated in the preliminary hearing, you were present?

LZ:  Yes.

GB:  All the preliminary hearings, some?

LZ:  Almost all.

GB:  Even the one when Stefanoni was heard/questioned?

LZ:  No.

GB:  In the one when Kocomani was heard/questioned?

LZ:  No.

GB:  When we did the pleadings/summation and the prosecutor’s final statement?

LZ:  Some, yes.

Knox Defense Attorney Luciano Ghirga

LG:  ... Listen, now let’s turn to the evening of the 6th when you participated with Inspector Ficarra in the recaps/summary information of Amanda Knox.

LZ:  Of the 5th.

LG:  No, of the 6th, because it is after midnight, [it is] one-forty-five. The night between 5 and 6, that is the beginning of the minutes/written record, and 01:45 hours, so we understand each other, and they are called summary informations/recaps.

LZ:  Thank you.

LG:  No, I didn’t mean anything. You said the 5th, for me it is the 6th, that’s all: it’s not contentious/a contradiction.

GCM:  Please Attorney.

LG:  And then, it’s not actually necessary.

LZ:  No, no.

LG:  Do you recall whether, having begun these interrogation activities, one or other of your colleagues who was participating in Sollecito’s interrogation came in to inform you in some way of the progress of Sollecito’s interrogation?

LZ:  Yes, there was Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni who every so often came there to see how it was going, and the thing that she then told us that Sollecito was not longer giving the big [sic] alibi as far as Amanda was concerned.

LG:  And the operation regarding the SMS message of which you spoke, [that] came about after this information, shall we say, let’s call it information, communication.

LZ:  I believe so, yes.

GCM:  Excuse me on this; did you communicate this immediately to Amanda Knox? This is what the Attorney was asking.

LG:  I have said, this quote-unquote interrogation began …

LZ:  Yes. I beg your pardon, Attorney.

LG:  And a colleague comes, you say that a colleague comes, I don’t know whether it’s Napoleoni, at any rate someone comes …

LZ:  No.

GCM:  Please. Continue, Attorney.

LG:  I am referring to this thing that you precisely reported: Sollecito returned [sic] the alibi to Amanda.

LZ:  Yes.

LG:  Something of the sort. He no longer gives a big [sic] alibi; he removes the alibi, I don’t know: the operations concerning the little message found in Amanda’s telephone, did these occur after this communication?

LZ:  Anyhow I tell you that when the Deputy Commissioner, or whoever entered inside that room on her behalf, it’s not that they spoke in front of Amanda, so Amanda could not hear the content of our discussions. After which, I honestly, I believe that the message was shown to Amanda after the presence of Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni or someone on her behalf.

LG:  Last question, Mr President: these courtesy activities – a hot drink, a croissant, or whatever – did they happen after the conclusion of the two interrogations of Amanda, shall we say?

LZ:  Absolutely not.

LG:  So when did they take place then?

LZ:  Well, they took place either before taking [sic] Amanda for the first time, also because we had to wait for the interpreter, if I’m not mistaken, Anna Donnino, who had to come from home because they had called her from the Questura to bring herself [sic] to our offices because we had, in fact, to hear a girl, in the English language, even though she spoke Italian fairly well: for reasons of our own peace [of mind] and for reasons of Amanda’s ease/peace of mind, the interpreter was called. So during the wait for Anna Donnino to arrive, Amanda was provided with both hot drinks and water, and whatnot.

LG:  And later you don’t recall whether there was another… You said it first, yourself.

LZ:  No, also later.

LG:  Also later?

LZ:  Also later.

LG:  That’s what it seemed to us. Thank you.

LZ:  No no, I have said [that] the lady from the bar – the bar is closed at night in our place; if I’m not mistaken [it closes] around 5, 5-thirty – the bar must have been open already, I already said that the owner of the bar came to bring her chamomile or tea, in short.

LG:  Thank you.

Judge Massei

GCM:  And a last thing: when the circumstance about the alibi came to light, that Raffaele Sollecito thus did not seem, no longer confirmed the alibi, [when] this fact came to light, did you bring it to the knowledge of Amanda Knox, this fact?

LZ:  No, no, absolutely no. Absolutely, not, because ...

GCM:  How was it brought to [your] awareness.

LZ:  I remember that the Deputy Commissioner came there and said to us: “Listen carefully to/Question carefully Amanda, because there are discrepancies on what Raffaele has said, even during the previous days”.

GCM:  As far as you know, [this] was not brought to Amanda Knox’s awareness?

LZ:  As far as I am concerned, no.

GCM:  Very well.

Posted on 06/23/14 at 10:40 AM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in Officially involvedAmanda KnoxPolice and CSIDiversion efforts byThe Knox-MellasesHoaxes about the caseKnox interrog. hoax
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (13)

Friday, June 20, 2014

The Knox Interrogation Hoax #6: This The Wedge That Breaks AK And RS Apart? Plus Zugarini On Stand

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters

Long post. Please click here to go straight to Comments




1. Breaking News From Sollecito Appeal

It is in effect being reported (see below) that the Sollecto team have asked Cassation to concede that back in 2008 they - Cassation - maybe made a mistake in the law.

That, the Sollecito team said, directly caused a disadvantage to their guy. And they may very well be right. If Cassation agrees, it may leave Knox with no further effective fight.

2. What Really Happened When Knox Was “Interrogated” 5-6 Nov 2007

To fully understand this, it will pay you to have read this series which includes major new translations by the professional translator ZiaK. And especially Part 2 of the previous post.

You will see repeatedly confirmed by those who were there these key facts:

(1) Amanda Knox turned up at the Perugia central police station late at night, unwanted and grumpy, and was advised to go home and get some sleep.

(2) Inspector Ficarra later said if she really wanted, she could help, she could build a list of possible perps, in a recap/summary session (not an interrogation).

(3) For maybe 45 minutes, starting at 12:30 am (when the interpreter arrived), Knox quite calmly listed seven names along with maps drawn.

(4) Knox had a wailing conniption, which really startled the four others present, when Knox saw an outgoing text to her boss she had just said wasnt there.

(5) Police did what they could to calm her down, and she insisted on writing out three statements in supposed elaboration in less than 12 hours.

(6) She was warned she should have a lawyer each time, the second warning by Dr Mignini, but each time she shrugged off this advice and pressed on.

(7) Cassation ruled the first two statements could not be used to indict Knox at the murder trial, but all three could be used to argue her framing of Patrick.

In passing, note Knox’s first-ever interrogation - not actually an Italian legal term - with hard questions pending and lawyers there, was in front of Judge Matteini at Capanne Prison on 8 Nov.

She made no claims of police pressures (of which there were none) causing her conniption, in fact she didnt say a word. Defense lawyers discounted later claims. 

3. Dr Mignini has observed that he feels Cassation got it wrong.

Dr Mignini mildly observed this, several times, because he did not think it was a make-or-break issue, and to him Cassation is almost invariable respectful and benign.

He feels that Cassation seemingly didnt understand that Knox strongly insisted on making the statements herself, without a lawyer contrary to advice.

And many Italian legal precedents say yes, in those circumstances those statements really should have been permitted exhibits at the main trial.

4. Sollecito Team 6+ Years Later Agrees; Mignini Was Right

1) Read the excellent new report by Andrea Vogt here (her Update of 19 June 2014) which in part quotes the Sollecito appeal saying this:

“The trials lacked an adequate review of the “individual” role of Sollecito, generating instead a sense of his guilt due to…  a “confession” made by her, which never mentioned him at the scene of the crime. 1a) That declaration should be used as a favourable element showing Sollecito was not at the scene of the crime, not as a piece of evidence that confirms his guilt.

2) Also read the new report by Barbie Nadeau here [with the caution by Popper in Comments below] which in part says this.

Now, for the first time in this seven-year long, painfully epic case, Sollecito wants to be judged independently from Knox—if not on the case as a whole, at least on the issue of the so-called “false confession.”


5. The 8000 Pound Gorilla That Lurks In Knox’s Statements

All three of Knox’s voluntary statements of 5-6 November say she was at her house with Patrick; the main thrust of the third statement (handwritten when she knew Patrick was being held nearby and may have proved her a liar at any minute) was to spread the accusations around a bit more, and drop Sollecito also in the soup

But the voluntary 1:45 and 5:45 statements also include these damning claims:

Statement 1:45: “I responded to the message [from Patrick] by telling him that we would see each other at once; I then left the house, telling my boyfriend that I had to go to work.

Statement 5:45: “I wish to relate spontaneously what happened because these events have deeply bothered me and I am really afraid of Patrick, the African boy who owns the pub called “Le Chic” located in Via Alessi where I work periodically. I met him in the evening of November 1st 2007, after sending him a reply message saying “I will see you”. We met soon after at about 21.00 at the basketball court of Piazza Grimana. “

See the possible opportunity for Sollecito’s team via the new appeal here? That’s one supposed “proof” that he wasn’t there (or at most came late, to explain his footprints and DNA).

And see the really big problem for Knox? She says she went out from Sollecito’s place on the night - and quite specifically says he did not come along.

Without further babblings about visions and stress and drugs, Amanda Knox, why exactly did you say that?

6. Relevant Testimony of Inspector Lorena Zugarini At Trial

To the co-prosecutor at trial Dr Mignini Inspector Zugarini describes her role in the summary/recap session in which Amanda Knox built her list of seven possible perps.

Yet again the main thrust is that Knox was being treated pretty nice, and that if anyone dropped her in it, it was Knox herself. 

Inspector Lorena Zugarini was there along with with Rita Ficarra (see posts 1-4) and Anna Donnino (see posts 5 and 6) and Ivano Raffo from Rome who, Rita Ficarra testified, held Knox’s hand to calm her down.

This also is new translation by the professional translator ZiaK. This testimony and cross-examination will spill over into Post #8. “GCM” who often seeks clarifications is Judge Massei.

Prosecutor Dr Giuliano Mignini

Dr Mignini:  Did you question Amanda by any chance?

Lorena Zugarini:  Yes.

GM:  Therefore? [sic: typo “quindi” instead of “quando” = “when”]

LZ:  The 5th.

GM:  Did you do anything particular from the 2nd to the 5th other than these routine investigations, crime-scene investigation, I don’t know ...

LZ:  No. Granted, one couldn’t go inside the house because there was the Forensic Police, so we, as the Flying Squad, we are not supposed to enter until the Forensics have finished, always because of the question of contamination of evidence.

GM:  The Forensics, when [did] they finish the initial operations?

LZ:  Initial - if I’m not wrong - the 6th; either the 5th or the 6th.

GM:  So on the 5th, you heard Amanda?

LZ:  I was there, in the Questura [Police station] because very few hours of the night, not days, but very few hours of the night, and like me also other colleagues - especially those who were from the Section that was more or less, shall we say quote unquote, in charge of the murder issue - we almost stayed overnight in the Questura, except for two or three hours at night, when we’d go home.

GM:  Do you recall when Amanda arrived?

LZ:  So on Amanda, I remember that Raffaele Sollecito was called and invited to come and be heard/questioned. They told me that Raffaele was out to dinner, that he’d been given the possibility of finishing dinner, of eating, etc. etc., and to then come to the Questura. And I remember that along with Raffaele there was also Amanda, and honestly, I said to myself: “But how on earth is it that these two are always together?”  Because we, on that evening ... that is to say, we, our staff, we had called only and exclusively Sollecito.

GM:  So you were together with Rita Ficarra that evening?

LZ:  I was there in the Questura - when Raffaele was called, Rita Ficarra wasn’t there [yet].

GM:  So you were present when Amanda arrived?

LZ:  Yes, I was present when Amanda arrived, and Raffaele Sollecito. Raffaele Sollecito was taken up to a room that was ..., he was to be heard/questioned by other colleagues if I’m not mistaken, also by Deputy Commissioner Napoleoni. After which, Amanda was made to leave the room, and I personally accompanied her to the outside of the Flying Squad [offices], to where there were seats, and she was made to sit [NdT: also “made comfortable”] there. Then after [doing] that thing, I instead returned back inside the Flying Squad [offices].

GM:  And so you carried out, you heard/questioned various people that evening, no?

LZ:  I heard/questioned more than one person. Raffaele Sollecito, I didn’t hear/question him, me, because there were already colleagues who were hearing/questioning him. I was there inside the Flying Squad [offices], [where] maybe I was reading the recaps/summary informations of the others, or else I was looking for a moment at the case files.

GM:  Do you remember when… When Inspector Ficarra started to hear/question Amanda, you were - shall we say - in the Flying Squad [offices]?

LZ:  I was there, in the offices of the Flying Squad. I was going out of the Flying Squad [offices], together with the Deputy Commissioner, in order to go down[stairs] to the little machine that we have; a drinks and snacks machine. We wanted to go down[stairs] to get something, and I saw that Amanda was talking with some colleagues from the SCO. What she was saying, I have no idea. And in the meantime, I saw Inspector Ficarra come out of the lift on the third floor, that gives access to the Flying Squad [offices].

GM:  So you went down[stairs]. And then?

LZ:  I went down[stairs]. In the meantime, however, I noted that Amanda, while she was there, was an extremely relaxed person, and I even felt very upset/ill because at a certain point she suddenly did the splits there in the corridor. She did the splits and did a cartwheel, saying “I’m doing a sport”. She said it in English, but in English I don’t know it, me. Translated into Italian, like I know it, it’s a sport that she climbs on rocks with bare hands and no ropes, without anything. In order to show what level of training/preparedness she had. Then I went down[stairs] and I went to get something to drink, in fact, and then we came back up and [Amanda was] together with Rita Ficarra, because Amanda was stating the [names of] people who probably would have visited the house on Via della Pergola, whom she and whom Meredith ... [in short, those] who might have known her…

GM:  So, excuse me, let me understand; so you were coming and going in the various rooms?

LZ:  Yes, I was coming and going because in that moment Raffaele Sollecito was inside one room with [some] colleagues, and I didn’t think it was expedient/advisable to enter.

GM:  Did you stop [in] then, at a certain point, while Amanda was being heard/questioned?

LZ:  I went down[stairs], as I’m coming back, to reconfirm, having got the drink, I went back up and I noticed that Amanda was talking with Inspector Ficarra outside [the offices], and that she was saying to her “I’ll tell you the people”. And right there and then, she wrote them down herself in a notebook, on a sheet [of paper] that she had with her. Afterwards, together with Rita, with Inspector Ficarra, then, when we saw the facts/information, we said “Ok”, we said [agreed we needed] an office where we [could] go to hear/question Amanda for a moment, and take her recap/summary information, since in any case she had to wait for Raffaele.

GM:  Without telling us the content of the declarations, obviously, [can you] if checks were carried out on the cellphones?

LZ:  Well, so, Amanda, she had her cellphone with her still, because there was no reason to need to take it from her, and Amanda handed over her cellphone to a colleague from the SCO, after Amanda said “I’ll write down the names with the telephone [numbers] of the people who probably could have known Meredith too”.

GM:  So she handed over the cellphone to the individual from the SCO. Who was that [individual]? Do you remember?

LZ:  I don’t remember because there were various colleagues [around] from the SCO.

GM:  So this [individual] belonging to the SCO, what did he do?

LZ:  He took the cellphone and went out for a moment. I don’t know where he went because I remained inside the room. Shortly afterwards, he came back, and together with Amanda they started to scroll – Inspector Rita Ficarra and the colleague from SCO – they started to scroll through the messages and they asked her “This one, who is it? This other one, who is it?” and Amanda was answering.

GM:  [And] then?

LZ:  After, at a certain point, this [officer was] still taking [down] the report/minutes, since the message was reached that, if I’m not mistaken, was from Patrick, that there was written Patrick above it, she was asked who is Patrick, and there [at that point] Amanda …

GM:  If I can just show [her] the … [shows cellphone screen image].

LZ:  Yes, that one there.

GCM:  She was shown the copy of the message taken from the cellphone.

GM:  SMS.

LZ:  [The] SMS on Amanda’s cellphone.

GM:  And then?

LZ:  Yes, she was asked for explanations regarding [the] “Certainly, see you later, good evening” [“Certo, ci vediamo più tardi, buona serata”]. We asked her who Patrick is, and in that moment Amanda shed tears – whether she was crying sincerely [in earnest] I don’t know – however she shed tears.

GM:  Did she make any gestures/movements?

LZ:  Yes. She put, I remember that she hiked up/drew up her legs, she crouched on her chair, put her hands around her head, on her ears, and started to say “He’s bad/mean, he’s bad/mean”, to shake her head, she said: “I remember hearing Meredith who was screaming, and Patrick who was hurting her”.

GCM:  One cannot report on the declarations made unless… Please.

LZ:  I beg your pardon.

GM:  What thing…

GCM:  So she had this behaviour?

LZ:  Yes.

GM:  You saw this behaviour?

LZ:  Yes.

GM:  So then what happened? What did you [all] do?

LZ:  At that point, Inspector Rita Ficarra decided to suspend the minutes/written record because the position had changed a bit, because she said to us “I was …” – Ah! I cannot…

GCM:  Yes, you cannot. So she was changed, and you suspended the minutes/written record, and …

LZ:  Yes, we interrupt [sic] the …

GM:  They were in accordance with Article 63.

LZ:  We interrupt [sic] the minutes/written record. I personally said to her if she wanted ...

GM:  Because indications of guilt had emerged?

LZ:  Yes, exactly. I said [sic] to her if she wanted the presence of a Lawyer, [to] which she said “No, I don’t need one”.

GM:  Can you describe for us what you did after, that is to say, what happened afterwards? Did she continue to cry? What did she do?

LZ:  I repeat, I can’t say whether [she was] crying: she was shedding tears: a behaviour that was still strange. She had a moment of, if I may say this, of crisis, seeing this type of message and [us] asking who this person was, after which I left the room …

GM:  Bu you, excuse me, did you ask “But why does he frighten you? Why are you crying?” Did you ask her that?

LZ:  Yes, certainly that was asked of her. She, [in answer to] such a question, said to me: “I remember that inside, that I was inside the kitchen”.

GCM:  Enough. On this, obviously, you cannot report, unless it is necessary/helpful. So you asked explanations about the behaviour…

LZ:  Yes, for me it is helpful/necessary because I didn’t understand such a type of behaviour on [NdT: i.e. “in response to”] a completely normal message.

GCM:  And you asked for an explanation.

LZ:  Yes. I said to her: “What on earth? What is happening? Who is [NdT: my emphasis] this person?”

GCM:  In the scope of the interrogation?

LZ:  Yes. Because until 5 minutes earlier, she was a completely normal person.

GCM:  So you asked for explanations of this behaviour. Ok.

LZ:  [Until] 5 minutes earlier she was completely normal, [and] then when she saw this message, and at the question “Who is this Patrick” she flew off the handle [NdT: “escandescenza” is actually a fit of rage, with violent words and menacing gestures”, I don’t know if the witness used the word in the sense of “fit of rage”, but this is the meaning of the word she chose.]

GCM:  These fits of rage, what did they consist of? [Did] she shed tears and shake her head?

LZ:  Yes. She drew her legs up, [and] put her hands on her head.

GCM:  Hands on the ears?

LZ:  She put her hands on her head, [and] started to do like this.

GCM:  She was shaking her head.

LZ:  She was shaking her head, and said to me “To me, this person …”

GCM:  You cannot. That is to say, you can report the declarations made only if they were useful, and to give us an indication about the subsequent investigative activity.

LZ:  For me, personally, I repeat, it was a moment in which I see this message, that is I ask [what] the presence of this message [means], and I see a reaction of this type, I ask myself “What on earth What has just happened?” [sic: NdT: Zugarini also speaks often in the present tense.]

GCM:  And she gave the answer that she [NdT: also “you”] gave.

GM:  Had you Did you, in the investigations that you carried out, had you conjectured [the occurrence] of a sexual assault?

LZ:  I personally, yes, because she [NdT: i.e. Meredith] was naked.

GM:  Because she was naked. But what are the elements that made you think of sexual assault? On what basis did you carry out investigations…? You said that one element was the fact that the young woman was naked.

LZ:  Yes.

GM:  What other elements? I mean, these declarations, shall we say, were they the cause for carrying out investigations on a sexual assault?

LZ:  I’ll go back to reassert that, from the moment when she was shown a message and a reaction of a person to the question “But for what reason are you doing these things? Why are you reacting in this way to this message?, she says to me “I see this person who is doing evil, and I hear my friend Meredith who’s screaming”; in all honesty, we also had a doubt, in short.

Maria Del Grosso [Knox lawyer]:  President, I am trying to reiterate the objection, because here there’s a continuous… it’s a continuous violation.

GM:  However it is impossible…

GCM:  Because the Prosecutor’s question concerned at a certain point [whether] the investigations also turned towards a hypothesis of sexual assault, and she gave him a positive answer saying that yes, because the body was naked, [so] there are other elements too…

LZ:  Other elements of people who knew – especially Meredith’s English friends, who Meredith visited in a regular way, who said to us that Meredith, from what they told us, was a very serious person, who did not give absolute familiarity/intimacy, that is to say, she did not give much familiarity/intimacy… naturally being a girl, and being also a [burdened/serious] type of girl, the young men who gave recaps/summary information said that… that they also, if one can say this, tried it on with her, to which she absolutely never gave them any encouragement…

GCM:  So on the basis of these [pieces of] information the investigations were directed towards …

LZ:  Yes, also the recaps/summary information of people, of people who were heard for recaps/summary information.

GM:  After this, to when the minutes/written record was interrupted, between the interruption of the minutes/written record and the presentation… to the spontaneous declarations: how much time passed?

LZ:  I didn’t understand [you], excuse me.

GM:  Between the moment when the minutes/written record was halted by Inspector Ficarra to the moment when I heard her [give her] spontaneous declarations, how much time passed?

LZ:  That, honestly, I can’t tell you, because from the moment when Patrick Lumumba’s name came out, and we knew that he was in fact the owner of a pub located on Via Alessi, etc. etc., I personally went together with other colleagues …

GM:  So you left …

LZ:  I left Amanda. Also because, to be honest, I didn’t really discuss it earlier, but I had, shall we say, a bit of an exchange of ideas with Inspector Rita Ficarra, because Inspector Rita Ficarra went down[stairs] several times with Amanda to get drinks from down there, from that same little [drinks-and-snacks] machine in the Questura.

GM:  Listen: can you recall for me whether she was subjected to aggressions, to pressure, to blows?

LZ:  Absolutely not! Even if I remember perfectly that, still with Inspector Rita Ficarra, I said to her “We’re talking about a girl [who’s had her] throat slit”, and the owner [NdT: in the feminine] of the actual/current bar that is located within the Questura [premises] was made to come up with a hot drink and little baked goods that were brought to Amanda, and I made a joke that not even in 20 years of [being in the] Police had any colleagues ever brought me these kinds of things like that, in the [same] way as Amanda was being treated.

GM:  So therefore you were present then for the [written] spontaneous declarations?

LZ:  Of Amanda?

GM:  Of Amanda.

LZ:  No. The minutes/written record was interrupted…

GM:  Was there an interpreter?

LZ:  Yes, the interpreter. In fact, Amanda’s recaps/summary information were even taken with a bit of delay because, if I’m not mistaken, Inspector Rita Ficarra came back to the Questura, or at any rate she came out of the lift of the Questura, at around about 23:00 hours, and if I’m not mistaken the minutes/written record began around 01:00 a.m.: around about 01:00 the minutes/written record was taken in the waiting for an interpreter of the local Questura, Anna Donnino, to come from her house to the Questura to be able to take Amanda[‘s declaration], even though she [Amanda] spoke in a fairly passable Italian.

GM:  So you, in effect, lose contact with Amanda, and you deal with ...

LZ:  From the moment when the minutes/written record was interrupted…

GM:  [So when] the minutes/written record is suspended, you begin, you participate in the search for Patrick.

LZ:  I participate in the search for Patrick.

GM:  And then what other activity did you carry out?… [continues on other subjects]

The translated transcript of the cross-examination of Inspector Lorena Zugarini by the defenses will follow, in Post #8.

Posted on 06/20/14 at 03:00 PM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in Officially involvedAmanda KnoxPolice and CSIDiversion efforts byThe Knox-MellasesHoaxes about the caseKnox interrog. hoax
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (26)

Wednesday, June 18, 2014

Legal Nightmare For Knox: How Tough American Laws Will Wind Back Her Blood-Money Profits & Spendings

Posted by Peter Quennell

Long post. Please click here to go straight to Comments




The 40-Plus State Son-of-Sam Laws

David Berkowitz or Son-of-Sam as he called himself during his killing spree is a convicted American serial killer. Watch a documentary at bottom here.

In New York State (where Knox’s publisher is) and Washington State (where Knox herself is) and about 40 other American states Son-of-Sam has a much-exercised and now rarely-challenged law named after him.

After early challenges and some revisions, many of those State Son-of-Sam laws continue to be strengthened and almost all are enforced regularly. From Wikipedia:

A Son of Sam law is any American law designed to keep criminals from profiting from the publicity of their crimes, often by selling their stories to publishers… Son of Sam laws are designed so that criminals are unable to take advantage of the notoriety of their crimes. Such laws often authorize the state to seize money earned from deals such as book/movie biographies and paid interviews and use it to compensate the criminal’s victims…

In certain cases a Son of Sam law can be extended beyond the criminals themselves to include friends, neighbors, and family members of the lawbreaker who seek to profit by telling publishers and filmmakers of their relation to the criminal. In other cases, a person may not financially benefit from the sale of a story or any other mementos pertaining to the crime—if the criminal was convicted after the date lawmakers passed the law in the states where the crime was committed.


Son-of-Sam Laws In The News

The Son-of-Sam laws are in the American news almost daily. See these for example:

  • Here is an article about the admitted killer Jodi Arias who could have otherwise been in line to profit from a movie showing her killing of her former lover Travis Alexander from her point-of-view.

  • Here is an article about the former university football coach and male rapist Jerry Sandusky who may be writing a book to benefit himself and his family.

  • Here is an article about OJ Simpson, the former footballer and convicted killer of his wife and one other, who is essentially in prison now for trying to circumvent a Son-of-Sam law mandating payments to the families of his victims.


How Son-of-Sam Laws Work

Here from the Criminal Lawyers website is a generic description of how such State laws work.

Each state’s law is different, but here some of the things you may see in any particular Son of Sam law:

What’s covered?  Practically just about anything a criminal defendant might gain or profit from his crime. Some state laws generally define “profit from crime.” For example, a law may state it’s “any property obtained through or income generated from the commission of a crime.” Other states are very specific and may, for example, state “profit of crime” is money or other property with value a defendant may receive for a book, movie, television show, play or newspaper article about the defendant and his crimes.

Who’s covered? In some states, only the criminal defendant is covered. In other states, members of his family are covered, too. They may be related by blood or by “affinity” or kinship, such as a spouse or father-in-law. The idea is to make sure a family member doesn’t get the money and hold it for the defendant.

Payment. Most states require the person paying the defendant - the book publisher, movie producer, etc. - to pay the money directly to a court or special state agency, like the state’s Crime Victims Assistance agency. The money is held in a special account for the crime’s victims.

Getting the money to the victims. In most states, once money is deposited, the court or the state agency in charge of the money notifies victims the money is available. In other states, the person or company paying the defendant must notify victims. Either way, victims are usually notified by ads or “legal notices” in local newspapers where the crime was committed. It’s also possible the names of specific victims may be found in the court records connected to the case, and those victims may get personal notification, such as by mail.


Ten Grave Weaknesses In Knox’s Position

Under these 40-plus Son-of-Sam state laws Amanda Knox and her agents appear to be in an extremely weak legal position. Here are 10 reasons.

    1) Knox was confirmed convicted without further recourse by the Italian Supreme Court of calunnia (against Patrick Lumumba) in March 2013 and she was also provisionally confirmed guilty of murder and other crimes when her appeal before the Florence Appeal Court failed six months ago.

    2) That final false-accusation conviction occurred prior to Knox’s book Waiting To Be Heard being released. The British and Italian arms of the publishers, HarperCollins, refused to release the book in the UK and Italy, citing major legal liabilities. The New York based HarperCollins publishers and therefore Knox herself knew that there were very serious legal questions.

    3) Amanda Knox was represented by Washington DC lawyer and book agent Robert Barnett who touted the book to various publishers for a claimed $4 million. If Robert Barnett was misled as to the truth of the book, Knox may find herself kicked under the bus by him.  If he was not misled, he too is entangled.

    4) Knox’s book (available globally via Amazon Kindle) includes many serious misstatements on (among other things) the nature of her false-accusation crime, the nature of her police discussion on 5-6 November 2007, and the real reason for her felony conviction and sentence.

    5) Knox also misstated the nature of her false-accusation crime, the nature of her police discussion on 5-6 November 2007, and the real reason for her felony defamation conviction in (a) an arrogant email to Judge Nencini at the Florence appeal and (b) an arrogant press release after the judge’s sentencing report was released.

    6) Knox appears to have misstated the nature of her false-accusation crime, the nature of her police discussion on 5-6 November 2007, and the real reason for her conviction in a submission to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg. She also uses those false claims for her continued refusal to pay damages to Patrick.

    7) Large numbers of opportunists appear to have directly profited. While we don’t know for sure, it seems Knox blood-money may have been used (a) to pay off her parents’ legal debts; (b) to pay her Italian and American lawyers; (b) to pay David Marriott’s public relations outfit; (d) to pay travel to Seattle and other expenses for some of her wackiest supporters, Sforza and Fischer included. Fees for abusive work by many in online support of Knox are rumored

    8) We have repeatedly been told that any media request for access to Sollecito or Knox results in a greedy hand being stretched out. Any media who paid anything to Knox or her family (CNN? ABC? CBS? The Guardian? Oggi?) for access since 2007 could be seriously vulnerable.

    9) Knox will face a new trial in Italy in due course for numerous new felony accusations in the book, including a very serious false charge against Dr Mignini. Also she and her followers are widely on record as disrespecting and harrassing the real victim and her ailing family.

    10) And a mandatory Son-of-Sam Law investigation by State Attorney Generals can be triggered in over 40 American states via a simple report from a citizen. The Italian Government could also trigger such a criminal investigation.

And Amanda Knox still has her greedy paw out for contributions. See her highly misleading website. Tread warily, folks. Up to 40-plus investigators could come calling at your door…

Early Death To Any Political Support

American politicians almost all favor the Son-of-Sam Laws. The thought of a convicted killer profiting is something almost 100% of American voters wont tolerate. Anything that encourages crimes and the flouting of laws is a really big American no-no.

And if Knox is trying to assemble any bought-and-paid-for political support to resist extradition, such political support will dissipate in a heartbeat when Son-of-Sam again rears his head.

Not a very nice slippery slope for Knox. On multiple counts she looks like a sure-fire loser.


Thursday, June 12, 2014

Fifty Of The Most Common Myths Still Promoted Without Legal Restraint By The Knox PR Campaign

Posted by The Machine

Long post. Please click here to go straight to Comments



Fooled ya! Knox’s parents have the mythmaking machine’s pedal to the floor, and arent slowing it

Introduction

I’ve listed the 50 most common myths circulating in the media with regard to the Amanda Knox/Meredith Kercher case and refuted them using as far as possible the official court documents and court testimony.

1. Knox was called to the Perugia central police station on 5 November 2007.

Neither the police nor the prosecutors brought Knox in for questioning on 5 November 2007. She was there unwanted, and stayed after it was suggested she go home and sleep.

Amanda Knox herself testified in court that she wasn’t called to come to the police station on 5 November 2007.

Carlo Pacelli: “For what reason did you go to the Questura on November 5? Were you called?”

Amanda Knox: “No, I wasn’t called. I went with Raffaele because I didn’t want to be alone.”

Monica Napoleoni, the head of Perugia’s homicide squad, said they told Knox she should go home to rest, but Knox insisted on staying:

Amanda also came that evening, the evening of the 5th. We said to Amanda that she could go home to rest. Since, during those days, she was always saying, always complaining that she wanted to rest, wanted to eat, we said: ‘Look, you’ve eaten; you can go and rest yourself. If there’s a need, we’ll call you.’

Instead, she was very nervous, and insisted on staying there.

Inspector Rita Ficarra was the one who led the discussion on a list of possible perps with Knox.

Rita Ficarra: 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.

2. Knox was subjected to an all-night interrogation on 5/6 November.

According to Barbie Nadeau in The Daily Beast, Amanda Knox’s questioning began at about 11:00pm.

“Since Knox was already at the police station [in the company of Raffaele Sollecito], the head of the murder squad decided to ask her a few questions. Her interrogation started at about 11pm.”

After Amanda Knox had made her witness statement at 1:45am, she wasn’t questioned again that evening. She decided to made another witness statement at 5:45am, but she wasn’t asked any questions.

3. Knox wasn’t provided with an interpreter for her questioning on 5 November 2007.

This claim is completely false as shown through the trial testimony of Knox and her interpreter. Knox’s interpreter on 5 November 2007, Anna Donnino, testified at length at trial about Knox’s convesrsation that evening. And Amanda Knox herself spoke about her interpreter when she later gave testimony at the trial.

4. Knox wasn’t given anything to eat or drink.

Reported by Richard Owen, in The Times, 1 March 2009:

Ms Napoleoni told the court that while she was at the police station Ms Knox had been ‘treated very well. She was given water, chamomile tea and breakfast. She was given cakes from a vending machine and then taken to the canteen at the police station for something to eat.’

Also reported by Richard Owen, in The Times, 15 March 2009:

Ms Donnino said that Ms Knox had been ‘comforted’ by police, given food and drink, and had at no stage been hit or threatened.

John Follain in his book Death in Perugia, page 134, also reports that Knox was given food and drink during her questioning:

During the questioning, detectives repeatedly went to fetch her a snack, water, and hot drinks, including chamomile tea.

This is from the relevant court transcript:

Monica Napoleoni: Amanda was given something to drink several times. She was brought hot chamomile; she was taken to the bar of the Questura to eat. First she was given brioches from the little [vending] machine.

Carlo Pacelli: These methods of treatment, how did they translate into practice? With what behaviour/actions [were they carried out] in actual fact? Earlier, you recalled that they actually brought her something to eat…

MN: It’s true. That morning, I remember that Inspector Ficarra actually took her to the bar to eat as soon as it opened. But before [that], we have little [vending] machines on the ground floor, and she was brought water, she was brought hot drinks, she was brought a snack. But also Raffaele, he was given something to drink; it’s not as though they were kept … absolutely.

Giuliano Mignini:  Had types of comfort been offered to her?

Anna Donnino:  Well, during the evening, yes, in the sense that I remember that someone went down to the ground floor; it was the middle of the night, so in the station at that hour there are those automatic distributors; there’s nothing else; someone went to the ground floor and brought everybody something to drink, some hot drinks and something to eat. I myself had a coffee, so I believe that she also had something.





Above: Several of the myth inventors and disseminators: Sforza, Mellas, Preston

5. Knox was beaten by the police.

The witnesses who were present when Knox was questioned, including her interpreter, testified under oath at the trial in 2009 that she wasn’t hit. (Under Italian law, witnesses must testify under oath, while defendants do not, so are not required by law to be truthful on the stand.)

These are from the relevant court transcripts:

Giuliano Mignini: 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?

Rita Ficarra: 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.

Giuliano Mignini: ... violence, of …

Monica Napoleoni: But absolutely not!

Mignini:  You remember it… you’ve described it; however, I’ll ask it. Was she threatened? Did she suffer any beatings?

Anna Donnino: Absolutely not.

GM: She suffered maltreatments?

AD:  Absolutely not.

Carlo Pacelli:  In completing and consolidating in cross-examination the questions by the public prosecutor, I refer to the morning of the 6th of November, to the time when Miss Knox had made her summary information. In that circumstance, Miss Knox was struck on the head with punches and slaps?

Anna Donnino:  Absolutely not.

CP:  In particular, was she struck on the head by a police woman?

AD:  Absolutely not!

CP:  Miss Knox was, however, threatened?

AD:  No, I can exclude that categorically!

CP:  With thirty years of prison… ?

AD:  No, no, absolutely not.

CP:  Was she, however, sworn at, in the sense that she was told she was a liar?

AD:  I was in the room the whole night, and I saw nothing of all this.

CP:  So the statements that had been made had been made spontaneously, voluntarily?

AD:  Yes.

Carlo Della Valla:  This…

Giancarlo Massei:  Pardon, but let’s ask questions… if you please.

CP:  You were also present then during the summary informations made at 5:45?

AD:  Yes.

CP:  And were they done in the same way and methods as those of 1:45?

AD:  I would say yes. Absolutely yes.

CP:  To remove any shadow of doubt from this whole matter, as far as the summary information provided at 5:45 Miss Knox was struck on the head with punches and slaps?

AD:  No.

CP:  In particular, was she struck on the head by a policewoman?

AD:  No.

Even Amanda Knox’s lawyer, Luciano Ghirga, distanced himself in the Italian media from these allegations and never lodged any complaint:

There were pressures from the police, but we never said she was hit.

6. Knox was refused a lawyer.

Rita Ficarra and Anna Donnino testified that Knox was several times advised to have a lawyer, but each she declined the offer:

Anna Donnino:  ...she was asked if she wanted a lawyer.

Giuliano Mignini:  And what was her response?

AD: She had answered no; I remember that she replied with no.

Before she insisted on drafting her 1:45 and 5:45 am accusations Knox was advised to have a lawyer advise her, but she declined and pressed on.

Dr Mignini has wondered if the Supreme Court really understood this in banning the two unprovoked accusations from Knox’s main trial.

7. Knox was tag-teamed by two police officers every hour.

According to Anna Donnino, who arrived at the police station at about 12:30am, there was a total of three people in the room with Knox:

Anna Donnino: “I had been made to enter a room where in fact there was Inspector Ficarra at a small table, another colleague from SCO (I only remember his first name; he was called Ivano), a police officer, and there was Miss Knox seated. I seated myself beside her.”





Above: Several of the main myth inventors and disseminators: Fischer, Sforza, Moore

8. Knox was asked to imagine what might have happened.

According to the corroborative testimony of the three others present, including Rita Ficarra and Anna Donnino, Amanda Knox voluntarily and spontaneously accused Patrick Lumumba of murdering Meredith.

Here is Rita Ficarra.

We found only that one [text message] sent by her. She was given the mobile into her hand, and it was said, who is this person, and 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.

Here is Anna Donnino:

Judge Massei: This change, at what moment did it happen, and in what did it consist of?

Anna Donnono: The change had occurred right after this message, in the sense that the signorina said she hadn’t replied to the message from Patrick, when instead her reply message was shown to her she had a true and proper emotional shock. It’s a thing that has remained very strongly with me because the first thing that she did is that she immediately puts her hands on her ears, making this gesture rolling her head, curving in her shoulders also and saying “It’s him! It’s him! It was him! I can see/hear him or: I know it.[Lo sento]” and so on and so forth.

Carlo Pacelli:  So the statements that had been made had been made spontaneously, voluntarily?

Anna Donnino:  Yes.

Here is Judge Massei.

[After hearing and weighing up the testimony of these witnesses and Amanda Knox, Judge Massei stated that it couldn’t be claimed that] “Amanda Knox was persuaded by the investigators to accuse Diya Lumumba, aka Patrick, by means of various pressing requests which she could not resist.” (Massei report, page 388.)

[He noted that there had been] “no corroboration of the pressing requests which Amanda was seemingly subjected to in order to accuse Diya Lumumba of the crime committed to the detriment of Meredith.” (Massei report, page 389.)

Judge Massei concluded at trial in 2009 that Knox had freely accused Patrick Lumumba of Meredith’s murder and awarded her a prison sentence for calunnia confirmed in 2013 by the Supreme Court for which there is no further appeal.

9. Amanda Knox claimed she had had a “dream-like vision” in her witness statements.

Amanda Knox makes no mention of a dream or vision in her two witness statements. She categorically states that she met Diya Lumumba at Piazza Grimana and that they went to the cottage on Via della Pergola. In her first witness statement, she claims that Lumumba killed Meredith.

This is from the 1:45 am statement.

I responded to the message by telling him that we would see each other at once; I then left the house, telling my boyfriend that I had to go to work. In view of the fact that during the afternoon I had smoked a joint, I felt confused, since I do not frequently make use of mind-altering substances, nor of heavier substances.

I met Patrik immediately afterward, at the basketball court on Piazza Grimana, and together we went [to my] home. I do not recall whether Meredith was there or arrived afterward. I struggle to remember those moments, but Patrik had sex with Meredith, with whom he was infatuated, but I do not recall whether Meredith had been threatened beforehand. I recall confusedly that he killed her.

This is from the 5:45 am statement.

I wish to relate spontaneously what happened because these events have deeply bothered me and I am really afraid of Patrick…  I met him in the evening of November 1st 2007, after sending him a reply message saying “I will see you”. We met soon after at about 21.00 at the basketball court of Piazza Grimana. We went to my apartment in Via della Pergola n. 7.

I do not clearly remember if Meredith was already at home or if she came later, what I can say is that Patrick and Meredith went into Meredith’s room, while I think I stayed in the kitchen. I cannot remember how long they stayed together in the room but I can only say that at a certain point I heard Meredith screaming and as I was scared I plugged up my ears.

10. Amanda Knox was questioned in Italian

The police provided Amanda Knox with an interpreter, Anna Donnino, so that she could be questioned in English.

11. Dr Mignini questioned Knox on 5 November 2007.

Dr Mignini did not question Amanda Knox that evening. She wanted to make further declarations, and he came to the police station on the night only because he was on duty and had to witness Knox being cautioned. After Knox was cautioned that she need not say anything without a lawyer, Knox nevertheless insisted that she draft a second statement in front of him.

Mr Mignini explained what happened in his e-mail letter to Linda Byron, a journalist for King5 in Seattle:

All I did was to apply the Italian law to the proceedings. I really cannot understand any problem.

In the usual way, Knox was first heard by the police as a witness, but when some essential elements of her involvement with the murder surfaced, the police suspended the interview, according to article 63 of the penal-proceedings code.

But Knox then decided to render spontaneous declarations that I took up without any further questioning, which is entirely lawful.

According to article 374 of the penal-proceedings code, suspects must be assisted by a lawyer only during a formal interrogation, and when being notified of alleged crimes and questioned by a prosecutor or judge, not when they intend to render unsolicited declarations.

Since I didn’t do anything other than to apply the Italian law applicable to both matters, I am unable to understand the objections and reservations which you are talking about.”

In Amanda Knox’s written witness statement, she explicitly states that she’s making a spontaneous declaration:

I wish to relate spontaneously what happened because these events have deeply bothered me and I am really afraid of Patrick, the African boy who owns the pub called Le Chic located in Via Alessi, where I work periodically.

12. Knox didn’t confess until 6am.

Amanda Knox’s first written statement was made at 1:45am. It was not a confession, it was a false accusation.

13. Knox retracted her allegation against Lumumba immediately.

Amanda Knox didn’t retract her accusation immediately. In fact, she never did formally. Knox reiterated her allegation in her handwritten note to the police late morning of 6 November 2007, which was admitted in evidence: From the Massei report:

[Amanda] herself, furthermore, in the statement of 6 November 2007 (admitted into evidence ex. articles 234 and 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code and which was mentioned above) wrote, among other things, the following:

I stand by my [accusatory] statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrick…in these flashbacks that I’m having, I see Patrick as the murderer…

This statement was that specified in the notes of 6 November 2007, at 20:00, by Police Chief Inspector Rita Ficarra, and was drawn up following the notification of the detention measure, by Amanda Knox, who “requested blank papers in order to produce a written statement to hand over” to the same Ficarra. (Massei report, page 389.)

Knox did not withdraw the false accusation at her first hearing in front of a magistrate on 8 November.

The Massei court took note of the fact that Amanda Knox didn’t recant her false and malicious allegation against Diya Lumumba during the entire time, two weeks, he was kept in prison.

14. In the days following Meredith’s murder, Knox voluntarily stayed in Perugia to help the police

This claim is contradicted by Amanda Knox herself. In the e-mail she wrote to her friends in Seattle on 4 November 2007 she categorically stated she was not allowed to leave Italy:

“i then bought some underwear because as it turns out i wont be able to leave italy for a while as well as enter my house”

Knox actually knew on 2 November 2007 that she couldn’t leave Italy. Amy Frost, a friend of Meredith, reported the following conversation (Massei report, page 37):

“I remember having heard Amanda speaking on the phone. I think that she was talking to a member of her family, and I heard her say, ‘No, they won’t let me go home; I can’t catch that flight.’ ”

15. All of Meredith’s friends left immediately.

The police also told Sophie Purton that they needed her to stay on in Perugia on precisely the same basis as Amanda Knox. Sophie had been counting on leaving Perugia to fly back home as soon as her parents arrived, but the police called to tell her they needed her to stay on; they would let her know when she could leave. Her father stayed on with her.

In chapter 19 of Death in Perugia John Follain states that Sophie Purton was questioned by Mignini and Napoleoni in the prosecutor’s office on 5 November 2007.

16. There were only two tiny pieces of DNA evidence that implicated her, but they were probably contaminated.

The Italian Supreme Court explained how DNA evidence should be assessed in court; i.e., contamination must be proven with certainty, not supposition. The Court stated that the theory “anything is possible” in genetic testing is not valid.

The burden of proof is on the person who asserts contamination, not the person who denies it.

In other words, if the defence lawyers claim the DNA evidence was contaminated, they must describe the specific place and time where it could have plausibly occurred. Nobody has ever proved that the bra clasp and knife evidence were contaminated. Even Conti and Vecchiotti excluded contamination in the laboratory:

“Laboratory contamination was also excluded by these experts [Conti and Vecchiotti].” (The Supreme Court report, page 92.)

(1) The bra clasp

The fact that the bra clasp was not collected immediately because defense witnesses were not available is irrelevant. The cottage was a sealed crime scene and nobody entered the room during this time:

...the flat had been sealed and nobody had had the opportunity to enter, as shown in the case file.” (The Italian Supreme Court report, page 92.)

Alberto Intini, the head of the Italian police forensic science unit, excluded environmental contamination because “DNA doesn’t fly.”

Even Conti and Vecchiotti excluded contamination in the laboratory because Dr Stefanoni last handled Sollecito’s DNA twelve days before she analysed the bra clasp.

Professor Francesca Torricelli testified that it was unlikely the clasp was contaminated because there was a significant amount of Sollecito’s DNA on it.  His DNA was identified by two separate DNA tests. Of the 17 loci tested in the sample, Sollecito’s profile matched 17 out of 17.

David Balding, a Professor of Statistical Genetics at University College London, analysed the DNA evidence against Sollecito and concluded that the evidence was strong”

“…because Sollecito is fully represented in the stain at 15 loci (we still only use 10 in the UK, so 15 is a lot), the evidence against him is strong…”

(2) The knife

Dr Stefanoni analysed the traces on the knife six days after last handling Meredith’s DNA. This means that contamination couldn’t have occurred in the laboratory. Meredith had never been to Sollecito’s apartment, so contamination away from the laboratory was impossible. 

The knife and bra clasp are not the only pieces of DNA evidence.

According to the prosecution’s experts, there were five samples of Knox’s DNA or blood mixed with Meredith’s blood in three different locations in the cottage. After the trial in 2009, The Kerchers’ lawyer, Francesco Maresca, said the mixed-blood evidence was the most damning piece of evidence against Amanda Knox.

The Scientific Police experts concluded it proves that Meredith and Knox were bleeding at the same time.

17. The knife has essentially been thrown out.

The knife hasn’t been thrown out. A further DNA sample (36-I) was extracted from the blade last year and tested by the Carabinieri RIS DNA experts Major Berti and Captain Barni. The sample was attributed to Amanda Knox, the second. Judge Nencini stated in his report that Knox stabbed Meredith with the knife.




Above: Several of the myth inventors and disseminators: Hampikian, Burleigh, Heavey

18. The knife doesn’t match any of the wounds on Meredith’s body.

The prosecution experts, multiple defence experts and Judge Massei in his report have all agreed that the double DNA knife DID match the large wound on Meredith’s neck.

“On these matters, the considerations already made must be recalled which led this Court to evaluate the outcome of the genetic investigation as reliable, and this knife as absolutely compatible with the most serious wound.” (Massei report, page 375.)

Barbie Nadeau, an American journalist based in Rome, reported directly from the courtroom in Perugia that multiple witnesses for the defence, including Dr. Carlo Torre, conceded that the double DNA knife was compatible with the deep puncture wound in Meredith’s neck.

According to multiple witnesses for the defense, the knife is compatible with at least one of the three wounds on Kercher’s neck, but it was likely too large for the other two. (Barbie Nadeau, Newsweek.)

He (Dr. Carlo Torre, defence expert) conceded that a third larger wound could have been made with the knife, but said it was more likely it was made by twisting a smaller knife. (Barbie Nadeau, The Daily Beast.)

19. The DNA on the blade could match half the population of Italy.

Vieri Fabani, a lawyer for the Kerchers, pointed out that there is the possibility of 1 in 1 billion 300 million that the DNA on the blade does not belong to Meredith. 

20. Meredith’s DNA wasn’t found on the blade of the knife.

A number of independent forensic experts—Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo, Professor Giuseppe Novelli, Professor Francesca Torricelli and Luciano Garofano—have all confirmed that sample 36B was Meredith’s DNA.

Even American experts Elizabeth Johnson, Greg Hampikian and Bruce Budowle, who have been critical of the Scientific Police’s work in this case, have conceded that the DNA was consistent with Meredith’s DNA profile.

It should be noted that none of these American experts testified at the trial or played any official role in the case. They became involved in the case after being approached by supporters of Amanda Knox. They had no bearing on the legal proceedings in Florence.

Judge Nencini accepted that Judge’s Massei and the prosecution’s assertions that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade of Sollecito’s kitchen knife and that it was the murder weapon.   

21. No other knives were taken from Sollecito’s apartment.

Judge Massei discusses a jack-knife that was 18cm long with an 8cm blade at some length and the results of the DNA tests that were carried out on it:

“He [Armando Finzi] recalled they found another knife whose total length was 18cm, with an 8cm blade…” (Massei report, page 106.)

“On the jack‑knife, four samples were taken, with negative results where blood-derived substances had been looked for; on the fourth sample, which involved the handle, the genetic profile was found to be of Sollecito plus Knox.” ( Massei report, page 194.)

22. The knife was chosen at random.

Armando Finzi was the police officer who bagged the knife. He testified that he thought it was the murder weapon because it was compatible with the wound on Meredith’s neck. Andrea Vogt explained this in the same article:

“Armando Finzi, an assistant in the Perugia police department’s organized crimes unit, first discovered the knife in Sollecito’s kitchen drawer. He said the first thing he noticed upon entering the place was a ‘strong smell of bleach.’ He opened the drawer and saw a ‘very shiny and clean’ knife lying on top of the silverware tray.

“ ‘It was the first knife I saw,’ he said. When pressed on cross-examination, he said his ‘investigative intuition’ led him to believe it was the murder weapon because it was compatible with the wound as it had been described to him. With gloved hands, he placed the knife in a new police envelope, taped it shut with Scotch tape, then placed it inside a folder, he said. There were smaller and bigger knives in the drawer, but no others were taken into evidence from the kitchen, he said.” (Andrea Vogt, The Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 28 February 2009.)

23. No control tests were done.

John Follain pointed out in Death in Perugia that the control tests had been filed with another judge:

“The tests had been filed with an earlier test, and Judge Pratillo Hellmann later admitted them as evidence.” (Death in Perugia, Kindle edition, page 409.)

The judges at the Supreme Court in Italy noted in their report that the negative controls had been carried out:

“…since all the negative controls to exclude it [contamination] had been done by Dr Stefanoni…” (Supreme Court report, page 93.)

The judges at the Italian Supreme Court criticised the court-appointed independent experts Conti and Vecchiotti for assuming they hadn’t been done.

24. There is no evidence of Amanda Knox at the actual crime scene.

The crime scene involves the whole cottage and isn’t limited to Meredith’s room. Knox and Sollecito were both convicted of staging the break-in in Filomena’s room. Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence placing Amanda Knox in Meredith’s room on the night of the murder.

For example, her DNA was found on the handle of the murder weapon, her bare bloody footprints were revealed by Luminol in the hallway and her own room and, according to the Scientific Police, her blood was mixed with Meredith’s blood in different parts of the cottage. Knox’s lamp was found in Meredith’s room, and a shoeprint in her size of shoe.

25. None of the Luminol* stains contained Meredith’s DNA.

Two of the traces revealed by Luminol contained Meredith’s DNA:

“Amanda (with her feet stained with Meredith’s blood for having been present in her room when she was killed) had gone into Romanelli’s room and into her [own] room, leaving traces [which were highlighted] by Luminol, some of which (one in the corridor, the L8, and one, the L2, in Romanelli’s room) were mixed, that is, constituted of a biological trace attributable to [both] Meredith and Amanda…” (Massei report, page 380.)

[* Luminol is a substance used in crime-scene investigations to reveal blood that has been cleaned up. It reacts with the microscopic particles of iron in the blood and turns it fluorescent.]

26. Mignini is persecuting Amanda Knox.

As shown above Dr Mignini was absent when Knox made her false accusation. Because of checks and balances, prosecutors in Italy have far less power than their American counterparts. The decision to send Knox to trial was actually made by Judge Micheli in 2008, not by Dr Mignini.

Judge Massei, Judge Cristiani and six lay judges found Knox guilty of murder in Perugia in 2009, and Judge Nencini, Judge Cicerchia and six lay judges confirmed Knox guilty of murder at the appeal in Florence in January 2014. 

Dr Mignini is just one of several prosecutors who have been involved in the case. Manuela Comodi was Mignini’s co-prosecutor at the the trial in 2009.  Giancarlo Costagliola was the main prosecutor in the first appeal, which was annulled by the Italian Supreme Court. He and Giovanni Galati appealed against the 2011 acquittals. Dr Mignini played no part in the new appeal in Florence. Alessandro Crini was the prosecutor.

27. Mignini claimed Meredith was killed as part of a satanic ritual.

Mignini has never claimed that Meredith was killed during a satanic or sacrificial ritual, and that’s the reason why no one has been able to provide a verbatim quote from Mignini supporting this false accusation.

Mignini specifically denied claiming that Meredith was killed in a sacrificial rite, in his letter to the Seattle reporter Linda Byron:

“On the ‘sacrificial rite’ question, I have never said that Meredith Kercher was the victim of a ‘sacrificial rite.’ ”

Mignini also made it quite clear that he has never claimed that Meredith was killed as part of a satanic rite in his interview with Drew Griffin on CNN:

Drew Griffin: “You’ve never said that Meredith’s death was a satanic rite?”

Mignini: “I have never said that. I have never understood who has and continues to say that. I read, there was a reporter – I don’t know his name; I mention it because I noticed it – who continues to repeat this claim that, perhaps, knowing full well that it’s not like that.

“I have never said that there might have been a satanic rite. I’ve never said it, so I would like to know who made it up.”





Above: Several of the myth inventors and disseminators: Kassin, Dempsey, Douglas

28. Mignini claimed Meredith was killed in a sex game that went wrong.

Mignini didn’t say anything about there being a sex game that went wrong when he presented his timeline to the court at the trial. Please be warned that there is some extremely graphic content below:

[Timeline of the attack on Meredith]

23:21: Amanda and Raffaele go into the bedroom while Rudy goes to the bathroom.

23:25: A scuffle begins between Amanda, helped by Raffaele, and Meredith. The English girl is taken by the neck, then banged against a cupboard, as shown by wounds to the skull. She resists all this. Rudy Guede enters.

23:30: Meredith falls to the floor. The three try to undress her to overcome her; they only manage to take off her trousers. The girl manages to get up, she struggles. At this point, the two knives emerge from the pockets of Amanda and Raffaele: one with a blade of four to five centimetres, the other, however, a big kitchen knife. Meredith tries to fend off the blades with her right hand. She is wounded.

23:35: The assault continues. Sollecito tries to rip off the English girl’s bra.

23:40: Meredith is on her knees, threatened by Amanda with the knife while Rudy holds her with one hand and with the other hand carries out an assault on her vagina. There is first a knife blow on her face, then straight away another. However, these blows are not effective. The three become more violent. With the smaller knife, Sollecito strikes a blow: the blade penetrates 4 centimetres into the neck.

There is a harrowing cry, which some witnesses will talk about. Amanda decides to silence her, still according to the video brought to court by the prosecutors, and strikes a blow to the throat with the kitchen knife: it will be the fatal wound. Meredith collapses on the floor.

23:45: Meredith is helped up by Rudy and is coughing up blood. The English girl, dying, is dragged along so that she can continue to be undressed.

29. Mignini called Amanda Knox a “she-devil.”

It wasn’t Mignini who called Amanda Knox a “she-devil”;  it was Carlo Pacelli, the lawyer who represents Diya Lumumba, at the trial in 2009.

Carlo Pacelli’s comments were widely reported by numerous journalists who were present in the courtroom. Barbie Nadeau describes the moment he asked if Knox is a she-devil in some detail in Angel Face:

“‘Who is the real Amanda Knox?’ he asks, pounding his fist in the table. ‘Is she the one we see before us here, all angelic? Or is she really a she-devil focused on sex, drugs, and alcohol, living life on the edge?’

“She is the luciferina—she-devil.’” (Barbie Nadeau, Angel Face, Kindle edition, page 124.)

30. Dr Mignini was convicted of a felony and faced prison.

The Florence Appeal Court and Cassation scathingly threw out a malicious prosecution for which both the prosecutor and judge suffered. Dr Mignini has never faced the slightest risk of prison.  Often now seen on national TV, Dr Mignini is expected to be the next Prosecutor General of Umbria.

31. Rudy Guede was a drifter.

Rudy Guede lived in Perugia from the age of five, and he had his own apartment at the time of the murder.

32. Guede had a criminal record at the time of the murder.

Rudy Guede didn’t have any criminal convictions at the time of Meredith’s murder. He was not a drug dealer and not a police informant. As Judge Micheli scathingly noted, there is no proof that he committed any break-ins.

33. Guede left his DNA all over Meredith and all over the crime scene.

There was only one sample of Guede’s DNA on Meredith body and there were only five samples of his DNA at the cottage. His DNA was found on a vaginal swab, on the sleeve of Meredith’s tracksuit, on her bra, on the zip of her purse and on some toilet paper in the bathroom that Filomena and Laura shared. 

“…also a genetic profile, from the Y haplotype on the vaginal swab, in which no traces of semen were found; DNA on the toilet paper in the bathroom near the room of Mezzetti, where unflushed faeces were found; on the bag found on the bed; on the left cuff of the blue sweatshirt (described as a “zippered shirt” in the first inspection, discovered smeared with blood near the body and partly underneath it); and on the right side of the bra found by the foot of Kercher’s body…” ( Judge Giordano sentencing report, page 5.)

34. Guede left his semen at the crime scene.

Guede’s DNA semen wasn’t found at the crime scene.

“…also a genetic profile, from the Y haplotype on the vaginal swab, in which no traces of semen were found…” (Judge Giordano sentencing report, page 5.)

“In one of these swabs was found biological material belonging to a male subject identified as Rudy Hermann Guede. This material, which turned out not to be spermatic [158], could be from saliva or from epithelial cells from exfoliation…” (Massei report, page 158.)

35. Guede left his DNA inside Meredith’s bag.

According to the Micheli report, which was made available to the public in January 2009, Guede’s DNA was found on the zip of Meredith’s purse, and not inside it.

“…b) traces attributable to Guede: ...on the bag found on the bed…”  (Judge Giordano sentencing report, page 5.)

36. Guede left his bloody fingerprints all over the crime scene.

He left zero fingerprints. According to the Micheli report, the Massei report and Rudy Guede’s final sentencing report, Guede was identified by a single bloody palm print:

“…b) traces attributable to Guede: a palm print in blood found on the pillow case of a pillow lying under the victim’s body – attributed with absolute certainty to the defendant by its correspondence to papillary ridges as well as 16-17 characteristic points equal in shape and position…” (Judge Giordano sentencing report, page 5.)

It is confirmed that Guede was identified by a bloody palm print in the Micheli report (pages 10-11) and the Massei report (page 43). There was not a single fingerprint of his or Sollecito and almost none of Knox at the crime scene—which consists of the entire apartment.

37. Guede left his hair at the crime scene.

The Scientific Police didn’t find any hair that belonged to Rudy Guede at the crime scene. That’s why there’s no mention of this in any of the court documents.

38. Guede pleaded guilty or confessed.

Rudy Guede has never pleaded guilty or confessed to Meredith’s murder. He offered to testify against Knox and Sollecito at trial in 2009, but the prosecutors did not want to give him any breaks. 

39. Guede’s prison sentence was reduced because he made a deal with the prosecutors.

Guede was sentenced to 30 years in prison by Judge Micheli in 2008. However, his sentence was reduced because he opted for a fast-trial, which means he automatically received a third off the sentence of Knox and Sollecito. Generic mitigating circumstances—i.e., his young age—were also taken into consideration.

40. Guede didn’t implicate Knox and Sollecito until much later.

Rudy Guede first implicated Knox and Sollecito whilst on the run in Germany on 19 November 2007 in an intercepted Skype conversation with his friend Giacomo:

Giacomo: “So they [Knox and Sollecito] killed her while she was dressed.”

Guede: “Yes, here it says that they [clothes] were washed in the washing machine, but that’s not true. She was dressed.”

41. Amanda Knox didn’t know Rudy Guede.

Amanda Knox testified in court that she had met Rudy Guede on several occasions.

Here’s the court transcript:

Carlo Pacelli (CP), Patrick Lumumba’s lawyer: In what circumstances did you meet him (Rudy)?

Amanda Knox (AK): I was in the center, near the church. It was during an evening when I met the guys that lived underneath in the apartment underneath us, and while I was mingling with them, they introduced me to Rudy.

CP: So it was on the occasion of a party at the house of the neighbors downstairs?

AK: Yes. What we did is, they introduced me to him downtown just to say “This is Rudy, this is Amanda”, and then I spent most of my time with Meredith, but we all went back to the house together.

CP: Did you also know him, or at least see him, in the pub Le Chic, Rudy?

AK: I think I saw him there once.

CP: Listen, this party at the neighbors, it took place in the second half of October? What period? End of October 2007?

AK: I think it was more in the middle of October.

42. Raffaele Sollecito had never been in trouble with the police.

Raffaele Sollecito had a previous brush with the police in 2003.

“...Antonio Galizia, Carabinieri [C.ri] station commander in Giovinazzo, who testified that in September 2003 Raffaele Sollecito was found in possession of 2.67 grams of hashish.” (Massei report, page 62.)

43. Sollecito had an impeccable track record.

Sollecito was monitored at university after being caught watching hardcore pornography featuring bestiality:

“…and educators at the boy’s ONAOSI college were shocked by a film ‘very much hard-core…where there were scenes of sex with animals with animals,’ at which next they activated a monitoring on the boy to try to understand him. (Pages 130 and 131, hearing 27.3.2009, statements by Tavernesi Francesco).” (Massei report, page 61.)

44. Sollecito couldn’t confirm Knox’s alibi because he was sleeping.

The claim that Sollecito couldn’t confirm Knox’s alibi because he was sleeping is completely contradicted by Sollecito’s witness statement:

“Amanda and I went into town at around 6pm, but I don’t remember what we did. We stayed there until around 8:30 or 9pm.

“At 9pm I went home alone and Amanda said that she was going to Le Chic because she wanted to meet some friends. We said goodbye. I went home, I rolled myself a spliff and made some dinner.” (Aislinn Simpson, The Daily Telegraph, 7 November 2007.)

Police said Raffaele Sollecito had continued to claim he was not present on the evening of the murder. He said:

“I went home, smoked a joint, and had dinner, but I don’t remember what I ate. At around eleven my father phoned me on the house phone. I remember Amanda wasn’t back yet. I surfed on the Internet for a couple of hours after my father’s phone call, and I stopped only when Amanda came back, about one in the morning, I think. (The Times, 7 November 2007.)





Above: The two provisionally convicted who originated some of the cancerous myths.

45. Amanda Knox had never been in trouble with the police.

According to Andrew Malone in an article on the Mail Online website, Amanda Knox was charged with hosting a party that got seriously out of hand, with students high on drink and drugs, and throwing rocks into the road, forcing cars to swerve. He claimed the students then threw rocks at the windows of neighbours who had called the police. Knox was fined $269 (£135) at the Municipal Court after the incident (crime No: 071830624).

Barbie Nadeau also reported that Knox had had a previous brush with the law:

...and her only brush with the law was a disturbing-the-peace arrest for a house party she threw.” (Barbie Nadeau, Angel Face, Kindle edition, page 6.)

According to the police ticket written by Seattle Police officer Jason Bender, Knox was issued with an infraction for the noise violation and warned about the rock throwing:

I issued S1/Knox this infraction for the noise violation and a warning for the rock throwing. I explained how dangerous and juvenile that action was.

46. Amanda Knox was retried for the same crimes.

All criminal cases in Italy are subject to three levels of review. No verdict is final until it has been confirmed by the Supreme Court.

Amanda Knox was not retried. She simply appealed her provisional 2009 convictions. The first appeal was held in Perugia in 2011, where she was provisionally acquitted by Judge Hellmann.

However, the Italian Supreme Court annulled the acquittals because Hellmann was found to have made a series of grave legal errors, and ordered a new appeal in Florence.

47. The Italian Supreme Court ruled that Amanda Knox’s interrogation was illegal.

The Italian Supreme Court has never stated that Amanda Knox’s recap/summary session on 5 November 2007 for the building of a list of names was illegal.

Bruce Fischer, who runs the Injustice in Perugia website and had heatedly denied this, eventually admitted this was not true on Perugia Murder File.net website:

“When it comes to the admissibility of the written statements, you are technically correct. The interrogation itself was never ruled illegal.”

Note that as stated above it was not an interrogation.

48. The Supreme Court threw out Amanda Knox’s statements.

The Supreme Court ruled that the 1:45am and 5:45am statements Knox insisted upon couldn’t be used against her in the murder trial because she wasn’t represented by a lawyer when she made them, even though she declined the presence of a lawyer.

However, both her statements were used against her at the calunnia component of the trial.

49. Dr. Stefanoni and the forensic technicians broke international protocols.

There is no internationally accepted set of standards. DNA protocols vary from country to country, and in America they vary from state to state. For example, New York state accepts LCN DNA tests in criminal trials.

Conti and Vecchiotti cited obscure American publications such as the Missouri State Highway Patrol Handbook and the Wisconsin Crime Laboratory Physical Evidence Handbook, not international protocols.

50. Amanda Knox is being railroaded or framed.

It would be immensely difficult in the Italian system for police or prosecutors to frame anyone and sustain this through two levels of appeal. With all its checks and balances and its professional career paths, it may be the system least prone to false final convictions in the world.

A number of Knox’s supporters, including Judy Bachrach, Paul Ciolino and Steve Moore, have claimed in the US media that Amanda Knox is being railroaded or framed, but they mis-state multiple facts and provide no hard proof or any reason why. The Hellmann appeal was wiped off the books, but they wrongly still draw upon that.

The collection of the DNA and forensic evidence was videotaped by the Scientific Police and, as the judges at the Supreme Court noted, defence experts were actually in the police labs to observe the DNA tests and reported nothing wrong:

“…the probative facts revealed by the technical consultant [Stefanoni] were based on investigative activities that were adequately documented: sampling activity performed under the very eyes of the consultants of the parties, who raised no objection…” (The Supreme Court report, page 93.)

The legal proceedings against Sollecito and Knox have been monitored throughout by US officials from the Rome embassy, and they at no time have ever expressed any concerns about the fairness or legitimacy of the judicial process.

Sources

Court documents
The Micheli report
The Massei report
Judge Giordano sentencing report
The Supreme court report
The Nencini report

Court testimony
Amanda Knox
Anna Donnino
Monica Napoleoni

Articles
The Daily Mail
The Times
The Telegraph
The Daily Beast
The Seattle Post-Intelligencer

Books
Death in Perugia, Kindle edition, John Follain
Angel Face, Kindle edition, Barbie Nadeau

Television programmes
Drew Griffins’ interview with Giuliano Mignini on CNN

Websites
The Freelance Desk: http://thefreelancedesk.com
Perugia Murder File.org: http://www.perugiamurderfile.org
Perugia Murder File.net: http://perugiamurderfile.net
CPS website: http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/lcn_testing.html
Seattle-Post Intelligencer: http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/files/library/knoxincidentreport.pdf

Posted on 06/12/14 at 11:00 AM by The Machine. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in Officially involvedAmanda KnoxDiversion efforts byThe Knox-MellasesHoaxes about the caseThe Lone-Wolf hoaxDNA contam hoaxReporting on the casePoor reporting
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (61)

Wednesday, June 11, 2014

Congratulations To Andrea Romizi! Surprise Winner In The Election For Perugia’s New Mayor

Posted by Peter Quennell

Long post. Please click here to go straight to Comments





Andrea Romizi wins with 58% of the vote.

He has served for 10 years on the Perugia City Council and has recently occupied the post of vice-president. He represents a center-right coalition, the first time that Perugian politics has moved to the right in 70 years. He was a very late candidate after several withdrew.

He is now aged 35, he is a Roman Catholic, he practices as a lawyer, and he is engaged to be married to another lawyer. He’s a lover of Tolkien (think: The Ring). His family’s palazzio, famous for its haunting Nightingale courtyard with a fountain, which he recently opned to the public, is in the highest point in town and looks over Meredith’s house about 300 yards to the north.

His father is a respected pediatrician, his mother Maria Rita was a herbalist, and his twin brother Francis is an anthropologist who just moved to Brazil. His grandfather Renato taught for forty years at the Greek and Latin High School of Perugia and was a university fellow at the Scuola Normale of Pisa.

He is said to be determined, cool and low-key. He’s very popular among the youth vote, and always the subject of embraces and big grins when he walks around.  Sounds like the kind of modest super-achieving guy that Meredith would have had a lot of time for.











Posted on 06/11/14 at 04:07 PM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (2)

Thursday, June 05, 2014

Explaining To Lisa Marie Basile Why Smart Feminists Have Rightly Been Extremely Wary Of Amanda Knox

Posted by Hopeful

Long post. Please click here to go straight to Comments




1. Late Joiner Of The Dwindling Knox Parade

A week ago in the Huffington Post Lisa Marie Basile asked why feminists are not storming the barricades for Knox.

The gullible Lisa Marie Basile had obviously swallowed whole Knox’s avid self-promotion and serial demonizing to create a muddled article at best, confused about feminism, poorly researched on the case, nasty to good Italians who are in no easy position to defend themselves, and hugely disrespectful to the real victim. 

I want to explain what real feminists are seeing that the faux feminist Lisa Marie Basile has managed to miss. Above all feminism means justice to women, and the many women who post on and support sites like TJMK are upholding justice, for the only woman who counts in this case.

2. An Attack With Indisputable Sex Aspects

Remember, Meredith is the innocent woman who was slain by an undeniably jealous and unhinged fellow female who used two males as her henchmen. No Italian court disagrees with that, and Italian courts (except when hijacked as with Hellmann) are extremely careful. .

The victim was left partly nude and in a staged position on the floor to suggest to whoever found the body that it was a sexual attack. Has Ms. Basile forgotten this actually was a sex crime for which all three were charged and sentenced? This surely opened the door for examination of the sexual behavior of the former suspects.

There was no “gendered expectation” among Italians investigating this crime, only a ” truth expectation.”

Articles like “We Are All Amanda Knox” which Basile mentioned try to normalize and even exult in Amanda’s behavior as a wild woman, but she is not at all the norm there.

Raffaele had led a more restrained sexual lifestyle, actually more typical of a coy young woman than a randy man. Raffaele, in keeping perhaps with the church doctrines in which he had been reared, had not taken any sexual partners except possibly for one, other than in his extensive fantasy life.

Guede’s sex act on Meredith was never in question, as he left behind his DNA to prove he had no boundaries. His nuisance behavior hitting on girls in nightclubs in Perugia was fully discussed, and he got no breaks from anyone on any front.

Knox herself bragged about her liberation ethics and fast work with men. Nobody else turned her into a “filthy, sex-obsessed slut” but herself. The media mostly rather neutrally reported the facts, and even when her track record of casual sex became clearly documented, it was never made a focal point of the trial at all.

What was focused on was Knox’s alibi, her lies that her boss had killed her “friend” and her phone records. Knox was under the microscope for her DNA being found mixed with Meredith’s blood in five locations of the cottage.

Knox was not questioned in court about how many boyfriends she had, or her one-night stands. She was never ever questioned about her sex partners or asked to list them, simply about what males had visited the house who might have had an interest in Meredith.

Again, this after all was staged to look like a sex crime, and had signs of sexual activity on the body. The Italians were hardly rushing off on detours for false reasons of prurient interests.

3. Morphing Into A New Knox Persona

For several years starting in Seattle Knox had adopted a dangerous and very irresponsible lifestyle, which she first bragged about but has tried to back away from since she left Italy. She pretends now to have a monogamous relationship with James Terrano.

Now Amanda manages to visit the television studios in a somber manner without cartwheels or doing splits and laughing. Amazing how serious she has become about her own tragedy while telling it to microphones for the world to hear after giggling about Meredith’s death and sticking her tongue out sitting on a male lap in the police station, making fun of it all when it wasn’t her death involved.

Amanda’s “offness” as Ms. Basile refers to it raised a red flag of disrespect for the victim, which was why it was significant.  Her lack of dramatic weeping outside of the cottage was never an issue.

Italians are very savvy. They are hardly the logic challenged numbskulls that Ms. Basile seems to fear they’ve been painted. Her hints that a godfearing Mignini is somehow inept shows her own bias to the godless and ruleless, the lawless and the stupid. I won’t even go into issues of spiritual faith, it is too divisive. Surely we can all agree with the mandate “Thou shalt not kill.”

4. There Was No Witch Hunt Or Inquisition

Sadly Ms. Basile has bought into Knox’s warren of lies about “forced confessions” (in actuality accusations of an innocent man!), and the cleanup that was somehow “impossible” and a “tortured five days of brutal interrogation”.

All have again and again been proven false and didnt stop her serving a three year sentence. Amanda Knox was challenged on her alibi, the presence of her blood at the scene, and her ownership of a key to the non-broken-into cottage.

She herself brought forward her alcohol and drug use, and blamed it for intoxication and lost memory for the night in question.

To rid herself of her most fundamental misconception about Amanda Knox, Lisa Marie Basile should read this series on the interrogation hoax which Knox still pushes and Basile gullibly swallowed.

5. Why Respect The Virtues Of Sexual Purity?

Modern Italian women are more fast, colorful, liberal and worldly than Americans may realize. They certainly dress a lot better. Naturally they try to live out their Catholic faith as best they can, even if we all fail to meet our highest ideals.

At the same time Italians tend to arrive at very close loving enduring families. How women prepare themselves is a very big component of this success - a success which Americans could use a lot more of. 

Here are some practical reasons why Italians value sexual responsibility, which have nothing to do with faith, religion, or patriarchy, but only the safety of innocent children.

Italians as all cultures do, prefer women who are cautious and circumspect with their sexuality, as a sign of the woman’s self-discipline, a natural caution toward males as a survival instinct which she will pass on to her offspring.

A female’s self-discipline in sexual matters is a hallmark of her personal self-respect and a sign she is able to envision her larger future as the wife of a dignified man.

Most such men hope to marry a woman clean of physical disease who also carries little emotional baggage from multiple sexual affairs and heartbreaks with multiple men.

The fewer of those encounters before marriage, the better chance the children she bears him will be in no doubt of their parentage.

This is supremely important to the man, who will be working to pass on his entire life’s work and heritage to the children he feels he has truly engendered and who carry his genes and his bloodline.

The children will more likely have a safe lifestyle of similar circumspect behavior and self-discipline inculcated by their mother who will be a large influence on their morals.

The mother’s reputation can add or detract from her children’s social position and can expand their opportunities as people of trustworthy background or its opposite.

There can be a safety aspect. A woman who has had a raunchy past may have unfinished business with various men who may possibly come back into the area, begin to harass, taunt, spread rumors, or even physically threaten and cause difficulty for a new husband’s family, suspicious that perhaps one of the offspring is his own.

In this day of twitter, instagram, Facebook, email, and YouTube, sordid rumors that were once easily squelched now become known worldwide on digital media.

It is simple logic that if a woman while in the heyday of her youth and good looks in the full bloom of health and optimism, could not make attachments or command loyalty and devotion despite going all the way to sleeping with a man, that this person somehow has her radar broken or uses poor judgment.

Perhaps she simply prefers the lust for pleasure over saving herself for marriage to the man who would one day do her the most good and with whom she would develop a lifetime relationship. At any rate, she may have a sex drive that overwhelms her judgment. It may motivate her even after marriage, to break the ties of marriage.

The husband of such a woman will also inherit her personal history and may grow to resent behaviors in her past that might tarnish his future and their children’s.

This is merely a common sense outlook on why it is smart to abstain from sexual intimacies with lots of strangers who have no ongoing goodwill toward the person whose body they use, nor any commitment to the offspring of such union financially or physically.

A woman’s body at any time could conceive despite using birth control.

In each normal sex act she takes the risk of facing the horrendous consequences of pregnancy without emotional support, finances, and then she faces 15 to 20 years of her life required to raise the child while trying to introduce him to various father figures who may never feel the natural bond to the child that a married father would.

Talk to single moms anywhere, their path is no piece of cake.  To choose this hard path by one’s own lack of self-discipline and lack of insight is a foolish act. Society is left buying the diapers and formula and helping the exhausted young mother survive her day job and come home to night feedings.

In other words, all the hard duties of childcare are foisted upon those who didn’t ask for them, who may be tired from raising their own legitimate offspring, a hard enough job with two parents committed and working on the children’s behalf.

Social services are stretched hard enough when emergencies, accidents, death or desertion of the male parent leave women and children stranded and abandoned in financial straits.

To jump over this cliff by choice or lack of foresight is foolish of a woman who knows a child needs two devoted parents. It’s self-absorbed, pleasure loving behavior with refusal to delay gratification.

It is selfish to the community.

Governments have to chase down these fathers for non-support of their own children.

Taxpayers and others who had no joy of the sex act or the union however brief it was, are forced for decades by welfare agencies (and basic compassion) to fork out child support dollars for strangers, rather than see the infant starve.

The child of these hasty and ill-fated unions already may face for a lifetime the hardship of feeling unwanted by his father. He or she may suffer embarrassment at his mom’s unwise youthful choices that were predicated on her lack of logic or poor self-control and willful betrayal of her children’s best future for one of difficulty and poverty.

Where is the love? It was love for self, not others.

An aside: Thank goodness God in heaven does love us all, no matter what our parents made a mess of. All can be resolved in peace and love, but the path of natural life will be much tougher and more limited when the child will not learn problem solving skills from two parents of the opposite sex nor have the benefit of the greater security. “Two are better than one, for they have more reward for their labor.”

6. Precisely WHO Are Today’s Feminists?

There are many forms of feminism. Oddly Ms. Basile is determined to argue for the imparting of partiality and favoritism to a woman who has been found to have killed another woman using two males as proxies. Ms. Basile’s biased view is based on Amanda Knox being wrongfully condemned because Basile thinks she is attractive and sexually free.

But this never happened. There was hard proof against her in DNA in three rooms and a corridor in the house and on a knife handle and upper blade..

Where are all the feminists? Those who have their facts right are allowing justice to take its course, that’s where. Justice is blind, and does not favor the pretty over the ugly or the rich over the poor. Yet all these things may be factors in the cause of any crime.

There are as many flavors of feminist as there are ideologies in the world. Consider this list.

  • Liberal feminism

  • Radical feminism

  • Conservative feminism

  • Ecofeminists

  • Separatist feminism

  • Materialist feminism

  • Socialist feminism

  • Marxist feminism

  • Anarcha-feminists

  • Feminist punk movement

  • Feminism as a social construction

  • Lipstick feminism

There are dozens and dozens.  There are Christian feminists (I am one). All are equal before God, Mary is the mother of the Church, she was allowed to usher in the Savior of mankind. God uses women to restore what women through Eve lost.

Look at Meredith’s heel being exposed under the duvet. (see Genesis 3:15 prophecy from God that the seed of the woman would crush Satan’s head, but Satan would bruise his heel.)

Meredith was even worried she’d packed no socks when she first came to Perugia, and she told friends she hoped her dad would bring some, revealing concern about uncovered feet. .

There are the early feminist suffragettes who worked for women’s right to vote and birth control.  The second wave campaigned for legal and social and political equality for women. Equal work for equal pay. The second wave feminists declared, “The personal is political”.

The second wave in about 30 years splintered off into various feminist camps divided on the issues of pornography *is it exploitative of women or a celebration of sexuality?, male equality versus misandry, homosexuality, the racial issues of women of color, the cultural (some Islamic, some Jewish, some WASP, etc.) women in developed countries versus poverty stricken nations.

Feminism is not a monolithic entity. Arguments abound whether we’re now living in a postfeminist society, whether gender equality has been achieved.

Then there’s third wave feminism.

7. Feminism In The Case Of Meredith’s Murder

The truth of whether a person committed a crime rises above all of these feminist ideologies. All of them. It is not a traditional role problem, it is a problem of no respect for Meredith’s particular life.

If she had been male, the bullies would not have dared.

So it was her femaleness that made her a target. Ironically her vulnerability was caused by another female’s envy and anger management issues and extremely irresponsible lifestyle.

Knox is a very misguided cause for smart feminists.

Posted on 06/05/14 at 02:06 PM by Hopeful. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (39)

Wednesday, June 04, 2014

Hard To Believe Anti-Italy Website Owner Rachel Sterne Haot Works For A Prominent Italian-American

Posted by Peter Quennell

Long post. Please click here to go straight to Comments



New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo, brother of CNN’s Chris Cuomo, with the President of the US

Haot “Secretly” Owns Inflammatory Ground Report

The shadowy founder and owner of the bitterly anti-Italian Ground Report “citizen journalism” website works for one of the most prominent Italian-Americans in the United States.

He is Andrew Cuomo, the very pro-Italy governor of the State of New York. Brother of Chris Cuomo who in his CNN TV persona has twice interviewed Amanda Knox, each time seemingly unconvinced and underwhelmed.

In contrast, for Rachel Sterne Haot it has been a case of rabid pedal-to-the-floor Knoxiana and rabid anti-Italian demonizing for the past few years to boost her anemic readership and to try to make a buck. Other website owners with better judgment had previously kicked off these dangerous crazies.

See very typical examples of false accusations of serious crimes by Italian officials here and here and here and here and here. If any media request this help, we can provide links or captures for 150+ more.

Pro-justice pro-Italy pro-Meredith points of view have been remorselessly edited out for nearly four years. Protests of defamation have been repeatedly brushed off with the claim that “a lawyer” who is never named says the defamation is just fine.

This new post below on Ground Report was by the (of course) anonymous “Jay Rap” and represents his sixth inflammatory and highly defamatory post in just three weeks. 

Later in the Interrogation Hoax series, when we have finished laying out what really happened, we’ll take apart all such misleading and defamatory posts. May note be taken of them in Albany and Italy.

The Rudy Guede Hoax

Here’s a quick rebuttal of Jay Rap’s untethered rant about Rudy Guede, who will be the subject of a second hoax series soon. Prior to the attack on Meredith, police had no knowledge or written record of either Rudy Guede or Patrick.

Dr Mignini had never even heard of Guede till analysis days after the murder of his handprint surfaced who he was (Knox didn’t name Guede but carefully pointed at him, as this series of transcripts shows).

Guede did not ever work for the police. Guede did not ever get even one break in this case.

Milan police released him after he was found staying overnight in a Milan pre-school only because he had no prior record, not because anyone in Perugia told them to. In 2009 Guede offered to testify against RS and AK at trial in exchange for a break. HE WAS TURNED DOWN. No breaks at all.

“Knox Was Intentionally Framed By Italian Police”

Rachel Sterne Haot may wish to note that Jay Rap’s made-up accusations here go away beyond what already cost Amanda Knox three years. Everything shown here in bold (and more) is untrue. All of Jay Rap’s histrionic posts are pure fiction. 

If you are following our Interrogation Hoax series, you will see immediately how wildly wrong this all is. If not, scroll down to “2. How Knox helped police with recap/summary”

Following up on the Italian police motive, this series will explore the positive indications that the Italian police intentionally framed Amanda Knox and Raffaelle Sollecito for the murder of Meredith Kercher. Here we review the pre-planned illegal interrogations of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. This is a summary of a review here (link).

Again, the motivation for framing Knox and Sollecito is to deflect attention away from Rudy Guede in the killing of Meredith Kercher, so as to conceal the culpability of the Perugian authorities and Giuliano Mignini for having protected and thus enabled Guede to murder Meredith Kercher. In short, self preservation. (For a review of the Police motive for framing Amanda Knox for the murder of Meredith Kercher, please see this previous article (link), or a summary of that article here (link).

The first indication of intentional framing by the Italian police, is the text book characteristics of the intensive and regimented pre-plamnned program of interrogations that were conducted by the police, resulting in falsely incriminating statements from the defendants.

It should first be said, that no confession taken under any circumstance whatsoever, can overcome the overwhelming physical evidence that the murder of Meredith Kercher was committed only by Rudy Guede. The lack of any physical trace of anyone else in the tiny blood soaked room where Meredith was killed, renders it a scientific impossibility that anyone but Rudy Guede, and he alone, killed Meredith Kercher. There is no evidence of a ‘staged break-in’, that claim is simply a distraction from this basic and obvious truth. Having said that, let’s discuss the interrogation.

It is undisputed that in the five days from the discovery of the Kercher murder, to the arrest 5 days later, Amanda Knox was subjected to 43 hours of questioning by the Italian police. The last overnight session went from 10:30pm to 6am the next morning. We need look no further than Steve Moore’s analysis in his contribution to the book; “The Forgotten Killer; Rudy Guede and the Murder of Meredith Kercher”, to understand this process and objectives.

One of the most striking elements of Moore’s narrative, is the extraordinary degree of consistency between the program of interrogation applied against Amanda Knox and Raffaelle Sollecito by the Italian police, and that described in a declassified FBI manual discussing techniques for “brain washing” used by the communists in North Korea.

Moore, quoting the FBI the manual; “Deprivation of sleep results in more intense psychological debilitation than does any other method of engendering fatigue. The communists (North Koreans) vary their methods. “Conveyor belt” interrogation that last 50-60 hours will make almost any individual compromise, but there is danger that this will kill the victim. It is safer to conduct interrogations of 8-10 hours at night while forcing the prisoner to remain awake during the day. Additional interruptions in the remaining 2-3 hours of allotted sleep quickly reduce the most resilient individual.”

At 43 hours over 5 days, the Italian police interrogation of Amanda Knox is perfectly consistent with the formal brain washing techniques favored by the North Korean communist totalitarian regime. It is a clear violation of human rights in any civilized country operating under any recognizable rule of law.

Moore also draws special emphasis on the last day of the interrogation, the overnight session. Remarking on the number of detectives, he writes; “The fact that there were twelve detectives in the police station overnight is an indictment in and of itself. If you are going to have twelve detectives available all night for an interrogation, you need to let them know well in advance. You need to schedule them, to change their days off, etc. You need to pay them overtime. In the real world, twelve detectives all night is something that has to be signed-off on by higher ups. What does that tell us? It tells us the interrogation was planned well in advance and intentionally overnight.” (emphasis Moore).

That this process was pre-planned, is also suggested in Amanda Knox’s own account in her book, “Waiting To Be Heard”. When speaking with Rita Ficarra, whom Knox describes as ‘her main interrogator’ and has identified as the officer who twice struck her during the last crucial session, Knox had asked if she could leave Perugia to stay with her Aunt in Germany, and Ficarra’s response; “You can’t leave Perugia. You’re an important part of the investigation”. When Knox inquired how long she would be needed, Ficarra’s reply; We don’t know- maybe months”. When Knox responded that she was planning to go home for Christmas. Ficarra’s response; “We’ll decide if you can do that. We’ll have to hear what the magistrate says when he calls in three days”. This conversation occurred on the morning of November 3rd, the day after the crime was discovered. The decision to specifically target and frame Amanda Knox, was likely made no later than on the evening of November 2nd, 2007, the same evening of the day the crime was discovered.

Regarding the last overnight interrogation, Moore continues; “The reason they interrogated Amanda all night was to break her. Not to get the truth, not to get answers, not to make Perugia safer, but to break her so that she would say what they wanted her to say.”

Reflecting on the overall process, Moore adds; “Amanda Knox was interrogated for eight hours. Overnight. She was denied food and water. She was denied the use of a bathroom. In a police station. In a foreign country. In a foreign language. By a dozen different officers. Without being allowed a lawyer.”

Moore continuing; “The inquisition Amanda Knox endured in Perugia was no more legally or morally defensible than the Salem Witch Trials. No rational person should believe that the results of what she went through are reliable evidence. If you gave me the same amount of time with Knox’s prosecutor (Mignini), I could have made him confess to the crime.”

Moore’s contribution and the book itself are well worth the read for anyone wanting to understand the injustice of the case against Knox and Sollecito, but let’s turn lastly to Moore’s comments on why an interrogation stops.

Moore; “There are two reasons an interrogator stops an interrogation: 1. He/she gets what he/she wants, or 2. He/she gives up. If the interrogator gives up, there is no written statement by the suspect. Therefore if the interrogation ends with a signed statement, you know the interrogator got what he/she wanted and can easily determine what that was. And what did Amanda say that satisfied her inquisitors? ‘I confusedly remember seeing Patrick come out of Meredith’s room.’ So what did they want? They wanted to implicate Patrick Lumumba.

Moore explains; “Amanda did not bring up the name of Patrick Lumumba. The police did. And they repeatedly told her to ‘imagine’ Patrick and herself being at the cottage that night. Amanda did not give in to the brainwashing. But the police achieved enough with her to obtain a statement that let them do what they had intended to do all along: arrest Patrick Lumumbra”

As has been said, the motive of the Italian police and Mignini was to defect attention away from Rudy Guede, but in any event, to absolutely deny that Rudy Guede acted alone. For that to be the case, the break-in had to be staged, because otherwise, its just Rudy all by himself breaking in, and killing Meredith Kercher.

But by embroiling multiple people in the crime, the police could if not keep Rudy out of the crime entirely, they could at least minimize his role. If Patrick Lumumba had remained as a defendant, no doubt all the judges would have put the knife in his hands. But since Rudy Guede could not be kept out of the picture, it became necessary for someone else to play a more dominant and leading role.

And of course such a person had to be someone capable of manipulating others, and who better for that role – in the mind of Mignini, than a seductive manipulative woman. So in the fantasy world of the Italian prosecutors, judges, police, and an unfortunately significant segment of the populations of Italy and the UK, the knife that killed Meredith Kercher ended up being placed in Amanda’s tiny hands, in their fantastic false imaginings.

Of all the lies that have been invented and repeated in this case, among the worst is that of those who misuse the confused statements that were extracted through psychological torture, as evidence of deception on the part of Amanda Knox and Raffaelle Solecito. It is the exact equivalent of blaming a rape victim for the consequences of a violent sexual assault. This lie is repeated by major news outlets, unscrupulous or careless reporters, and has become part of the lexicon of the case. It’s both tragic and profoundly unfair.

The cruelest and most criminal hypocrisy of Mignini, the Italian police and judiciary, is to blame Knox for the confused statements induced through these abusive coercive means. The Italian police charging Amanda Knox with Calumnia, after forcing her to name Lumumba as part of their process and their own objective, must surely be a violation of human rights that all civilized countries and people must deplore.

When Knox herself testified to the ordeal she was put through at trial in her own defense, she was further charged with calumnia against the police, a charge which the prosecution itself would be allowed to investigate, an obvious conflict of interest. In Italy, defending oneself against fraudulent charges by the prosecutor, is apparently a criminal act.

The criminal, brutal, illegal, and supposedly unrecorded interrogation by the Italian police should shock the conscience of the civilized world. Yet this criminal conduct by the Italian police must again be concealed by blaming the victim. Charging Knox with calumnia for being tortured into naming Lumumba, is the arrogance of unrepentant criminals. And it is a marvel to behold how pliant and cooperative the Italian, UK and international media have been in simply passing along the prosecution’s malicious self-serving slanders.

It may be the Italian authorities simply no longer have the ability to recognize the wrongfulness of their own behavior.

Knox’s final conviction for calumnia by the Italian Supreme Court of Cassation is being appealed to the European Court of Human Rights, where we must all hope this shameful miscarriage of justice will finally be corrected.

The last word is perhaps best left to Moore: “How could this happen? It is either inexperience combined with poor training or corruption – or both. I have had rookie FBI agents come out to the field and conduct vastly superior investigations to what happened in Perugia in this case. I do not think the Italian system is inferior. In fact, if I thought so, I would not be criticizing those detectives in this manner.”

Significantly, Moore concludes; “Every country has prosecutors and investigators who make mistakes. Every country experiences the shame of corruption. No country should be judged on whether these things exist; it should be judged on how it deals with them.”

When Patrick Lumumba was released, and Rudy Guede was brought back from Germany, Rudy was substituted in for Patrick in the prosecution’s case. But now the role of chief instigator would pass from Patrick, and be applied to Amanda Knox. Because from the perspective of the Perugians authorities, Mignini, the Italian police, and the Italian judiciary, Rudy Gude could not have acted alone (which is why the break-in must have been staged), or at worst, Rudy must have been a lesser player in this crime which was as has been stated, was by necessity a group effort in the prosecution’s theory – for otherwise, the Italians themselves are responsible for Meredith Kercher’s death.

Other commenters have said that the police erred by not changing their theory of accusation, when they slotted in Guede for Lumumba, that they suffered from ‘target fixation’ or other innocent mistakes. I disagree. There never was an ‘accusatory theory’ in the sense of one supported by evidence. The police objective of minimizing Guede’s role, and therefore their own culpability in the murder of Meredith Kercher, was intentional, premeditated, and ultimately unaffected by Guede’s formal emergence as a culprit. The Italian police objectives remained unchanged; under no circumstances, could Rudy Guede be found to have acted alone, because otherwise, Kercher’s killing was the fault of the Italians.

There has never been an investigation in the usual sense of the word. It has been an exercise from the beginning of intentionally framing two innocent people for crimes they had nothing to do with, to deflect attention and criticism away from Mignini and the Perugian authorities – and there is a clear conflict of interest in allowing the Perugians and the Italian judiciary, to investigate themselves.

And so, the frame-up proceeded accordingly.

With Amanda’s and Raffaelle’s coerced statements in hand, now all that was necessary for Mignini and the Perugians, was to fabricate the evidence, and build their ‘case’.



Below: the eager host to the dangerous Knox crazies Rachel Sterne Haot

Posted on 06/04/14 at 11:12 AM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (22)

Sunday, June 01, 2014

The Knox Interrogation Hoax #5: Key Witness Monica Napoleoni Confirms Knox Self-Imploded 5-6 Nov

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters

Long post. Please click here to go straight to Comments



[Above: Deputy Police Commissioner Monica Napoleoni as a witness at trial in 2009]

1. Overview of our series on the Knox interrogation hoax

This is a brief summary. Please read the full series here.

Approximately 10 posts will be devoted to the 2009 trial testimony, including Amanda Knox’s, which did her no good, and then another 10 posts to the escalating hoax propagated by Knox and the conspiracy nuts.

Here is a new example just posted by fervid new conspiracy nut Lisa Marie Basile in the Huffington Post.

We should remember that Knox was interrogated for many hours without food or water. She was slapped and screamed at in Italian—a language she barely understood at the time. When the police found her text message (which said the English equivalent of “goodnight, see you another time”) with Lumumba, they psychologically tortured her and coerced her into confessing that he was involved in the murder.

If her text message was sent to anyone else of any race, the same would have occurred. She named him because they named him. More so, false confessions aren’t rare. According to the Innocence Project, “In about 25 percent of DNA exoneration cases, innocent defendants made incriminating statements, delivered outright confessions or pled guilty.”

What total nonsense. None of Lisa Marie Basile’s “facts” here are correct. That leaves nothing of her absurd “she’s innocent but beautiful” theory still standing. This is what actually took place.

2. How Knox helped police with recap/summary 5-6 Nov

Late on 5 November 2007 Senior Inspector Rita Ficarra arrives back at the police station, to find her way blocked by a cartwheeling Knox. She mildly remonstrates. Knox testily responds that she has become sick and tired of the investigation, though she has really been little put-out.

Rita Ficarra suggests she go home and get some sleep. Knox refuses, and stays put.

After a short while Rita Ficarra suggests to Knox that if she really wants to help, she could add to the list of who Meredith knew and who might have visited the house. Knox happily agrees. So they begin on the list.

The entire official team is three often-commiserating ladies, and one man, who holds Knox’s hand.  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.

During the session, Inspector Napoleoni and a couple of colleagues are seeking facts from Sollecito in a separate wing. Shown conflicts between what he has said and what his phone records show, Sollecito backtracks in a heartbeat and throws Knox under the bus.

Meanwhile Knox calmly produces seven names. No voices were raised until, to the considerable surprise of all others present, Knox has a yelling, head-clutching conniption (the first of three that night). This happens when they come across a text she had sent to someone though she had said she sent no texts. This text said she would see this unnamed person later, at an indefinite time.

Knox in turn throws Patrick under the bus, and later Sollecito. A torrent of accusations against Patrick explodes. The discussion is brought to a halt. Several hours later, Dr Mignini arrives at the police station, and in a second session presides over a reading of Knox’s rights.

At both sessions Knox herself insists on keeping everyone captive while she writes it all out. See the first statement here and the second statement here.  Both times, she is warned she should have a lawyer by her side first. Both times she declines.

Here is the relevant part of Inspector Monica Napoleoni’s testimony at the 2009 trial. It was kindly translated by ZiaK. GCM is Judge Massei, who often ensures focus and clarity.

3. Relevant testimony of Inspector Monica Napoleoni at trial

Prosecutor Dr Giuliano Mignini

Dr Mignini [GM]: There, so 6 November, the house was therefore subjected to sequestration, so there were ...

Monica Napoleoni [MN}: Yes, the house, after it was subjected to sequestration, there was Amanda in the Questura when we got back, since the material that was sequestered/confiscated, a lot of it was hers, apart from the keys to the house of the boys on the floor below, that the boyfriend left with Meredith the keys to below, we notified the sequestration to Amanda, at any rate we sequestered the whole building.

GM: There we go; the night between 5 and 6 November. You remember, no?

MN: Certainly.

GM: There now, can you tell us what happened?

MN: We went ahead with the checks. Obviously, of all the depositions [of various witnesses], as [I] said. No indications of responsibility appeared against [any] others. We took photos from the Internet of the party, for example, of 31 October. We identified the people who we saw in the photos with Amanda. We had begun a series of activities also of telephone interception, obviously.

GCM: Excuse me, in photos with Amanda

MN: Pardon me, yes, with Meredith, yes. We had begun an activity of phone interceptions, in short, against numerous people, also to understand what had happened that night. We had also known, through the consultation of the phone read-outs, for example, that Amanda and Sollecito had had their cellphones inactive that evening. One from 20:35, perhaps Amanda from 20:35 and Sollecito from 20:42. And there was, shall we say, this void of telephone traffic [for] Raffaele Sollecito until 06:02 of the morning.

GM: Of the 2nd [November], therefore?

MN: Of the 2nd. And Amanda, on the contrary, until 12:03, 04 or 07 [PM], I don’t remember [exactly], at any rate when she began trying, shall we say, to catch sight of [sic] or to seek to call Meredith. I don’t know what the first call was. And that, honestly, it seemed strange to us, because Sollecito had always declared that he had woken in the morning, that he had been awoken by Amanda ...

GB: President, excuse me, we are again starting the usual…

GCM: Report the declarations only, where they are ...

MN: Well, how should I do, then?

GCM: ... indispensible to do them for the subsequent investigations.

MN: I wanted to say that if Raffaele had slept until ten-thirty or eleven in the morning, how on earth had his telephone been switched on at 06:02?

GCM: So you carried out these investigative activities on the telephone printouts?

MN: That’s why, in the meantime, we had ...

GCM: On the printouts, in relation to these declarations.

MN: Certainly, but on kind of a lot of people, also, obviously, with respect to these declarations, so for that reason even this fact did not add up. Obviously, during those days,  we were always there, we were continuously calling witnesses. That is to say, the English girls, we called them many times. The flatmates, we called them continuously, because [for] every detail we wanted to have a crosscheck, that is, bit by bit, as we advanced with the investigations, it’s normal that we need to re-hear/re-question the witnesses and see if we can manage, in short, to understand/grasp something.

GM: The evening of the 5th [November].

MN: Ah, indeed. In fact, we had decided to call Raffaele Sollecito this time. We had telephoned a colleague from the SCO, it seems to me he called him. Raffaele said he was out to dinner with Amanda, and that he would come to the office after dinner. In fact, he arrived after 22:00 hours, I don’t recall the exact time.

Amanda also came that evening, the evening of the 5th. We said to Amanda that she could go home to rest. Since, during those days, she was always saying, always complaining that she wanted to rest, wanted to eat, we said: “Look, you’ve eaten, you can go and rest yourself. If there’s a need, we’ll call you”.

Instead, she was very nervous, and insisted on staying there, and we kept her ... well, not even in the waiting room, [but] in the entry-hall of the Flying Squad [offices], that is to say, before entering the Flying Squad [offices], outside the lifts, there are some chairs there. The girl sat herself down there.

And I began to examine Raffaele in an S.I.T. [NdT: “sommarie informazione testimone” or brief witness questioning/recap, not full interrogation], together with two colleagues from the SCO in Rome. Then, I remember for example one fact, the same that had struck me [then], that I think I went to get a little bottle of water, something, [and] while I was going out I found Amanda who was doing the splits and cartwheels, in the Questura offices. It’s obvious that all these behaviours, all the contradictions, that is to say, we re-called …

GCM: So she was doing…

GM: What time was this?

MN: Well, it would be about 11:00 [p.m.]

GM: There you go. And then?

MN: Then we ...

GM: Behaviour of Amanda and Raffaele, but especially of Amanda, the night of 5 to 6 [November] in that period?

MN: For one thing, I point out that it wasn’t me who heard her for the minutes/written record, but it was other colleagues [Rita Ficarra plus several] who heard/questioned her. However, it’s obvious that we… some [of us] left, some entered, some were walking by, that is to say. This is normal. She [Amanda] always had an exaggerated manner.

GCM: In this manner, you said, she was doing the splits, cartwheels, there you go.

MN: She was doing the splits, doing cartwheels.

GCM: Others…?

MN: That is to say, she was laughing. She didn’t have the behaviour of a person ...

GCM: Please.

GM: But this behaviour, did it then change? How did it change, and when did it change?

MN: No, that, however ... Afterwards, I again say…  that is to say, I saw her at intervals, however I was not there while they were taking her minutes/written record. A few times, I maybe went in to get, to bring a coffee, to bring something, however it was not me who was present there the whole time.

GM: However you saw that at a certain point she had begun to cry, you said?

MN: It was already almost at the morning.

GM: Towards what time did that happen?

MN: Well, Raffaele Sollecito’s minutes/written record, I think – because we also gave him quite a lot of causes [sic: should be pauses/breaks?] – I think we finished with him around three-thirty, three-forty. [With] Amanda, on the contrary, it finished much later. Yes, I also saw that she was crying in the anti-theft office, in effect, where they were examining/questioning her.

GM: Do you remember how she was treated by the staff, whether there were …?

MN: Amanda was treated very well. Amanda, she was …

GM: ... violence, of ...

MN: But absolutely not! Amanda was given something to drink several times. She was brought hot chamomile, she was taken to the bar of the Questura to eat. First she was given brioches from the little [vending] machine. That is all to say, Amanda was treated well.

GM: So, you, later, you continued the investigations, and never returned to Via della Pergola, no?

MN: No, I ...

Civil Party Attorney Pacelli

CP: Lumumba defence. Listen, I’m referring to the evening of 5 November, precisely, when Amanda came to the offices of the Questura. At what time did she arrive?

MN: They had been out to dinner, she and Raffaele, so for that reason they arrived around 22:15, 22:20 – after ten o’clock for sure.

CP: After 22:00.

MN: Yes. Certainly.

CP: She remained, therefore, the whole evening, the whole night of the 5th obviously…

MN: Yes, yes.

CP: Also the morning of the 6th. During that period of time, does it seem to you that Miss Amanda was beaten/struck?

MN: Absolutely not. I already explained that earlier.

CP: Yes, no, but I however am in cross-examination. I am asking detailed, precise questions, and I have very few.

MN: No, absolutely not.

CP: Was she, by any chance, therefore, manhandled/beaten up, threatened or insulted?

MN: No, she was treated well. Obviously with firmness, because it’s not as though we were at the cinema, in short, or at the circus – even if someone else might think that, we don’t.  With firmness, but with courtesy she was …

CP: These methods of treatment, how did they translate into practice? With what behaviour/actions [were they carried out] in actual fact? Earlier, you recalled that they actually brought her something to eat…

MN: It’s true. That morning, I remember that Inspector Ficarra actually took her to the bar to eat as soon as it opened. But before [that], we have little [vending] machines on the ground floor, and she was brought water, she was brought hot drinks, she was brought a snack. But also Raffaele, he was given something to drink, it’s not as though they were kept … absolutely.

CP: Yes, yes. But thus we have a firm manner, but with great regard and respect?

MN: Absolutely, yes. Because at any rate we were dealing still with young folk of twenty years of age, that is to say, we never forgot this.

CP: Thank you. Thank you, Doctor [NdT: “Doctor” refers also to graduates, and is a term of respect, not necessarily implying a medical or PhD degree]. I have no other questions, President.

Defence Attorney Bongiorno

GB: You said, precisely, that Amanda was treated very well, taken to the bar, chamomile, etc.

MN: It’s true.

GB: During these interrogations in the Questura, I wanted to know, as regards Sollecito, who had these extremely long interrogations: was Sollecito also taken to the bar? Did he eat?

MN: Sollecito was not taken to the bar, because I did not take him to the bar. However, Sollecito was given … he requested water, [and] he was brought water. He was given numerous pauses/breaks.

GB: Was it said to Sollecito, at a certain point, when you challenged/impugned/questioned him… obviously the interrogation, as we know, went on an extremely long time ... that he could have recourse to a lawyer?

MN: I took him in for the recaps/summary information, and I did not suspend/interrupt the minutes/written record against him.

GB: You didn’t think that a lawyer was necessary?

MN: In that moment, no.

GB: How long did this interrogation last?

MN: We started at 10:40 until three-forty approximately.

GB: Were there objections [NdT: “contestazione” can also mean “formal notice”, e.g. of a charge] in the course of the interrogation?

MN: No, I did not make any objections/[formal notices]. We asked him simply to tell us what had happened that day.

GCM: Excuse me. When you say “10:40”, do you mean 22:40?

MN: 22:40, yes.

GB: So during the course of the interrogation, he did not ... reach/join [the status of] suspect by clues/evidence?

MN: He was not?

GB: You did not make any objections/formal notices?

MN: When we hear someone for recaps/summary information, that is to say, it is normal that we ask them questions, it’s normal, that is to say …

GB: Questions, yes. I was asking you if you had made any objections/formal notices.

MN: I asked why on earth he had told us up to that point things that did not correspond to the truth.

GB: And after you asked this question, did you not consider that for Raffaele it would … it was necessary to call a lawyer for Raffaele?

MN: Well, Raffaele Sollecito, already from when he came to the Questura at any rate, no-one ever prevented him from telephoning or from doing what he wanted.

GB: I’m not asking you if he was prevented. You know that it is provided ...

MN: No, I no ...

GB: Excuse me. Let me finish. You know that it is provided by law that when there are objections/formal notices or [if] recaps/summary informations turn into interrogations, the minutes/written record must be halted. The subject must be given the possibility, especially if it is the middle of the night, to have the possibility [sic] to call a lawyer and to have a consultation. You are telling me that there were objections/formal notices made, but you did not consider [it necessary/expedient] to stop the minutes/written records.

MN: I am telling you that I took Raffaele Sollecito for minutes/written records [NdT: the witness often uses the term “verbale”, which is literally “minutes/written record”, in the sense of “to question/questioning”] without making any objections/formal notices to him, or asking him things, as one normally does to all the witnesses, and I closed the minutes/written record, concluding the SIT [“sommarie informazione testimoniale”]. That is to say, in that moment I did not object/make a formal notice of anything to him.

GB: However, you asked him the question that you told me earlier, if he was saying things that were not true?

MN: But one asks this of everyone. That is to say, it’s not that it was asked only of him. I don’t understand.

GB: How much later after this interrogation was Raffaele’s detention/provisional arrest made?

MN: It was made the same morning.

GB: What new elements were there with respect to those interrogations?

MN: In the meantime Amanda Knox was being examined for minutes/written records over there, and there are … the contradictions between them were too [far] out.

GB: And these contradictions ... on the basis of these contradictions, you never called the lawyer, neither for the one, nor for the other? Is this correct?

MN: I was not with Amanda Knox, but I don’t believe that she was prevented from calling the lawyer. You must ask this of Inspector Ficarra, not of me, because I was not there in that moment.

GB: The objective elements, starting from the declarations, on the basis of which Raffaele Sollecito was arrested: do you recall that there was a print [footprint] amongst these elements?

MN: He was subjected to provisional arrest/detention by the Public Prosecutor, not arrested.

GB: Provisional arrest/detention by the Public Prosecutor. Do you remember the print?

MN: For me, the objective elements are all the contradictions and, shall we say, the false alibis that Raffaele, together with Amanda, gave us until they were separated.

GCM: The Attorney is asking: was there, at any rate, a print?

MN: There was a print that was held to be compatible with Raffaele Sollecito by the Laboratory of Forensic Police of Foligno.

GCM: Yes. That’s what you asked, no?

GB: Yes, and I also wanted to know: these contradictions that you’ve talked so much about, so were they contradictions that were given during these minutes/written records that we are talking about, these minutes/written records when there was no lawyer…

MN: Taken from the first second when we had begun to hear/question them, and going onwards from there. Because it was scarcely believable all the stories that they told us, and Raffaele knows very well that he told me things, spontaneously, without me having requested/pressed him, for that matter.

GB: On the basis of all [sic]... You are talking to me of contradictions. I am asking you: since there were these contradictions, that you actually hold to be so important that they then led to the provisional arrest/detention, because this …

MN: But the decree of detention/provisional arrest does not come from the Judicial Police.

GB: You are telling me of contradictions from the beginning to the end.

MN: It’s true.

GB: Since you are not talking about a contradiction at the very last hour, that is to say at five in the morning, but from the beginning to the end, I am asking myself why a lawyer was not called.

MN: I repeat that the provisional arrest/detention was from the Public Prosecutor, and not the Judicial Police.

GB: No, I’m asking you why the lawyer was not called during the minutes/written record.

MN: Because I did not consider [it necessary] to do so because I closed [the session] as recaps/summary information. The gravity of the fact emerged when Amanda Knox was also heard/questioned, who was examined up to 01:45, it seems to me, of the morning. It’s obvious that afterwards my colleagues reported to me what was happening over there.

GB: Very well. Listen, is there a report in which you speak of Amanda’s cartwheel?

MN: No, me personally, no.

GB: Did someone make a report with this cartwheel of Amanda’s?

MN: The report on the cartwheel, in short, it did not seem necessary to me to make one. However, regarding strange and suspect behaviours there is always …

GB: Since, in one of the preliminary hearings you reported it as one of the most significant elements.

MN: It did not seem normal to us.

GCM: Excuse me. Yes, at any rate, there was no annotation.

MN: No.

GCM: We are only doing questions and the answers. Please.

Defence Attorney Ghirga

GCM: Please Attorney.

LG: One very last question: at the same time you say that the night of the 6th, between the 5th and the 6th, “Amanda was treated well, at 4 in the morning – [as] this timetable shows – she was even, shall we say, quote-unquote refreshed, she began to cry”…

MN: No, I didn’t indicate that at 4, at any rate.

LG: She began to cry at 4. If you want, I ...

MN: However I have never indicated a timetable.

LG: Nonetheless, when you pinpoint the time, shall we say, [of] this … You report about Amanda and say that, at a certain point, I have it written, at 4 in the morning it indicates, she was calm….

GCM: Yes, please, please.

LG: And that she was nonetheless treated well, when [you] place [this], and then this “treated well” emerges with a tea, it seems to me. Can you place this [event] in time?

MN: Yesterday, at the Public Prosecutor’s request, I answered this, however I also specified that Inspector Ficarra dealt with this matter. I recall exactly how Amanda was treated because we were going in and out, however I can’t give you times of [her] collapse/breakdown, of when she started to cry. I saw her cry, but I don’t recall having been able to give this timetable yesterday. At 4, I don’t remember.

LG: You said that Amanda was in an antitheft room.

MN: She was in the antitheft office.

LG: And that is on which floor? I don’t know this.

MN: Still on our floor, the Flying Squad is the only one. There is a main door, and then there are various offices.

LG: On the same floor where shortly before, shortly afterwards, we shall see, Raffaele Sollecito was also interrogated?

MN: Yes, in a different wing, in effect.

LG: It is in the antitheft room - but perhaps I’m wrong, so don’t get mad straight away – that you saw either the splits or the cartwheel and …

MN: No, it was in the entry-hall before coming into the Flying Squad [offices], at the exit from the lifts.

LG: So at the lower floor?

MN: No, on the third floor one comes out of the lift, on the left there’s the entry to the Flying Squad. Before that there’s a pre-entry, with little armchairs.

LG: So we’re at the entry-hall of the third floor, where the Flying Squad is.

MN: Yes, but not inside the Flying Squad. There’s another door.

LG: Is this the anti-theft room?

MN: No, the antitheft office is an office where the antitheft squad is, and then advancing there’s the Flying Squad on the left.

LG: But when you, I believe in order to get a bottle of water, go into a place where Amanda is, you see…

MN: No, I was passing to go get the water, yes…

LG: If you could clarify this for us better.

MN: I was passing to go get a little bottle of water from the little [vending] machines, by necessity I must exit from the Flying Squad, and I tell you again that she was in the entry-hall, there by the lifts.

LG: Alone?

MN: No, there were colleagues.

LG: Your colleagues?

MN: Colleagues, it seems to me, from the Rome SCO.

LG: She was with policemen, and she was doing a movement, which movements were different, a cartwheel and a split are not two things, so if you remember you were this precise.

MN: I remember.

LG: What was she doing?

MN: For sure it struck me: she did both a splits and a cartwheel.

LG: Both of them. She was doing gymnastics.

MN: Eh.

LG: Thank you.

GCM: There are no further questions.

Defence Attorney Maria del Grosso

MDG: With reference to the night of 5 November, do you remember at what time Dr Mignini arrived?

MN: No, I don’t remember.

MDG: And how long did the gathering of information from Amanda Knox by your colleagues go on? How much time?

MN: Look in the minutes, I did not do it.

MDG: And there is no minutes, there is no time of closing.

MN: So then why are you asking this of me…

GCM: If you remember.

MDG: If you remember, Doctor?

MN: No, I don’t remember.

MDG: If you remember. If you don’t remember, not ...

MN: No.

Prosecutor Dr Giuliano Mignini

GM: Listen, do you recall Amanda’s “memoriali” [NdT: written notes (plural)], do you recall the first “memorial”?

MN: I remember that Inspector Ficarra said to me, after the execution of the detention/provisional arrest, that Amanda had asked her for blank sheets [of paper] because, word for word, she wanted to give a gift, wanted to write things. And I remember too that she was given these blank sheets [of paper], she wrote for some time, so much [time] that I even requested Inspector Ficarra to go [away/home?] because we had to accompany the detainees to jail. At any rate, Amanda was made to finish writing, and she gave to the Inspector this …

GM: Were other “memoriali” sequestered?

MN: Yes, later in jail.

GM: At what times?

MN: It seems to me that with the report of 29 November [there were] diaries and manuscripts of Amanda’s [that were] sequestered in jail.


Posted on 06/01/14 at 12:14 PM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in Officially involvedAmanda KnoxPolice and CSIDiversion efforts byThe Knox-MellasesHoaxes about the caseKnox interrog. hoax
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (19)

Thursday, May 29, 2014

Ted “There Is No Evidence” Simon’s Tired Mantra Misinforms Americans And Provokes Italian Hard Line

Posted by Peter Quennell

Long post. Please click here to go straight to Comments


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?

5. Amanda Knox is ever more frantically claiming that Rudy Guede carried out the crime against Meredith alone, and yet there is zero question of that. Many myths spread about Guede are untrue.

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).

Posted on 05/29/14 at 08:33 AM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (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

Long post. Please click here to go straight to Comments





Above at the Florence appeal court is the defence table.

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]

Posted on 05/26/14 at 11:15 AM by SeekingUnderstanding. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (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

Long post. Please click here to go straight to Comments




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). 

“Diminishing evidence…”

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).

“My friend…”

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.

Conclusions

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.

Posted on 05/22/14 at 02:35 PM by Vivianna. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (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

Long post. Please click here to go straight to Comments




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, and accepted by all courts including the Italian Supreme Court. Knox has served three years in prison for it and the US Embassy saw nothing done wrong.

And then there is Knox’s endlessly shifting version, inflated opportunistically and erratically by herself and wannabee experts over nearly seven years now. 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.

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.

See a longer summary in Post #1 here.

2. Continuing the cross-examination of Rita Ficarra

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.

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. 

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?

RF: Yes.

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.

Judge Massei

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.

RF: Yes.

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?

RF: What?

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.

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]

RF: Yes.

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?

RF: Yes.

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?

RF: No.

CP: Was she threatened?

RF: No.

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?

RF: Yes.

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?

RF: Yes.

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?

CP: Yes.

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.


Posted on 05/18/14 at 04:12 AM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in Officially involvedAmanda KnoxPolice and CSIDiversion efforts byThe Knox-MellasesHoaxes about the caseKnox interrog. hoax
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments 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

Long post. Please click here to go straight to Comments



([Amanda Knox’s lawyers Luciano Ghirga and Maria Del Grasso who questioned Rita Ficarra]

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, and accepted by all courts including the Italian Supreme Court. Knox has served three years in prison for it and the US Embassy saw nothing done wrong.

And then there is Knox’s endlessly shifting version, inflated opportunistically and erratically by herself and wannabee experts over nearly seven years now. 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.

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.

See a longer summary in Post #1 here.

2. Continuing the cross-examination of Rita Ficarra

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. 

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.

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.

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.

RF: Yes.

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?

RF: Yes.

LG: But also lies came out, [as] you call them yourself.

RF: Yes.

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 ...

RF: Yes.

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 ...

RF: Yes.

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?

RF: Yes.

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.

RF: Yes.

LG: And then Patrick’s name emerged.

RF: Yes.

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.

RF: Then…

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 …

GCM: Ok.

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.

RF: Yes.

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?

RF: When?

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.

RF: Three.

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.

RF:  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”?

RF: Yes.

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?

RF: No.

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]?

RF: No.

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.

Series to be continued up to the present day.

Posted on 05/15/14 at 01:29 PM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in Officially involvedAmanda KnoxPolice and CSIDiversion efforts byThe Knox-MellasesHoaxes about the caseKnox interrog. hoax
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (38)

Tuesday, May 13, 2014

The Knox Interrogation Hoax #2: Trial Testimony From Rita Ficcara On Realities 5-6 Nov

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters

Long post. Please click here to go straight to Comments




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, and accepted by all courts including the Italian Supreme Court. Knox has served three years in prison for it and the US Embassy saw nothing done wrong.

And then there is Knox’s endlessly shifting version, inflated opportunistically and erratically by herself and wannabee experts over nearly seven years now. 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.

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.

See a longer summary in Post #1 here.

2. The Testimony Of Inspector Rita Ficarra

Inspector Rita Ficarra was the one who initiated and led the discussion with Knox up to when Knox made her first statement, the first implicating Patrick Lumumba. 

What follows is the cross-examination of Inspector Ficarra by the prosecution and all four cross-examining defense lawyers.

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 above seems a given - their own sticking point.

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.

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.

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?

RF: Yes.

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: Yes.

GCM: Please.

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.

GCM: Please.

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 …

[Dr Mignini’s questiong moves on to what happened next]

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?

RF: Yes.

LM: Did you see that the latter had any wounds or had any scratches or ...

RF: No.

LM: Or some ...

RF: Where?

LM: I asked you if she had any wounds or any scratches and you answered no. Thank you.

RF: You’re welcome.

Inspector Ficcara’s testimony continues in Post #3.

Posted on 05/13/14 at 05:55 PM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in Officially involvedAmanda KnoxPolice and CSIDiversion efforts byThe Knox-MellasesHoaxes about the caseKnox interrog. hoax
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (8)

Sunday, May 11, 2014

The Knox Interrogation Hoax #1: Overview Of The Series - The Two Version of the 5-6 Nov 2007 Session

Posted by The TJMK Main Posters

Long post. Please click here to go straight to Comments



[Amanda Knox at trial on 28 February, the day Inspector Rita Ficarra testified]

1. Court-Accepted Events Of 5-6 November 2007

This is an overview of Knox’s so-called “interrogation” at Perugia’s central police station, the subject of the first ten posts.

It led to her arrest and three years served. To make this picture really firm we will quote a lot of the testimony at trial. The Case Wiki carries all of these transcripts, many in English translation, and more. 

Senior Inspector Rita Ficarra testified that she arrived 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.

As the defenses acknowledge during their cross-examinations of key investigators present on the night, 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.

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 and adds maps and phone numbers (in evidence) in a calm proceeding. These were the names: Peter Svizzero,
Patrick, Ardak, Juve, Spiros, Shaki and “a South African [Guede]” who played basketball near the house.

At several points in the evening Knox is provided with refreshments. No voices are ever raised, no bathroom breaks are refused. A number of efforts are made to help Knox to keep calm.

Inspector Napoleoni and a couple of colleagues are seeking facts from Sollecito in a separate wing. Shown conflicts between what he has said and what his phone records show, Sollecito backtracks and declares that Knox made him lie. Knox is gently asked about this, and nobody reports any reaction. Knox defense lawyers in cross examination do not go there at all.

Suddenly, to the considerable surprise of all 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 headed out to meet Patrick that night after he texted and she accuses Patrick of killing Meredith. 

Knox is put on hold, given more refreshments, and made comfortable on some chairs so she might try to 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. No questions are asked.

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.

Knox’s lawyers never substantially challenge this version, leave standing that she insisted on all three statements, and they dont pursue any claims that she was pressed. 

In July Knox herself tried to challenge the scenario but was disbelieved and for the calunnia framing of Patrick Lumumba Judge Massei sentenced her to a year more than Sollecito, later amended by Judge Hellmann to three years served.

2. The Knox-Promoted Alternative Version

This will be the subject of the posts from #11 onward. Though her precise claims vary and often contradict, Knox herself has on and off since November 2007 tried to portray otherwise the cause of her conniption and her false accusation of Patrick for the death of Meredith.

For example read this post of 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.

Her defense team furthered this version in the annulled appeal in 2011, and she did so in for example her April 2013 book, her December 2013 email to Judge Nencini, her appeal to EHCR Strasbourg, some TV and newspaper interviews, including one with the Italian weekly Oggi and now her further appeal to the Supreme Court. 

This version has been blown up by a number of others in internet posts, articles, TV interviews, and books. Among others propagating it have been Raffaele Sollecito (in his book), Doug Preston, Saul Kassin, John Douglas, Jim Clemente, Paul Ciolino, Michael Heavey, Greg Hampikian, Chris Halkidis, Mark Waterbury, Doug Bremner, Candace Dempsey, Nina Burleigh, Steve Moore, Bruce Fischer, and many posters on the Knox sites and on Ground Report.

  • Here is Steve Moore claiming that around 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 throughout.

  • Here is Saul Kassin claiming that Knox was interrogated over the entire night of 5-6 November, until she was finally broken and a coerced “confession” emerged - even though the “false confession” actually framed Patrick and was in reality a false accusation. That Kassin ignores.

  • Here are several former profilers actually expanding upon the same claims in a book with (today) 60 five-star reviews.

And yet Knox’s own Italian lawyers specifically denied her accusations! No complaint against the police was ever lodged.

And of course Judge Massei, the discredited Judge Hellmann, and Cassation all disbelieved the claims and Knox served her three years.

But still the hoax keeps rolling on, on TV and books and websites.

3. The Intended Course Of Our Interrogation-Hoax Series

Hopefully we will get this done in 20 posts. Starting in the next post is trial testimony, the first from 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 to Cassation, pending as of this date.

 

Posted on 05/11/14 at 03:30 PM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in Officially involvedAmanda KnoxPolice and CSIDiversion efforts byThe Knox-MellasesHoaxes about the caseKnox interrog. hoax
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments 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

Long post. Please click here to go straight to Comments



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.


Posted on 05/09/14 at 02:53 PM by Peter Quennell. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (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

Long post. Please click here to go straight to Comments




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.

Regarding the large knife, Knox rehashes the same arguments her defense made to no avail before the original trial court that found her guilty. We posted explaining the solid proof here and here.

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.

Posted on 05/06/14 at 12:01 AM by The TJMK Main Posters. Click screenname for a list of all main posts, at top left.
Archived in
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendCase WikiPMF Org ForumPMF Net ForumComments here (84)

Page 2 of 80 pages  <  1 2 3 4 >  Last »