Tuesday, July 29, 2014
US And UK Media Wrongly Attribute Italian Report Of Knox/Cocaine-Dealer Link To Trial Prosecutors
Posted by Peter Quennell
1. How Drug Use Was Addressed At Trial
The story of Knox’s drug use clearly has legs. But whoever is driving it, the trial prosecution is not - they are simply sitting back and watching.
Police and prosecutors have never driven the perception that Knox and Sollecito were stoned on the night when they attacked Meredith. They have never had a reason to.
It was in fact the defenses who drove the drug-use argument. Knox admitted to police on 5-6 November 2007 to marijuana use, and so did Sollecito. He already had a minor record of cocaine possession. Both tried to use the argument at trial that they were indeed stoned. But that was only to explain major discrepancies in their statements, not to say that drugs helped to fuel the attack on Meredith.
The defenses had an opportunity with Judge Matteini, the guiding magistrate from late 2007 though to Judge Micheli’s arraignment in October 2008, to try to seek lesser charges due to impaired capacities. But either they did not want to, or they were prevented by the families from doing so.
At trial in 2009 the prosecution remarked that the two were suspected to have been using cocaine (the symptoms seem to us pretty obvious) but the defence simply shrugged at this and did not contend it.
Judge Massei never mentions amphetamines. Two defense experts were brought in to try to convince the Massei court that the admitted drug use had fogged their clients’ brains. Judge Massei simply recorded this doubtful claim in his sentencing report. He gave the perps no breaks based on this reasoning.
]page 393] On the effects of drugs of the type used by Amanda and by Raffaele, such as hashish and marijuana, [we] heard the testimony of Professor Taglialatela who, while underlining the great subjective variability (page 211, hearing of 17 July 2009) specified that the use of such substances has a negative influence on the cognitive capacity and causes alterations of perception (pages 201 and 207) and of the capacity to comprehend a situation (page 218).
In his turn, Professor Cingolani, who together with Professor Umani Ronchi and Professor Aprile, had also dealt with the toxicological aspect (see witness report lodged on 15 April 2008, pages 26 and following), responding to the question he had been asked as to whether the use of drugs lowers inhibitions replied: ‚That is beyond doubt‛ (page 163 hearing of 19 September 2009), while correlating that effect to the habits of the person [on] taking the drugs. Raffaele Sollecito’s friends had furthermore stated that such substances had an effect of relaxation and stupor.
2. New Reporting On Knox/Drug-Dealer Connection
Below is the new Giallo report on a connection between Knox and drug-dealers kindly translated by our main poster Jools. Note that the drug dealers were convicted back in 2011 and the connection to Knox was reported then in the Italian press, though not in the UK and US press.
The main new fact here is that Giallo has the dealers’ names. Giallo makes clear it obtained the names legitimately from open police records, not from the prosecutors back at trial. Dr Mignini merely takes note of the names which Giallo itself provided and he doubted that Knox would now become truth-prone.
The American woman already convicted to 28 years for the murder of her friend Meredith.
A NEW LEAD, LINKED TO DRUGS, PUTS AMANDA KNOX IN TROUBLE
The woman was hanging around a circle of hashish and cocaine traffickers. One of them had intimate relation with her. Another, a dangerous criminal offender, had attempted to kill his brother with a knife. Are they implicated?
“During the course of the investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher we have confirmed that a person whose initial is F. would occasionally supply drugs to Amanda Knox, as well as having a relationship with her supposedly of a sexual nature.” So begins an [official note] annotation of the Flying Squad police in Perugia dated January 19, 2008, two and half months after the terrible murder of the young British student Meredith Kercher. An annotation that could open a new, worst-case scenario on the Perugia murder and on one of its most talked-about protagonists, Amanda Knox, besides making it possible to convince the USA to send her back to Italy for a new trial.
But why is this annotation so important? And who is this mysterious F. that is now entering the scene? Let’s see. When Amanda came to our country to study, in September 2007, did not yet know Raffaele Sollecito, the guy from Giovinazzo who will be accused together with her and Rudy Guede, a thief and drug dealer, of the murder of Meredith. But she soon started to hang around characters implicated in a drug ring for university students in Perugia. A particularly disturbing entourage of whose members included dangerous multi-convicted felons. The first one is precisely F. We will not disclose his full name or F’s last name, for reasons of discretion, but GIALLO knows them.
In 2007, F. is a student of psychology from Rome, much older than Amanda. The two meet on a Milano-Florence train and decide to visit the city together in the evening, Knox having gotten rid of her friend [amica=female friend-likely her sister-] she and F. smoke a joint together. “My first smoke in Italy,” says the same Amanda on MySpace, a social network site that was popular seven years ago. The two end the Florentine evening in his hotel room. Photo evidence of this new friendship was foremely on Myspace, because Amanda publishes a photo of F., half naked. An aunt commented: “Do not date strange Italian guys.”
Once she settled in Perugia, Amanda continues to have contact with F. His number is in Amanda’s phone book, and they both frequently called each other, before and after the murder.
F., also appears in a “list” of Italian guys she slept with which was compiled by Amanda on one of her big school notebooks and also in her autobiographical book “Waiting to be heard.” In the book Amanda talks about F. but changes his name and calls him Cristiano. Maybe to protect their privacy, maybe to obfuscate opinions. She writes of him: “I promised my friends that I would not end up sleeping with the first guy that comes by, but F. was a change of plans.” Further adding that in Italy smoking joints is simply normal, “like eating a plate of pasta.”
On the other hand Amanda spends a lot of money in the several months she’s in Perugia. In September, she draws out $ 2,452 from her bank account, that’s 1,691 euros. How did she spend it? No one has ever investigated this, and she does not explain it. She says she used the cash for living [expenses], but considering that the rent she had to pay was only 300 euros, and that twice a week she worked as a waitress in the bar of Patrick Lumumba, Le Chic, putting more cash in her pocket, the [living] expenses seem really excessive.
What does Amanda do with all that money? For sure she does not buy only hashish, which is not so expensive. Was she, then, using cocaine? The [police] annotation makes you think of it. And this could explain both the state of alteration of the girl on the night of the murder as well as a possible motive. Amanda that evening returned home to get some money to pay for the drugs, and she encountered Meredith? The girls had a fight, as Rudy Guede says in his reconstruction of that night, why, did Amanda steal Meredith’s money? Was Amanda on her own, or maybe she made sure she was accompanied by Rudy or other drug dealing friends?
No one has ever investigated this, or Amanda’s dangerous acquaintances. So dangerous that the same F., in 2011, was arrested. To be precise that started from the analysis of Amanda’s mobile phone, police investigators found that in fact F. and two of his close friends, Luciano and Lorenzo, were part of a major drug ring: all three ended up on trial for selling cocaine.
On January 14, 2011 they were all sentenced. The court judges established that Luciano was the one that supplied the other two: He was to serve two years and eight months in prison.
But let’s read the rest of the police annotation because what this reveals is really disturbing: “F. is contacted by phone by the presumable clients placing an “order” with him of the quantity of drugs they want to buy and in turn he contacts various Maghrebi characters ordering. It is also established that F. associates with multiple-convicted offenders of very serious crimes in the matter of drugs, and with persons such as A. Luciano, with whom he maintains frequent contacts aimed at drug trafficking.”
And precisely in this way Luciano, linked to F., a friend of Amanda, has a terrible past. The cops wrote this about him: “The above-cited Luciano on the 28/7/2006 was arrested by the carabinieri in Foligno because he was responsible for the murder attempt of his brother, who gave him 16 stab wounds inflicted with a kitchen knife.”
Luciano, therefore, who sells drugs in Perugia and provides supply to F., with whom he is often in touch, is an unsuccessful killer. Only a year before the murder in Perugia, under the influence of drugs, he tried to kill his brother during an argument over money and drug dealing. Luciano, out of his head that evening, grabbed the knife with which he was slicing a melon in the kitchen and stabbed his brother’s body 16 times.
A scene not so different from what the judges think happened in Meredith’s house, and even from what was described by the same Amanda on the 5 November 2007 when, at the end of a night of contradictions and anguish, confessed giving culpability of the murder to Patrick Lumumba, the owner of the bar Le Chic, who later proved to be unconnected with the facts of the case. Amanda said: “Patrick and Meredith went to Meredith’s room, while I think that I stayed in the kitchen. I heard screams and was scared, I covered my ears.”
Where were, F. and Luciano the night of the murder? And who was there that night, instead of Patrick? Questions still unanswered. What seems likely, however, is that Amanda was not with Raffaele, who was at his home on his computer. The judiciary may now decide to open a new file on her. Will the USA grant extradition?
3. Our Comments On The Giallo Report
As observed above, for Italians most of this is actually not new news. The new news is that Giallo now has all the dealers’ names, from the open records of the police.
Giallo’s mention of a possible new trial is presumably connected to this drug-dealing, as the trial for Meredith’s murder and Knox’s and Sollecito’s failed appeal have both concluded, and only Cassation’s endorsement of the verdict is awaited.
Giallo’s references to Guede as a drug dealer and thief are both unproven. He had no criminal record prior to final conviction by Cassation. He was never a police source, and got zero breaks, ever. He was unknown to Dr Mignini until some days after Meredith was attacked and forensics identified him.
4. UK and US Media Get Key Fact Wrong
The UK’s Daily Mail has wrongly claimed that Italy’s Giallo magazine had reported as follows: “Italian prosecutor from Amanda Knox trial gave newspaper list of drug-dealer names associated with American student”.
In their headlines the US’s National Enquirer and several other outlets make the same wrong claim, though they quote enough from Giallo to show how the magazine really re-surfaced the old report.
So for now UK and US media get that key fact wrong. This surely wont be the end of it though. The story finally has legs of its own, and clearly the media in all three countries have a willingness to pursue it more.
In the interview also posted on Giallo Dr Mignini doubted that even now Knox will tell the truth - in fact it is hard to see what she can say. We will wait and see.
5. Ground Report Also Gets It Wrong
This shrill report from “Grace Moore” about Guede and Dr Mignini in Ground Report is both seriously wrong on the facts and defamatory - she should try saying that sort of thing about any American prosecutor. “Grace Moore” should find out what the roles of Judge Matteini and Prosecutor Comodi were, and why after a malicious prosecution against him Prosecutor Mignini is riding high on Italian TV - and pouring cold water on satanic claims about any crimes.
Paul and Rachel Sterne, the father and daughter owners of Ground Report which carries well over 100 similarly inflammatory posts, could in theory be charged by both Italian and American prosecutors, as they are an eager party to bloodmoney (a felony), harrassment of the victim’s family (a felony) and obstruction of justice under Italian law for poisoning opinion out of court (another felony).
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (13)
Friday, July 25, 2014
Why It Will Be Republic Of Italy v Knox And Sollecito For The Myriad False Claims They Have Made
Posted by Peter Quennell
Bergamo in the foothills of the Alps where the journal Oggi is published
Yesterday’s post quotes some statements that Sollecito has already started winding back.
For Raffaele Sollecito that marks a significant first. Amanda Knox still seems headed the other way, pouring yet more gasoline on the flames.
Yesterday’s post also mentioned the growing pressure the Italian system is asserting to surface and adhere to the truth. When Cassation rules as widely expected, that Knox’s and Sollecito’s appeals did fail in Florence, and off back to prison they must go, Italy probably wont stop there.
It needs a single truth to stand at the end of the day, and in the courts is how its inquiry-based system arrives at that truth. More prison time is probably ruled out, but there should be some big fines. And that truth.
Sollecito wrote those claims quoted yesterday only in English, of course, exclusively for English-speaking audiences. There are no editions in any other language, certainly not Italian.
The only claim of those quoted yesterday that is widely known in Italy is Sollecito’s false charge, challenged on national TV, that the prosecution offered him a deal for his turning on Knox. That was one of his many claims accusing Italian officials of crimes. All his other claims are still sleepers in Italy.
Sollecito’s father Francesco was asked on national Italian TV why the book was not written or published in Italian. He awkwardly replied that no Italian publisher was interested; he didnt name even one that refused.
He didnt explain why it was written on the US west coast with the help of a British-born shadow writer (an unfortunate choice: Gumbel himself seems to have a big chip on his shoulder about Italy after his stay there, like Peter Popham and Nina Burleigh; unusual but it happens).
So, with no Italian version, what passages in what language were those Italian publishers if any shown?
Not much liked in Italy, Sollecito has been trying to burnish his image there since 2008 when he began writing diary-type reports on several websites.
Passages from the book put into Italian by the Republic of Italy for his book trial in Florence could come to irritate many Italians, and really rain on his parade in the months coming up.
Good reporters should perhaps press Knox to release the Italian version of her own book and let Italy have a close look.
Their publication along with some other articles has resulted in both Oggi and Knox facing a trial in Bergamo. The statute of limitations on the entire book itself expires in 2017. If and when Italy targets all of Knox’s malicious claims she could find her parade rained on too.
Both books are available globally in the Kindle edition and so a few English-speaking Italians have read them that way. The only version of Knox’s book that was officially sold in Europe was in German. There’ve been no others so far though a Spanish translation may exist.
None of the other English-language pro-Knox books have been put into Italian either. In fact the only book translated into Italian that takes Italy to task is The Monster of Florence by Spezi and Preston - and that one is quite different (very toned down) from the edition in the UK and US.
Back here on Planet Earth, various objective books on the case have been written and published in Italian, which kinda shoots Francesco’s claim in the foot that there is no interest among publishers there.
Those books are mostly quite classy affairs, carefully researched. All the books (like TJMK) essentially concentrate on explaining the prosecution’s case in depth, and those from late 2009 all saw “case proven” after the Knox and Sollecito lawyers put on an ineffective defense. There isn’t even one which says Italian officials maybe got it wrong.
The Knox people sued Corriere for damages over the Sarzanini book and in the third round won, but that was only because the book published excerpts from Knox’s prison diaries - which her own people had put around - which invaded the privacy of others she mentioned.
The Sarzanini book is still on sale in Italy and was not ordered withdrawn, so Knox at most won half a loaf via her case.
Our main poster Yummi has at various times pointed out that over 100 prosecutors and judges have been assasinated in the anti-mafia fight. Hate stirred up in the US for Italian officials is of real concern, because it could have a nut with a gun headed to Italy to “even the score”. Hate messages have been received.
Hate is still being perpetually beamed at the real victim’s suffering family as well. That started way back in 2008. There is zero precedent for that - in fact the US and UK and Italy all have strong anti-harrassment laws.
So Knox and Sollecito, and by extension Sforza and Fischer and Moore and so on, will face put-up-or-shut-up time in court on a whole row of claims which appear to Italy malicious and wrong.
Italy wants a searchlight cast on those. It is for this reason above all that the book trials will take place. To wind back the hate, and to cast light.
This whole publishing scene (really two parallel publishing scenes) is absolutely unique in the world. It shows in stark terms the cowardice of the “public relations” wave of defamation which Curt Knox brought alive in 2007 and beamed away from Italian speakers.
No wonder Amanda Knox could not bear to head for Florence late last year for her own appeal - or “new trial” as she still seems to suppose. Her team has burned too many boats.
Gee thanks dad for that….
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (24)
Thursday, July 24, 2014
Nervous Of Cassation, Sollecito Backpedals On Foolish Rome Press Conference & Foolish Masters Thesis
Posted by Peter Quennell
1. Sollecito Backpedals On Recent Claims
Wait long enough, and all the lawyer-mandated backpedaling may come to look like the Tour de France in reverse.
If this really was Amanda Knox on the ABC website in the last day or two, and not a hoax threat against Sollecito, Knox referring to the Nencini appeal court as “corrupt” and Cassation as “not as corrupt” with a favorable mention of the Hellmann court (which really was corrupt) is not something her lawyers would want on the public record.
If R. was accusing me of something, I would defend myself and he would lose everything and he knows it. We are working side by side. The Italian court made a mistake last time, that was not a fair trial, the judge was unfair. There is no evidence against us, we are both innocent I believe we will get a fair trial and a fair judgement this time. I am certain that the Italian Supreme court is not as corrupt as the previous court.
For the record (and it really is time Knox understood this) there has only been one trial and that was very fairly and efficiently run in 2009. Then she and Sollecito chose to appeal, the Hellmann appeal was annulled for bad law and extreme bias, and the Florence appeal (which Knox stiffed from afar) was a repeat of her own appeal fairly and efficiently run in Florence at her own request.
There will be no new trial, ever. And how does Knox know the Nencini court was corrupt? She was skulking on the other side of the planet.
Today the Italian media are reporting that the new edition of Oggi (which does not put major stories online) is carrying an interview with Sollecito, backpedaling on what are being seen in Italy as two attempts to lean on the Supreme Court.
One attempt was his foolish study of social media as a component of his belated masters degree at the University of Verona, in which he magically concluded it “proved” he was innocent. From Oggi.
It’s hurtful to me and to the judges to think that its intent can be taken as to influence them. I wanted to make an academic experiment after discovering that, on the day when I was sentenced in Florence and in the following days, the interest in my story on social networks surged. All I did was make an analysis of site traffic, generated by the news of the sentence, including the study of the flow of comments and balance between colpevolisti and innocentisti.
Okay, except for the missing bits about the actual hard evidence, and the absence at that point of the Nencini sentencing report, and the million-dollar public relations campaign, and the raging anti-Italianism stoked by the American campaign and by the dozens of American wannabees eager to jump-start new careers off the back of this.
And the fact that maybe 95% of Italy are convinced that he and Knox are guilty. Maybe the University of Verona just couldn’t wait to see the back of him.
The other attempt was his foolish press conference in Rome three weeks ago. See this excellent post by our posting lawyer SomeAlibi showing how Sollecito trampled on his own past claims. This is the kind of thing that sharp-eyed Italian judges always notice. SomeAlibi concluded as follows:
So what was the point? Face-saving for Raffaele? Hoping to key up populist support? Fat chance in Italy, where the case has been properly reported.
An opportunity to allude to a “truth” (the best one he can think of for now – other truths are available) and say that he and his family believe Knox is innocent? Pull the other one Raffaele!
It is quite clear that several members of the Sollecito clan think that Knox absolutely is guilty and their Raffaele is still too “honourable” to tell the truth. He merely aided the clean-up perhaps. Well in that case, why hasn’t he said exactly when she came back? Was it 11pm? 1am? Was it at 5am when the music starts playing. Why won’t he or you say?
Or… was it face-saving for Bongiorno, as she faces defeat and seeks to protect her valued public persona? Well, as much as I’ve tried, I have no idea what they thought they were doing.
2. Many Other Candidates For Backpedaling
Like Knox, Sollecito has an exceptionally damaging paper trail, all of it available online and quite obvious to sharp-eyed Italian judges. In posts and a book written exclusively for an English speaking audience, it heavy-handedly impugns the Italian justice system and those in it and how it actually works.
Here’s one example. Last January the Florence appeal court placed the 2009 trial sentencing report back at front and center. Take a look at what Sollecito thinks of its author.
Here’s another example. When his book first came out late in 2012 his father Francesco had to distance himself on Italian national TV from a claim that prosecutors wanted Sollecito to frame Knox.
And here are seven more examples from Sollecito’s book, most of them identified by our posting lawyer James Raper, of Sollecito impuging the Italian justice system. All of these come from the first few pages of the book; there are dozens more later.
That Italy is a medieval country with a primitive justice system.
It could have been Colonel Mustard in the drawing room with the revolver; instead it was Amanda and Raffaele in the bedroom with the kitchen knife. How was it conceivable that a democratic country known for its style and beauty and effortless charm—the Italy of the Renaissance and la dolce vita—could allow two young people to be catapulted to international notoriety and convicted of a horrific crime on the basis of nothing at all?
This is not remotely what happened. There was very far from nothing at all. Convictions in the US and UK regularly result based on evidence 1/10 or 1/100 of that here - sometimes from one single evidence point. Any one or several of maybe 100 evidence points here could have convicted them in a US or UK court.
That the courts are the most reviled institution in Italy.
Many Italians retain a healthy skepticism about the reliability of their procedures and rulings. The courts—tainted by politics, clubbishness, pomposity, and excruciating delays—are the most reviled institution in the country.
As our Sollecito Book pages make clear again and again and again, the Italian system is remarkably NOT tainted by politics, as even the most surperficial watcher of the trials of ex Prime Minister Sylvio Berlusconi would know.
Our Italian poster Machiavelli (Yummi), who posted our deep analysis of the appeal to the Supreme Court by Dr Galati, has provided these hard facts:
For comparison, in 2011 the percentage of Italians who declared they trust the justice system “a lot” or “enough” was 53.3%. By comparison, the percentage of Italians who declared they trust the government “a lot” or “enough” were 14.7%, and those who trust the parliament were only 15%.
In 2012, the percentage of Italians who trust the parliament is now only 9.5%, and those who trust the Mario Monti administration are only 21.1%.
Over the eight years from 2004 to 2012 the percentage of Italians who trust the justice system was always bigger than those who trust parliament or government by at least ten points, and in some years we can see a spread of 20, 30, even 39 percentage points achieved by the judiciary over the parliament and government.
However, some cases of corruption (such as our Hellmann-Zanetti case, but also several others indicated by the Rapporto Italia 2012) do hamper trust.
The most trusted institutions in Italy above all are the Carabinieri (74% of Italians trust them) and the Polizia di Stato (71%).
Which means the most trusted institutions are precisely those law enforcement instruments which are deployed to enforce the orders of prosecutors.
That the prosecutors office and media are in a grim embrace.
The answer has something to do with the grim embrace that developed between the prosecutor’s office and the sensationalist media. Like addicts constantly looking for the next fix, each fed the other’s insatiable appetite for titillation and attention. The casual cruelty of “Foxy Knoxy” and her Italian lover became too good a story line to abandon, even when it became apparent it was overheated and unsustainable. Our suffering was the price to be paid for the world’s continuing entertainment.
WHAT grim embrace? WHAT addicts? WHAT fix? WHAT insatiable appetite? WHAT titillation and attention? This is clearly defamatory if it can’t be proven, and we can turn up no evidence that any of it is true. It has to be one of the most foolish lies in the entire book, it is so easy to disprove. These who are being accused of crimes here are career police and prosecutors secure in their jobs, and none have the slightest gain to make from false convictions.
That in the justice system speculation and hearsay run rampant
The meandering complexities of the Italian legal system, where speculation and hearsay are allowed to run rampant and time invariably slows to a maddening trickle, did little to help our cause.
Total mischaracterization. First note that by comparison with any country in the world THERE IS NOT MUCH CRIME IN ITALY. There is some minor corruption and still some minor mafia action, but thefts and burglaries and assaults are few and murders even fewer. The main crime if you can call it such is not lining up to pay taxes. Italy’s murder rate is 1/6 that of the United States and its prison incarceration rate is 1/30 that of the United States, so where IS all this crime about which the claimed speculation and hearsay are running rampant?
The legal process could have been fully over by the end of 2009 if (1) there was not the entitlement to two automatic appeals; in UK and US terms there was very little to appeal about; and (2) the Hellmann appeal court had not been fixed to produce a corrupt outcome, as the displaced judge Sergio Matteini Chiari and Cassation and the Council of Magistrates have all made plain.
And compared to American police and prosecutors, their Italian counterparts are famously taciturn under their unusually firm rules. There is media interest, for sure, as there should be when there are crimes, but that also is comparatively restrained. Watch the various Porta a Porta shows on YouTube and you will see how sedate crime discussion tends to be.
The Constitution and judicial code set out to achieve the exact opposite of speculation and hearsay affecting justice, and they do so. Creating this restraint is a primary reason for the judges’ sentencing reports and all the magistrates’ checks of investigations along the way.
This whole series of dishonest claims about the the Italian system in the preface of the book and in a later chapter have clearly not been read through or okayed by even a single Italian lawyer.
That in Italy proof beyond a reasonable doubt scarcely exists
For reasons deeply embedded in the country’s history, the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt scarcely exists in Italy, and the very notion of undisputed fact is viewed with suspicion, if not outright aversion.
So Gumbel and Sollecito are historians and legal experts now? It would be nice, wouldn’t it, if either were able to explain the remark. This may be an ignorant swipe at the Napoleonic Code on which the law of a lot of continental Europe is based. Ignored is that Italy carried out its own reforms to the Code in 1990 and more subsequently. Much of that reform, it should be pointed out, was procedural or structural rather than substantive law.
There are two things wrong with “..the concept of reasonable doubt scarcely exists in Italy.”
1. It is factually wrong. Italian jurists, the courts, and so on, are well acquainted with the concept as it has been a fundamental aspect of criminal proceedings in Italy as elsewhere for many decades if not centuries.
2. It suggests that Italians are not intelligent enough to understand the concept anyway. That of course is an insult to Italians. Actually they are no less intelligent than the rest of us elsewhere who strive to understand it.
Until the 1990 Reforms the relationship between criminal and civil proceedings in Italy were governed by the principles of unity of jurisdiction and the prevailing status of criminal proceedings. Hence, if the facts were the same then criminal proceedings (to punish the guilty) and civil proceedings (to render liable the guilty for damages) were heard at the same time and still sometimes are, as in the Meredith Kercher case.
What has changed (relevant to the above quote) is that civil cases can be and are more likely to be heard independently from the related criminal cases and, where not, the standard of proof in civil cases (the preponderance of evidence or, as we usually refer to it, the balance of probabilities) is to be applied to the civil case, and the civil case only, rather than be confused with or overriden by the criminal standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt).
Not an easy task, admittedly, to apply different standards to different tasks, based on the same facts, in the same proceedings, but Italian judges are trained to do this because that is their system. No judge would EVER confuse “beyond reasonable doubt” with “the balance of probabilities” when the issue at stake is depriving an individual of his freedom.
That the Italian judiciary has vast, unfettered powers
Few in Italian society wield as much unfettered power as the robed members of the judiciary, whose independence makes them answerable to nobody but themselves.
Radically the opposite of the truth. The paranoid claim reads like it came from ex PM Berlusconi fearful of his own conviction or one of his parliamentary lackeys such as Girlanda.
All of the best judges in the world are independent and they all follow a demanding career path, not elected (as ex-Judge Heavey was) under zero criteria, or appointed under the political sway of politicians. We wonder if Gumbel and Sollecito have ever heard of the US Supreme Court? Do those judges answer to anybody? No? How unfettered.
That prosecutors can spin their cases into any shape they please.
Because the Italian legal system is almost completely blind to precedent and relies on a tangle of impenetrable codes and procedures, prosecutors and judges have almost boundless freedom to spin their cases into any shape they please and create legal justifications on the fly. Often, they are more interested in constructing compelling narratives than in building up the evidence piece by piece, a task considered too prosaic and painstaking to be really interesting.
Whoever wrote this either wasnt an Italian or a lawyer, and either way didnt have much of a clue. The entire Italian system under the post WWII constitution was designed to PREVENT what Sollecito & Gumbel claim it allows here.
There are checks and balances and reviews every step of the way. Magistrates (initially Matteini here) determine what a prosecutor may do in developing and presenting a case. Parties may appeal to the Supreme Court AT ANY TIME as Knox’s lawyers did over her second written confession - which she herself had demanded to make in front of Dr Mignini after he finished warning her of her rights.
Hard for Sollecito & Gumbel to believe, perhaps, but the defense is actually present in the same courtroom. They can raise points of order at any time. So can the defendants themselves, at any time, something maybe unique in the world.
And judges actually have minds of their own. And then there are the unique written sentencing reports, and the two automatic appeals if any parties want to pursue them.
Sollecito & Gumbel should have read the 2012 Galati appeal more closely. The Prosecution’s Appeal To The Supreme Court is available in English here. Precedent has a section to itself - “The non-observance of the principles of law dictated by the Cassation Court in the matter of circumstantial cases (Article 606(b)) in relation to Article 192 paragraph 2 Criminal Procedure Code.”
Well, that’s precedent, via the Court of Cassation no less! How surprising from Gumbel/Sollecito that they should make that claim about ignoring precedent when in fact there it is, going right to the heart of the flawed Hellmann/Zanetti judgement on circumstantial evidence! What else is a Code but in effect a codification, a gathering together, a rationalisation, of best law - and precedent?
There is an absurd irony here, were they aware of it. Perhaps they are. Surely it is Hellmann and Zanetti who have displayed “a boundless freedom” in spinning the case “into any shape they please”, and who have “created legal justifications on the fly”? As for prosecutors doing this, at least Dr Mignini followed the evidence, and American readers may recall the infamous Jim Garrison, the DA hero of Oliver Stone’s movie “JFK” but who in reality, unlike Dr Mignini, was a total and utter crackpot.
And what issue exploded the Porta a Porta TV show in Italy in September 2012? It was Sollecito’s false claim that the prosecution had secretly tried to offer him a deal if he would roll over on Knox. NOBODY including his own father and his own lawyers confirmed him. Evidence against both was overwhelming. Nobody needed such a deal, and Italian prosecutors are highly rules-bound against ever offering such deals.
Sollecito was in effect accusing Dr Mignini of a felony with this much-repeated false claim in his book. (In her book Knox also accused Dr Mignini of a felony.)
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (3)
Friday, July 18, 2014
Knox Camp Illusions: Multiple Examples Of How RS And AK Have Tried To Apply More Blame To The Other
Posted by The TJMK Main Posters
Not a very accurate report (“drifter”?) but it IS CNN and the main point comes across
How Sollecito and Knox So Threaten One Another
The other day, a claim was posted that claimed sources had said Knox would soon accuse Sollecito.
This inspired quite an outcry, and the claim’s heavy-handed suppression. Can you believe: by legal means? That claim really rattled a few cages.
Why was the claim so dangerous? Because for nearly seven years Sollecito and Knox have repeatedly cycled between occasional chummy hugs and numerous aggrieved potshots. And for the most part the more-aggrieved Sollecito has come out ahead.
- In 2007 (see below) Sollecito really dropped Knox in the drink and both fired off a lot of potshots.
- From 2008 right through 2011, desperate for confirmation of an alibi, an anxious Knox beamed pleas at a sullen Sollecito, for example in the form of love letters she wrote, and a public request to have a private chat.
- From 2012 upon provisional release it was Knox being sullen and hard to get and Sollecito in puppy-dog mode. He might have been driven by a genuine desire for a renewed relationship, but a bid to set himself up safely in the United States might have made Knox wonder if this was true love.
- And from mid 2013 public potshots have been fast and furious, many now on Twitter, and Italy in particular is closely watching the show and waits agog as the justice system applies more and more pressure.
Our main posts tracking this dont (for now) include the numerous veiled potshots in the RS and AK books, the reason being that we are waiting for the Florence and Bergamo prosecutors’ new charges for what they identify as the defamatory claims in each book to be made public. As usual we are tracking them closely, rather than jumping the gun, to avoid confusion.
Some of the potshots were active-aggressive (as in: they actually complain about one another) and some are passive-aggressive (as in: they try to help themselves but conspicuously ignore the other.)
You can sample both flavors below.
1. The year 2007
Our emerging Interrogation Hoax series quotes multiple witnesses testifying how quickly and decisively Knox and Sollecito got off to a fast start in dropping the other in the drink. Too many posts of relevance to include all here, but see this.
From 6 November 2007 Knox and Sollecito were kept separated, and were not allowed to talk. (That continued to late 2011.) Sollecito was pretty easy to read: he had little interest in talk. A sulky silence was his norm.
1. On 6 November Sollecito’s statement to Inspectors Moscatelli and Napoleoni included this about Knox :
I know Amanda for two weeks. From the evening I first met her she started sleeping at my house.
The first of November I woke up about 11.00, I had breakfast with Amanda, then she went out and I went back to bed. I then met up with her at her house around 13.00-14.00. In there was Meredith who left in a hurry about 16.00 without saying where she was going.
Amanda and I went to the [town] centre about 18.00 but I don’t remember what we did. We remained in the centre till 20.30 or 21.00.
I went to my house alone at 21.00, while Amanda said that she was going to the pub Le Chic because she wanted to meet with her friends.
At this point we said goodbye. I went home, I made a joint. Had dinner, but I don’t remember what I ate. About 23.00 my father called me on my house phone line.
I recall Amanda was not back yet.
I web surfed on the computer for two more hours after my father’s phone call and I only stopped when Amanda came back in, presumably about 01.00…
In my previous statement I told a load of rubbish because Amanda had convinced me of her version of the facts and I didn’t think about the inconsistencies.
2. Yikes. Knox finds her best alibi yanked. Not so long after, possibly knowing about this, Knox comes out with a statement which points at Sollecito in turn.
I don’t know for sure if Raffaele was there that night [during the attack on Meredith] but I do remember very well waking up at my boyfriend’s house, in his bed, and I went back to my house in the morning where I found the door open.
3. Then on 8 November 2007 Sollecito submitted a statement to Judge Matteini which began “I never want to see Amanda again. Above all, it is her fault we are here.”
4. There were multiple further instances throughout the rest of 2007, quotes of which will be included soon in the Knox Interrogation Hoax series.
2. The Year 2008
1. Click here for Sollecito Turns On Knox? This Is Extraordinary…
In October toward the end of Guede’s trial and RS’s and AK’s remand for trial Sollecito’s DNA expert testifies to Judge Micheli that he found Knox’s DNA on Meredith’s bra and bra-clasp.
2. Click here for Sollecito Family Trial: On The Component About Their Alleged Attempt At Political Interference
Francesco Sollecito phone conversation in March 2008 with Vanessa captured by the Carabinieri in which he shows his extreme distrust and dislike of Knox who he blames for RS’s plight.
3. The Year 2009
1. Click here for Trial: Defendant Noticeably Bubblier Than Meredith’s Sad Friends
This kind of callous, flippant behavior by Knox had the entire court backed off, not least the Sollecito team which had no desire to be chained to this seeming dangerous nut.
2. Click here for Sollecito Not To Be Trumped By Knox Antics In The Female Wing Of Capanne
While RS and AK didnt have access to one another they sure had access to the media and in the Italian media a competitive Sollecito posted a steady stream of stories
3. Click here for Trial: Knox Claimed Not To Have Been At The House On The Night
Knox suddenly claims this, despite contrary 2007 claims by both Knox & Sollecito, which messes with Sollecito’s alibi that he was at home alone on the computer.
4. Click here for Seems Sollecito Is Feeling Really Sorry - For Himself (So What’s New?)
Sollecito tries to give himself an edge over AK by being extra-whiny about how awful he finds prison, and the distasteful little people he was being made to mix with.
4. The Year 2010
1. Click here for How Each of The Three Subtly But Surely Pushed The Other Two Closer to The Fire
The Knox team avoided this popular Porta a Porta TV series, maybe too scared of hard questions, while the Sollecito lawyers and family used it to promote suspicion of AK and Guede.
2. Click here for Newsweek Report From Italy On Damage Shrill Campaign Is Doing To Knox’s Interests & America’s Image
The shrill Knox campaign was irritating Italians and so hurting Sollecito’s image and prospects and it was not shoring up his own story. Bongiorno especially disliked the campaign.
3. Click here for Rocco Girlanda’s Strutting Manic Grinning Intrusion Seems A Major Danger To Sollecito/Knox Harmony
The strange kinky Member of Parliament (now voted out) paid numerous visits to Knox (“monitoring conditions”) and tried some nasty (though ineffective) political tricks - but not for Sollecito.
4. Click here for The Knox Movie: Sollecito Reported Angry - Real Risk That His Defense Could Break Away From Knox’s
The Sollecito camp had a strong belief that the Knox camp was behind this TV movie and so they fought it, though it turned out quite even-handed and the RS role was minor.
5. The Year 2011
1. Click here for Sollecito Defense Team Breaking From Knox Defense Team On Legal Measures To Stop Lifetime Movie
Further differences reported here between the two camps on the Lifetime movie which until it was aired was believed to favor Knox and build a case for her innocence.
2. Click here for Tenth Appeal Court Session: Might Today’s Testimony Give Sollecito More Of An Advantage Than Knox?
After his team’s (attempted) discounting of the main evidence at Meredith’s house against Sollecito, Knox’s position looks way worse, as she has motives both for killing and cover-up.
6. The Year 2012
1. Click here for In Desperation A Council Of War? All Of The Sollecito Family Suddenly Hop On Flights To Seattle
Sollecito is the one now in puppy-dog mode, though his father has said publicly that the relationship with Knox is at an end; here the RS family sets out for Seattle to try to make it so.
2. Click here for Sollecito’s Book Honor Bound Hits Italy And Already Scathing Reactions And Legal Trouble
Sollecito’s book, which subtly promotes Knox’s guilt, runs into legal trouble for false claims, which could also impact Knox’s claims and legal future. His seeming sticking with Knox damages Bongiorno’s defense strategy.
3. Click here for Will Sollecito Drop Amanda Knox In It Further In A Public Seattle Interview At 7:00 PM Tonight?
Sollecito’s American book promotion tour often went badly and he seemed unaware of what was in his own book; though once again he was making out Knox was guiltier. His defense team despise the book.
7. The Year 2013
1. Click here for Knox & Sollecito Meet - To Attempt To Bury The Hatchet Other Than In Each Other?
The second public Sollecito attempt to end up with Knox, who already had chips on her shoulders about him but went through this charade. Soon, they were back to whacking one another.
2. Click here for Seeds Of Betrayal: Sollecito Twice More Implies Evidence Against Knox Much Stronger Than Against Him
Sollecito sustains this steady drum-beat of putting Knox down, highlighting the evidence against her, repeatedly saying he stuck with her despite no evidence against him (no deal helping RS was ever offered).
3. Click here for Seeds Of Betrayal: In Interview Knox Reveals To Italy Her Considerable Irritation With Sollecito
Knox does an extended interview with Oggi (for which she and Oggi are being charged) lying about officials and the evidence, but also uttering her angriest blast yet against Sollecito.
8. The Year 2014
1. Click here for Rejected Yet Again By Knox, Sollecito Seems Frantic To Avoid What Might Be A Final Return To Italy
Sollecito (like Sforza) was desperately looking for someone to marry him, to keep him in the US. Kelsey Kay was briefly interested, but he dumped her; he had told her Knox had recently turned him down.
2. Click here for As Knox & Sollecito Try To Separate Themselves, Each Is Digging The Other In Deeper
Sollecito is clearly trying to distance himself from Knox now, claiming that there is far more evidence against her than against him. Knox’s irritation with him is growing.
3. Click here for What We Might Read Into Sollecito Lawyer Giulia Bongiornos Final Arguments To The Appeal Judges
Bongiorno shows contempt for Knox; she effectively conveys the sense of the RS family that a crazed Knox dragged RS into this. She see the RS book as a pro-Knox con job by her team.
4. Click here for Spitting In the Wind: Sollecito News Conference Backfires On Him AND Knox - What The Media Missed
Really irritated at the US-written RS book, Bongiorno goes a long way to separating the two perps in the minds of Italians; however RS hedges a little though, after having said the evidence points only to Knox.
Knox As Present Big Loser; Where Next For Her?
These are not all of our posts which include talk of this pushing and pulling, and it happened so frequently that often we simply passed on posting for fear of monotony.
The war by other means continues on Twitter and briefly it hit the crazy-for-Knox Ground Report website. Much damage to Knox is already done, and Italians adamantly want her in prison.
Even in the US the media have cooled on Knox, and as her dwindling supporters become wilder and wilder they too do harm to her paid-for nice-girl image.
A brighter family and paid team would now be saying “It is time for a Plan B and doing something to warm up Italy”.
Archived in Officially involved, Amanda Knox, Raff Sollecito, Public evidence, Knox's alibis, Sollecito's alibis, Crime hypotheses, On psychology, Diversion efforts by, The Knox-Mellases, The Sollecitos
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (37)
Tuesday, July 15, 2014
Crazed Overkill Of Knox PR Causes Not Only A Sollecito-Camp Reaction But Hurt To Knox Herself
Posted by Peter Quennell
Act 1. Hubris Of The Knox Public Relations Described
A long report on Marriott’s PR appeared late in 2011 after Knox was provisionally released.
David Marriott never visited Amanda Knox during her four years in an Italian prison. He met her this month, when she stepped off a plane in Seattle.
Yet for Knox and her family, Marriott was as important a player in her ordeal as anyone in the courtroom. As Knox’s publicist, beginning three days after her arrest, Marriott worked to convince the international public that she did not murder her British roommate while studying in Perugia.
“Hiring him was one of the smartest things we ever did,” said Curt Knox, Amanda’s father.
The article goes on to describe how family and friends were pushed into the limelight and specific big TV networks targeted. It talks about great financial opportunities for Knox.
Marriott himself demonstrates no understanding of the case - in fact. he sounds proud of his ignorance and his reflexively anti-Italy stance. To a smarter Curt Knox those might have been red flags.
Act 2: Brutal Overkill Of A Flailing Campaign Described
In October 2013 our main poster Media Watcher laid the blame for the slow-moving Knox media cooling at David Marriott’s door.
Now The Examiner is only one of many preparing to take another retaliatory whack.
Public relations is perfectly understandable for celebrities, politicians, or executives, but murder suspects too? At first this aggressive proliferation of pro-Knox articles, tweets and commentary were justified as a defense against the European media’s negative portrayal of her. However, as time wore on, the overpowering presence of Knox’s media campaign has reached outlandish proportions.
Nowadays no blogger is safe to write a factual article about the Meredith Kercher Murder Case without contemptuous comments filling up their Disqus community. Patient webmasters at CNN.com must brace themselves for the onslaught of tens of thousands of interjections cluttering up each and every news article concerning the Meredith Kercher cum Amanda Knox murder case. Mob mentality seems to have taken over Knox’s PR initiative. Knox’s advocates have gone so far as to aim their crosshairs on the victim’s family.
The article, very well researched so far as it goes (it omits the third act below) goes on to describe how Sollecito’s camp has had to open a PR front to unchain Sollecito from Knox.
Act 3: How Knox Herself Is Losing Big Described
Know your enemy. Dont go about attacking the king unless you can kill him dead. Italy’s Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) wrote about it in The Prince:
If one is striking out at an opponent, one should make sure that the fatal blow is struck, successfully ending the confrontation. Machiavelli wrote that “the injury that is to be done to a man ought to be of such a kind that one does not stand in fear of revenge.”
Wise words for Marriott and Curt Knox. They have remained steadfastly ignorant of the enemy. The attack has clearly failed. Wall-to-wall Italy now has the upper hand. And the PR is a millstone around Knox’s neck.
Here are seven of the ways the Knox-Marriott campaign has fallen short and has actually done real harm.
- 1) The real case for conviction remains rock-solid with many times the number of evidence points that a US or UK court would require for guilt.
2) No paper trail helpful to Knox exists between the American Embassy and the State Department, and the extradition agreement is precise and firm.
3) Knox’s bedrock claim, that she was pressured into a false accusation, not only cost her three years for calunnia but will cost her a defamation trial.
4) The defamatory Knox book that was the windfall David Marriott so jubilantly talks about is turning into an albatross around Knox’s neck.
5) The bloodmoney windfall will not remain Knox’s to keep, under Italian and American laws, and even Marriott’s fees could be at risk.
6) The PR is being unresponsive to ANY damaging claims, such as Knox’s attempted framing of Mignini, and its output is increasingly surreal junk.
7) The PR is making the Sollecito camp hostile, Italian media too; at the same time, since the failed appeal, the US media have chilled.
And so we see the slow death of a campaign built on xenophobia, racism, personal abuse, zero understanding of the details of the case, and zero understanding of the real Italy and its law.
Italy is actually rather a sucker for confession and penitence. Against a famously impervious justice system, the hard line was a terrible, terrible mistake.
Archived in Officially involved, Amanda Knox, Raff Sollecito, Public evidence, Knox's alibis, Sollecito's alibis, Diversion efforts by, The Knox-Mellases, The Sollecitos, The wider contexts, Italian context
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (19)
Friday, July 11, 2014
The Knox Interrogation Hoax #9: Officer Moscatelli’s Recap/Summary Session With Sollecito 5-6 Nov
Posted by The TJMK Main Posters
1. What Really Happened on 5-6 November
The intros to Posts #1 to #8 explain what really happened at Knox’s recap/summary session on 5-6 November 2007.
In a sentence: Knox was there unwanted and grumpy, was advised to go and sleep, refused, agreed to build a list of possible perps (she listed seven, including Rudy Guede), spontaneously broke into a wailing conniption over a message she sent to Patrick, was semi-calmed-down and repeatedly provided with refreshments, and insisted on writing three statements without a lawyer, all of which said she went out on the night of the attack, all framing Patrick, one even pointing at Sollecito.
Posts #1 to #8 included all the testimony from three police staff (Ficcara, Zugarini, Donnino) who sat with Knox, and then some of the testimony from Napoleoni (who was mainly with Sollecito) and Giobbi (an officer from Rome who was elsewhere in the questura and overheard Knox’s conniption).
Inspector Daniele Moscatelli was also from the national police in Rome. He had previously questioned the boys who lived downstairs, and on 5-6 November he led the discussion with Sollecito, who was in a room some distance from Knox. On this night, the subject was to be some discrepancies in Sollecito’s phone records. Expectations were low, and many others were still being similarly questioned.
There was some limited interaction with Rita Ficcara’s recap/summary session with Amanda Knox, so the claims made here and their timing will become very important.
This will already be a long post, and the last for now on testimony from the police. So we’ll highlight all the devils in the details of all this police testimony in our next post. This translation is by Catnip and is also posted on the excellent wiki.
2. Testimony Of Inspector Daniele Moscatelli
Prosecutor Mignini: You have carried out investigations on the death of Meredith Kercher?
Daniele Moscatelli: Yes.
Prosecutor Mignini: Do you remember when you had arrived in Perugia and what activity you’d carried out?
Daniele Moscatelli: I’d arrived in Perugia on the 2nd of November, in the late afternoon, from Rome, together with Deputy Commissioner Adjunct Giobbi, Doctor Edgardo Giobbi , in the late afternoon. We arrive in Perugia and we proceed to Via della Pergola, where on the outside of the house we find already present on site the Prosecutor, the Perugia Flying Squad and the Scientific Police. I was asked, almost immediately, to the offices of the Flying Squad to carry out SIs of potential witnesses who, one by one, were asked to the offices of the Flying Squad. This had happened on the 2nd.
Prosecutor Mignini: You’d entered into the apartment at Via della Pergola?
Daniele Moscatelli: No, absolutely not, I immediately was asked… then other colleagues from Rome also arrived and were assigned to this type of activity.
Prosecutor Mignini: Then?
Daniele Moscatelli: I personally was asked to go to the Marches, to Port Saint George, if I’m not mistaken, to verify the depositions, the testimonies given by the neighbors who were below the apartment where the murder had occurred, on the 3rd.
Prosecutor Mignini: The following day you carried out normal office activity, witness statements and so on, up until the 5th, specifically the evening of the 5th, when we heard Mr Sollecito’s SI.
Prosecutor Mignini: Can you say… at what time you had heard him?
Daniele Moscatelli: The evening around half past ten, ten forty in the evening, 22:30-22:40, also because I remember I was called on the phone, I don’t remember by whom, and he said that he was having dinner because he was given the time to dine and then to come into the Perugia Flying Squad’s offices.
Prosecutor Mignini: At what time had you completed the statement?
Daniele Moscatelli: The statement, at 3:30-3:40 am.
Prosecutor Mignini: Sollecito had asked you to have a lawyer available, to interrupt the statement?
Daniele Moscatelli: Absolutely not.
Prosecutor Mignini: So you had closed the statement normally, without any worry, and he had not asked anything about all of this?
Daniele Moscatelli: No, everything that he was asking for, water and things, was placed at his complete ease, he had everything at his disposal.
Prosecutor Mignini: Do you remember how he was behaving?
Daniele Moscatelli: His behavior was basically confused also because… the statement lasted a while also because of this reason, I repeat, he was placed at complete ease thus with very long pauses, in a manner very, as was relating us, in a very calm manner. In effect he had a basically nervous behavior.
Prosecutor Mignini: Once the statement concluded on the basis of his declarations, what did you do?
Daniele Moscatelli: Look, personally finishing with the statement I was asked by my superiors, I was asked along together with the Perugia Flying Squad to look for Mr Lumumba inasmuch the position of Mr Lumumba had emerged from the declarations of Miss Knox. So then when I re-entered the office it was morning, I was made aware of Mr Sollecito’s arrest and I seized a pair of shoes and a knife he had with him.
Prosecutor Mignini: What knife?
Daniele Moscatelli: A knife…
Prosecutor Mignini: A flick-knife?
Daniele Moscatelli: I don’t remember if it was a flick-knife, however it was a long enough knife, I don’t remember now the technical particulars of the knife.
Prosecutor Mignini: He was carrying it?
Daniele Moscatelli: Yes, yes, he was carrying it. He had it in his pocket and in the light of exactly because of this behaviour that he was displaying, even after the interview, I remember that Deputy Inspector Monica Napoleoni had asked him if he were armed or suchlike and he hands us this knife.
Prosecutor Mignini: Did you ask him for what reason he was carrying it?
Daniele Moscatelli: He was saying that he was a lover of weapons, of knives.
Prosecutor Mignini: Then what did you do? What do you remember? Did you see Amanda that morning?
Daniele Moscatelli: I saw her after because I personally busied myself with activity concerning Sollecito, I saw her in the morning when she was already in a state of arrest.
Prosecutor Mignini: Do you remember how she was behaving?
Daniele Moscatelli: She was very confused, very exhausted I believe, but she was worn-out above all about the fact of her declarations, although she didn’t have a relevant behavior with respect to who knows what.
Prosecutor Mignini: I have no further questions.
Judge Massei: The Civil Parties have no questions; the defense.
Defense Counsel Maori
RS Counsel Maori: Advocate Maori, Sollecito Defense. You, Superintendent, said earlier, in response to the Prosecutor, that you had effected the seizure of the knife and the shoes.
Daniele Moscatelli: Yes.
RS Counsel Maori: For what reasons were the shoes seized? Was there something about these shoes that were leading you back to the crime? Were they bloodstained, was there some other element?
Daniele Moscatelli: They were absolutely not bloodstained, although the shoes were seized in that they were seen, in a position that Sollecito assumed, seated with his legs crossed, in a quite natural position, and concentric circles were noticed on the soles of his shoes which, at the investigative level, could have led somewhere. In the evidence the Scientific Police had recovered a print with these concentric circles, so they were seized for this reason.
RS Counsel Maori: At what time were these shoes seized?
Daniele Moscatelli: In the morning.
RS Counsel Maori: Superintendent, you on the 7th November participated in the seizure of Meredith’s computer and of the clothing that was found in the washing machine?
Daniele Moscatelli: Yes, of the clothing that was in the washing machine.
RS Counsel Maori: On that occasion was a search also done or only…
Daniele Moscatelli: No, no, I on instruction went to the bathroom, the first bathroom on the right of the house, always wearing gloves and shoe-covers, I went there and took the clothing indicated by Ms Filomena Romanelli, inside the washing machine and I brought them to the office.
RS Counsel Maori: Can you describe the course of events, who were you with and what you did?
Daniele Moscatelli: I entered into the house, I put on the gloves and the shoe-covers…
RS Counsel Maori: First of all you had removed the seals?
Daniele Moscatelli: I didn’t remove them personally, with me there was Deputy Commissioner Profazio and Deputy Commissioner Giobbi.
RS Counsel Maori: So there were three of you?
Daniele Moscatelli: There were four of us, if I’m not mistaken, there was also Superintendent Gentili from my office.
RS Counsel Maori: Go on.
Daniele Moscatelli: We entered, I went to the first bathroom on the right with gloves and shoe-covers on, we opened the washing machine, I picked up the clothing with my gloves, put them inside a bag and we took them to the Flying Squad offices.
RS Counsel Maori: You said “I went and we opened”, you mean ‘we went’?
Daniele Moscatelli: I and Superintendent Gentili went into the bathroom.
RS Counsel Maori: And these clothes, where were they put?
Daniele Moscatelli: In a bag, a big bag.
RS Counsel Maori: And this bag, where was it taken from?
Daniele Moscatelli: The bag?
RS Counsel Maori: This bag, where did it come from?
Daniele Moscatelli: From the Flying Squad offices.
RS Counsel Maori: What type of bag was it?
Daniele Moscatelli: A black bag, so that then the clothing amongst other things had been centrifuged and washed, so we put all precautions in place. Then I remember that in the Flying Squad offices they were subdivided according to whether Miss Romanelli recognized them as hers or as belonging to the victim or other occupants of the house.
RS Counsel Maori: This black bag is a rubbish bag so to speak?
Daniele Moscatelli: Yes, like a rubbish bag.
RS Counsel Maori: That you had found…
Daniele Moscatelli: No.
RS Counsel Maori: You had gone into the murder house carrying this bag with you?
Daniele Moscatelli: We’d had the bag.
RS Counsel Maori: That you found where?
Daniele Moscatelli: In the Flying Squad offices.
RS Counsel Maori: In a drawer? There was a bag ready for this type of operation or else you had found it there and had thought that…
Daniele Moscatelli: No, we didn’t find it there, it was a bag that had never been used, like everything else that was supplied, and where the clothing centrifuged and washed in the washing machine was put.
RS Counsel Maori: You, before that date, the 7th of November, had never entered into Via della Pergola?
Daniele Moscatelli: No, no.
RS Counsel Maori: You were present at the execution of the provisional arrest warrant naturally?
Daniele Moscatelli: Yes.
RS Counsel Maori: Was this record signed by 36 members of the Perugia Police?
Daniele Moscatelli: Yes.
RS Counsel Maori: Was everyone present?
Daniele Moscatelli: Yes. How were we all present, Counsel?
RS Counsel Maori: Everyone belonging to the Perugia Police, from the Deputy Commissioner right down to the Assistant, so there were 36 people who signed the detention record, were they all present?
Daniele Moscatelli: I didn’t count them, but definitely everyone was present, not that I set myself the task of counting if there were 36 people.
RS Counsel Maori: Also because they couldn’t all fit in the room. Thank you.
Defense Counsel Bongiorno
RS Counsel Bongiorno: Raffaele Sollecito, when was he arrested?
Daniele Moscatelli: The morning of the 6th of November, at 8 am, I believe, the Public Prosecutor disposed the arrest and then the following noon I believe that he was notified.
RS Counsel Bongiorno: From the moment in which the statement was concluded to the moment in which he was arrested, were other investigative activities carried out?
Daniele Moscatelli: Counsel, as regards myself I have already explained to the Court, I, once the statement was concluded, was asked to look for the other suspect.
RS Counsel Bongiorno: While however…
Daniele Moscatelli: Therefore physically I was not there.
RS Counsel Bongiorno: Then I will ask you questions about when you were present. When you were present, did it happen that amongst you police officers you were exchanging information about what was happening in the room in which Knox was being heard and about what was happening in the room in which Sollecito was being heard?
Daniele Moscatelli: Personally no.
RS Counsel Bongiorno: Without the “personally”, I was saying, did it happen that anyone said something, exchanging information from one room to another?
Daniele Moscatelli: Well, maybe when Miss Knox made her final declarations I don’t remember if someone came out of the room, for this I’m saying personally because I’m speaking for myself.
RS Counsel Bongiorno: No, in fact I am asking if these two records were made in such a way that people were shut in in two rooms or whether there was an exchange of information amongst you, someone was saying: “it’s going like this with Sollecito, is it going like that with Knox”?
Daniele Moscatelli: There will also have been, but no…
RS Counsel Bongiorno: If you know, tell me yes, if not no.
Judge Massei: If you recall with precision.
Daniele Moscatelli: With precision, no, I don’t recall.
RS Counsel Bongiorno: Do you remember if someone said: “contradictions are starting to emerge”?
Daniele Moscatelli: With respect to what, sorry?
RS Counsel Bongiorno: These declarations that were being made.
Daniele Moscatelli: No, I don’t recall, I don’t think so.
RS Counsel Bongiorno: Not if you recall, not… what do you mean?
Daniele Moscatelli: I mean that I don’t recall in that I was focused on the activity I was carrying out at the moment.
RS Counsel Bongiorno: The activity that you were carrying out was taking the Sollecito SI, it wasn’t extraneous to the activity if someone was saying: “there’s a contrast with what’s happening in the other room”, that’s why I’m asking you it.
Daniele Moscatelli: I don’t recall.
Judge Massei: You don’t recall if during this activity that you were carrying out with regard to Raffaele Sollecito someone came and said, “but they’re..”?
Daniele Moscatelli: I remember towards the end, when there were the declarations of Ms Knox, someone came but didn’t tell me this thing because I continued to take the Sollecito SI.
Judge Massei: But you heard them?
Daniele Moscatelli: No, I didn’t hear them because in the room we were only…
RS Counsel Bongiorno: I haven’t understood well here then, this person comes in, says this thing and who does he say it to?
Daniele Moscatelli: No, nobody came in, if anything someone went out, Counsel. Maybe Deputy Inspector Napoleoni had gone out, I don’t remember now.
RS Counsel Bongiorno: In the ambit of the whole statement by Sollecito, were contested questions put to Sollecito?
Daniele Moscatelli: Contested in what sense?
RS Counsel Bongiorno: Of incongruities, of something that didn’t add up.
Daniele Moscatelli: No, but it was him who was telling us…
RS Counsel Bongiorno: Were contested questions put or not?
Daniele Moscatelli: No.
RS Counsel Bongiorno: Was it said: “Look, this isn’t so”?
Daniele Moscatelli: No, “Look, this isn’t so” was never said, absolutely. It was him who was saying to us: “No, I made a mistake, I said this, I said it another way”.
RS Counsel Bongiorno: When he said something like that during the statement, you considered interrupting the statement?
Daniele Moscatelli: No, no, never.
RS Counsel Bongiorno: There was no grounds to call a lawyer?
Daniele Moscatelli: There was at that moment no ground to call a lawyer.
RS Counsel Bongiorno: When and of what did the details against Sollecito occur?
Daniele Moscatelli: The details against Sollecito had been produced by the totality of the investigative activity, it’s not that they emerged only from the SI statement, it’s true that the SI statement was opened and closed according to procedure.
RS Counsel Bongiorno: No, in fact that it was opened and closed normally is patently clear. I was asking you because in the course of the statement you were not interrupted, seeing that you then made the arrest.
Daniele Moscatelli: Because evidently at that moment at the closure of the statement no elements had emerged to be able to communicate…
Judge Massei: He has already answered this.
RS Counsel Bongiorno: OK.
Defense Counsel Dalla Vedova
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: I wanted to ask when you had arrived at Via della Pergola, had you noticed the front door of the house?
Daniele Moscatelli: On the 2nd November, you mean?
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: Yes.
Daniele Moscatelli: No, I didn’t notice, we met there outside with the Public Prosecutor and with officers and colleagues from the Flying Squad, there was a brief meeting, I then was asked straight afterwards to the Flying Squad office, I didn’t remain there onsite and I didn’t notice it.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: Afterwards you said you went to Port Saint George?
Daniele Moscatelli: Yes, to Port Saint George the day after.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: Can you expand a bit more on this investigation?
Daniele Moscatelli: That is? On the activity at Port Saint George?
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: Yes, what investigative activity was carried out?
Daniele Moscatelli: We went to verify the alibis that had been given during the witness information given by the neighbors of the house below who were saying that they were present that evening, the night of the homicide, in Port Saint George, and these alibis were checked against other witnesses.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: So you had verified the alibis of the boys who were living underneath?
Daniele Moscatelli: Yes.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: By means of investigative activity always to do with witnesses?
Daniele Moscatelli: Always with witnesses, statements of SI.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: Checks of phone logs?
Daniele Moscatelli: No, I personally had not carried out activity on logs.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: Do you know if activity of this sort had been carried out in regard to the boys?
Daniele Moscatelli: Everyone there had their different tasks, I was doing mine considering that there were two officers, among which one from the Central Operations Service, one from the Flying Squad, other colleagues.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: Who was it who was coordinating the investigations at that moment?
Daniele Moscatelli: The investigations were being coordinated by the officers, by Deputy Commissioner Adjunct Profazio, by Deputy Commissioner Giobbi and by Deputy Commissioner Adjunct Chiacchiera, the officers logically with the Prosecutor.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: Are you aware whether examinations of the phone logs of the boys from the floor below had been carried out?
Daniele Moscatelli: Counsel, you’re asking me the same question.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: No, the question is whether you are aware if they had been carried out.
Daniele Moscatelli: No, I am not aware.
Judge Massei: You have already responded, you did not carry them out.
Daniele Moscatelli: No I didn’t carry them out.
Judge Massei: Though Counsel was asking if to your knowledge…
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: I had asked if anyone else had done them.
Daniele Moscatelli: I am not aware of that, I limited myself only to the tasks that were given to me.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: Obviously the investigation at Port Saint George, what had you confirmed regarding the alibis of these boys?
Daniele Moscatelli: That the boys were present during the night, between the 1st and the 2nd, at Port Saint George.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: Can you be more precise? What had been the element that had guaranteed this presence to you?
Daniele Moscatelli: Witness information and investigative activity.
Judge Massei: Witness information is one thing, investigative activity is the same thing or something else?
Daniele Moscatelli: No, witness information in the sense that there were, once persons totally extraneous to the matter had been heard, they confirmed the presence of the boys at Port…
Judge Massei: So this investigation?
Daniele Moscatelli: Yes, the investigative activity I had led to this logically, to this type of activity.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: For this activity, you made a statement, it’s in the papers?
Daniele Moscatelli: There are the SI statements.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: Because they are not in the papers, therefore I was asking ...
Prosecutor Mignini: The statements of the boys’ declarations, how come they’re not there?
Judge Massei: No, sorry, Counsel was asking about the SIs of the people who would have confirmed…
MC: These are also in the papers.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: I take notice that the Prosecutor says that they are in the papers. I wanted to ask instead a clarification on the evening of the 5th, you have said that at around 3:30 am of the 6th the examination of Sollecito had by then been interrupted and you carried out other investigative activity.
Daniele Moscatelli: No, I did not interrupt the Sollecito activity, once the statement was closed I was then sent off, at the disposition of my superiors.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: I was interested in the activity immediately afterwards, what did you do as investigative activity?
Daniele Moscatelli: I am telling you, Counsel.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: I ask you to answer.
Daniele Moscatelli: Yes, we had gone in search of the other personage who had emerged from the declarations.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: The other personage is Patrick Lumumba?
Daniele Moscatelli: Yes.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: Exactly what activity had you performed?
Daniele Moscatelli: We looked for him with colleagues from Perugia, we gave support to our colleagues from Perugia.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: And you found him?
Daniele Moscatelli: Yes, we found him.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: Around what time?
Daniele Moscatelli: I don’t remember exactly, but there had passed…
Judge Massei: How much time later? How long did it take you?
Daniele Moscatelli: A bit of time had passed, definitely two hours, a good two and a half hours.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: So from half past three, about two and a half hours later you had found Patrick Lumumba?
Daniele Moscatelli: At home.
RS Counsel Bongiorno: Excuse me, Mr President excuse me, I’m loathe to interrupt, but unfortunately it’s happening in court, and it’s not the first time, that prompts are coming from there in back, to the witness, honestly I don’t like this!
Judge Massei: Excuse me…
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: I had not noticed and I find it very grave!
Judge Massei: We must however grasp the opportunity to invite, truly I was looking at the witness…
RS Counsel Bongiorno: Also because I ask them then if there is the possibility they will be reheard?
Judge Massei: All the parties, all the individuals… let’s give a general indication that can always be…
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: Maybe, Mr President, for practical purposes, if we could move the stand and the seat on the other side so the witness …
Judge Massei: Excuse me, everyone is asked to avoid any comment, either by voice or by gesture, in dealings with the witness, who must remain absolutely immunized against any input that could come from outside, it is said now but remains always valid, for the whole debate. If maybe there are these perplexities, the witness and also subsequent witnesses will be invited to look only at the Court.
Daniele Moscatelli: Mr President, I only respectfully look at you.
Judge Massei: In fact, I am continually looking at the witness, although if the parties have noticed something that might have escaped the one now speaking.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: We can change the position of the witness.
Judge Massei: Yes, we can change the position of the witness, if you turn yourself with your chair and the parties are likewise asked, independent of the positioning…
RS Counsel Bongiorno: I wasn’t meaning the Prosecutor.
Judge Massei: No, but everyone is the same.
CP: Then let Counsellor Bongiorno tell who it is.
MC: (incomprehensible – overlap of voices)
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: Seeing that Napoleoni has been named, it seems to me very possible that it’s a visual intersection.
Judge Massei: Excuse me, let’s avoid any more and let’s stay on only what is necessary. We may proceed, look at me all the time, the parties will not care if while they speak they are not being looked at, you will continue to look towards here.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: So Superintendent Moscatelli, I would like to return to my questions. I would like to better understand, specifically the moment after half past three, you had gone searching for Patrick Lumumba and you had found him.
Daniele Moscatelli: Yes.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: Exactly where did you find him?
Daniele Moscatelli: Inside his house.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: What was he doing?
Daniele Moscatelli: I believe he was sleeping because he was wearing…
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: Pyjamas?
Daniele Moscatelli: No, I don’t remember if he was in pyjamas or not, however he was definitely in clothes that were not for early evening.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: Who else was there in the house with him that morning?
Daniele Moscatelli: There was the wife and the little girl [sic].
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: You had carried out investigative examinations on Patrick Lumumba before turning up at his house, on his phone or other types of examination?
Daniele Moscatelli: Personally no.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: Do you know if anyone else had done this type of examination?
Judge Massei: Counsel is asking, other examinations, then if you know whether they were carried out…
Daniele Moscatelli: I believe that someone had done them.
Judge Massei: What type of other examinations had been done?
Daniele Moscatelli: I believe examinations on the phone number or something of the sort, although, Mr President, in an investigation as complex as this it’s very divided up, so I can answer with precision only on what I did.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: Superintendent Moscatelli, who else was present with you in the moment in which you had turned up at Patrick Lumumba’s house?
Daniele Moscatelli: There were present with me, I recall, my office colleagues, but there were present other colleagues from the Perugia Flying Squad, but don’t ask me their names because I don’t remember.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: What happened afterwards? You took Patrick Lumumba and what happened next? From his house, where did you go?
Daniele Moscatelli: To the Flying Squad offices.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: And you then notified his arrest?
Daniele Moscatelli: No, the arrest was notified much later, there was the Prosecutor on site, so all the activity was then coordinated and decided by the Prosecutor.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: We are speaking of the morning of the 6th?
Daniele Moscatelli: Yes, the morning of the 6th.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: You were present at the arrest of Amanda Knox?
Daniele Moscatelli: At the arrest…
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: At the notification of the arrest?
Daniele Moscatelli: At the notification of the arrest, I had signed the arrest in a room, we were all these people, so I was present at the notification because I was there in the Flying Squad office.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: Do you remember at what time? Vaguely, if you recall?
Judge Massei: You may consult the documents, the record, seeing as you participated in it.
Daniele Moscatelli: I ask if I may consult the documents.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: The record was at midday, it had been made at midday…
Daniele Moscatelli: Before midday.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: This is a question still in relation to Patrick Lumumba; did you give him reasons when you had planned to take him away from the house?
Daniele Moscatelli: No, no, absolutely.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: What type of reaction did he have?
Daniele Moscatelli: Normal.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: Normal for a person who has been arrested?
Daniele Moscatelli: Normal for a person who has been arrested… that is, normal in that he wasn’t happy.
Judge Massei: He was sleeping you were saying.
Daniele Moscatelli: No, he opened the door and logically it could be seen that he had been sleeping, then he was told that he had to follow us to the police station, he dressed and came with us to the police station.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: In conclusion, what was the piece of evidence that led you to Lumumba’s house and to look for Lumumba based on what you had, and if there were more than one, what were they?
Daniele Moscatelli: Definitely the declarations of Ms Knox.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: And then?
Daniele Moscatelli: That in sum, then I don’t know if there had been…
Judge Massei: If you know, Counsel is asking, if you know whether there were also other elements.
Daniele Moscatelli: As regards myself, I attended to the instructions received and to the fact that Miss Knox had supplied elements useful to the identification of Lumumba.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: And this element, had it been mentioned to Lumumba immediately after when you had arrested him?
Daniele Moscatelli: Me, no. I had not mentioned it to him.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: Do you remember if someone had mentioned it to him?
Daniele Moscatelli: I don’t remember, Counsel.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: None of your colleagues, you don’t remember anyone of the persons present?
Daniele Moscatelli: I don’t know, Counsel, I as regards… I no, but I repeat I can only answer for the action I effected myself.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: So you don’t remember if anyone put it to him?
Daniele Moscatelli: No, I don’t remember because there were various people, surely there was…
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: In your experience, when an arrest is made, is formal notice given to them?
INT: Objection, Mr President! Let him ask questions on the facts!
Judge Massei: Excuse me, please… Let’s allow the question to be put.
MC: Not with mistaken assumptions!
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: No, there are no mistaken assumptions!
Judge Massei: Please, Counsel.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: There’s a willingness to answer in a very vague manner so I am constrained to investigate, it’s clear that everything is in the documents, but the question was precise, it seems strange to me that a person is arrested without anyone telling him the reason why.
INT: He answered!
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: Seeing that I asked the witness if this information had been brought to the attention of the arrestee.
Judge Massei: Don’t speak all at the same time but let’s also avoid using opinions, “it seems strange to me”, edit out this “strange”, we’re asking questions plain and simple.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: Well, the question was if he remembered if anyone had put the reason to him for which they had gone to arrest him.
Daniele Moscatelli: The answer is: I didn’t do it, someone must have done it, surely.
AK Counsel Dalla Vedova: No other questions.
Judge Massei: I wanted to ask you, at a certain point you in your answers had said that Raffaele Sollecito’s shoes were removed from him..
Daniele Moscatelli: Yes.
Judge Massei: I ask you, the shoes he was wearing?
Daniele Moscatelli: Certainly.
Judge Massei: So he remained… how did he remain? Were other shoes placed at his disposal? Did he remain shoeless?
Daniele Moscatelli: Immediately afterwards he was shoeless, but I believe that then shoes were given to him.
Judge Massei: Do you know that shoes were given to him at what time, for how long did he remain without?
Daniele Moscatelli: If he remained without he remained without for a short while because amongst other things the seizure was done in the morning, then he was accompanied for the successive acts and so if he remained shoeless he remained shoeless for a short while.
Judge Massei: Short means?
Daniele Moscatelli: The time then needed to go and get a pair of shoes.
Judge Massei: You questioned Sollecito alone or was there someone else with you?
Daniele Moscatelli: No, no, there were other colleagues present, my superiors and Saturday crew.
Judge Massei: It’s in the relevant record?
Daniele Moscatelli: Certainly, it’s in the relevant record.
Judge Massei: OK.
Defense Counsel Bongiorno
RS Counsel Bongiorno: Superintendent, so you took your own shoes, some external shoes or in any case you had waited for a search at Sollecito’s house and then had given him his shoes taken from his house?
Daniele Moscatelli: No, not so, I didn’t wait for any search, I went back to seizing his shoes.
RS Counsel Bongiorno: Pardon me, I didn’t explain myself clearly. You had removed Sollecito’s shoes, so he was there without shoes, the President had asked “did you procure other shoes, did you wait, what did you do?” and you said “I believe, I don’t know how long afterwards, however we procured other shoes for him”.
Daniele Moscatelli: Yes.
RS Counsel Bongiorno: I ask you, these other shoes, you found them because they were in the police station, you bought them etc., or in reality he remained shoeless until the search at his house had completed?
Daniele Moscatelli: This I don’t remember.
RS Counsel Bongiorno: Thank you.
Judge Massei: You are aware of the seizure of the knife that was effected, that is of the two knives, in the house that Raffaele Sollecito was living in in Perugia in early November. If you know, on that occasion Raffaele Sollecito accompanied the officers who went to effect it, the officers being Dr Chiacchiera and Finzia?
Daniele Moscatelli: I don’t know, Mr President.
Judge Massei: Very well, you may go.
Archived in Public evidence, Knox's alibis, Diversion efforts by, The Knox-Mellases, Hoaxes about the case, Interrogation hoax, Amanda Knox
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (40)
Thursday, July 10, 2014
Are The Rank-Amateurs With Their Hooks In Knox Dividing Into Two Flocks Of Sheep?
Posted by Peter Quennell
Confusion Increasingly On Display
Publicly berating the Sollecitos, Kerchers, Italy and Europe has had a detrimental effect on Knox’s public persona?
So says Sophie in the forum text above. Smart take. But Clive Wismayer himself has posted some pretty wild accusations against Italian officials which absolutely dont help Knox at all. People like him should go.
Click here for more of those postings by those supposedly helping Knox. (Guede did it alone? Really?) The postings are a month old, but we hear the internal disputes are now way worse. Three obvious problems stand out.
1. The Sollecito Headache
They dont know as a group whether to try to hug Raffaele Sollecito and his family closer, or to nuke them, in the FOA’s usual mode. Some now incline one way, some the other, and it is splitting them apart.
The Sollecito backlash almost certainly isnt done yet. They dont like Knox at all, and further talk of resisting extradition and further demonizing of Italy and justice officials hardly helps them, and will see them back in front of the press.
In no circumstances will Bongiorno ever again let Sollecito get attracted back to the people who have their hooks in Knox - Bongiorno took the harder line at the press conference, and burying the very damaging claims stuffed by the Knox people into Sollecito’s book is sure on her radar now.
2. The Bloodmoney Headache
There’s rarely much money to be made legally out of trashing murder victims and their families and justice officials as the Bruce Fischers have set out to do. Amanda Knox did get a windfall payment out of her hapless book - but is THAT turning into a two-edged sword…
There’s nothing like a huge pot of money unfairly distributed to make people who feel used and unrewarded walk off. So says Clive Wismayer in the text. Knox is clearly acting cheap, maybe because she sees no career ahead, and may have squirreled much of her bloodmoney away for the reasons given here.
Some like Ted Simon seem to have had a very big payday, the lawyers and experts and Marriott and travel and hotels have all had to be paid-for. Media sources tell us that none of their reporters get within miles of Sollecito or Knox without a greedy hand coming out.
And Knox still has to pay the damages awarded to Patrick for maliciously wrecking his life, or risk more time inside.
Knox is to be charged for the false claims in her book on the same lines as Sollecito and the damages awarded could be huge. Knox’s publishers have their own liability, but may have been misled, and if they are made to pay damages, they could set their lawyers on Knox.
3. The False-Labels Headache
That “guilters” smear used freely in the text above is an albatross around their necks. It stops them seeing straight and being fully informed and (especially) trying to convince in reasonable terms.
Competent American lawyers and PR would have stopped Knox supporters painting themselves into such a corner long ago on the grounds that it just doesnt work. They dont know their enemy as a result.
What they are really up against is not only people posting translations and analyses on websites (people much more qualified than themselves) but also all the forces of justice in Italy and 90 percent of the population who clearly can see guilt.
The pro-Knox conspiracists are in fact a very small faction. The in-group at the core is a dozen or two at most. Perhaps a few hundred now who might lift a finger for Knox.
In contrast, those who see a case for guilt - and who revere the victim and Italy and its officials and system - are not a mere faction at all. Between them, they are huge. Good smart reasonable people who are very well informed and are certainly not driven by hate.
A lot of what websites like this do, in a media-created vacuum of hard facts, is to simply pass on reliable information from Italy in competent translations of key documents and timely and comprehensive reports.
This “guilters” smear has blinded them to that, and so “garbage-in-garbage-out” and paranoid suspicions and ranting language have become their plagues.
And with no real help, Knox faces 28-plus years.
Archived in Officially involved, Amanda Knox, Diversion efforts by, The Knox-Mellases, Hoaxes about the case, Knox book hoaxes, Other legal cases, Associated trials
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (26)
Sunday, July 06, 2014
Spitting In the Wind: Sollecito News Conference Backfires On Him AND Knox - What The Media Missed
Posted by SomeAlibi
What on earth were they thinking?
At Tuesday morning’s press conference Raffaele Sollecito’s team did at least two completely inexplicable things.
Firstly, they scored a spectacular own-goal on the facts surrounding the murder of Meredith Kercher, which has been missed by the press.
Secondly, they did it all for no legal benefit.
In the run up to the press conference it was widely trailed that Sollecito would throw Amanda under the bus by removing her alibi - that she spent the whole of the night of the 1st of November with him at his apartment. After the press conference, it was widely reported he’d done that very thing.
Wrong. Very wrong. In fact, Team Sollecito did the opposite and put a position forward entirely consistent with how the prosecution says Knox, Sollecito and Guede all come together.
Speaking in tongues
There are only a few grains of sand left in the hourglass before Cassation and confirmation of the sentence, which will see Sollecito return to jail until he is well into his forties. You would have thought that it would be “absurd” for him to do anything other than speak clearly and unequivocally.
But that is precisely what didn’t happen…
Sollecito and lead counsel Giulia Bongiorno performed a bizarre tip-toe dance, avoiding saying anything clear or direct. Instead, they made points by reference and allusion, with an unhealthy assortment of metaphorical nods, winks, heavy coughs and adjustments of the lapels at key points.
Did Raffaele say that Amanda left his apartment in the early evening? No. As Bongiorno tortuously phrased it: “Raffaele takes note of the fact the court of appeal found there was something of a lie over Amanda’s whereabouts… of the fact the court [says] she was not with him in the early evening”.
Takes note? What on earth was that all about? Well, the sentence mangling was because at the final Cassation hearing next year, no fresh facts can be heard. The only arguments that can be heard are on failure of due process or failure of logic and reasoning as pmf.org Italian legal expert Popper explains extremely clearly here:
I think we should clarify a number of points after discussions of past few days:
1) Corte di Cassazione does not hear evidence and can only discuss the possible invalidation of a sentence or part of it ref the points appealed, not other points. Corte di Cassazione does not hear defendants or private parties. In public hearings only a specific category of lawyers (Cassazionisti) can speak before them
2) Corte di Cassazione therefore cannot take into account evidence now given spontaneously by the defendant RS directed against AK (eg open door of Filomena) as in Court he has never accepted cross-interrogation of AK’s lawyers, except if on some points RS’ lawyers appealed in writing for manifest illogicality of reasoning but what he says now cannot be used. Keep in mind Cassazione cannot discuss the merit of the judgement of Nencini and Massei, only invalidate it if this judgement and reasoning were based on clearly illogical arguments or neglected key evidence
3) Only if Cassazione invalidated Nencini and remanded to a further appeal a possible renovation of “istruttoria” (evidence discussion) may take place. Otherwise all RS has to say now, even if he confesses she did it and he only helped clean [unlikely IMHO], cannot be taken into account by Corte di Cassazione and would have to be the possible argument for a “revisione del giudicato” (a case in which, after a final judgement, a convicted person claims there is a clear error and brings solid evidence to prove it, it is quite rare only in case of obvious errors. Procedure can be easily denied and IMHO will be denied if he said he just helped clean as Courts have already considered that scenario and rejected it)
4) any discussion on cocaine was not taken into account to convict (even if true, no evidence they sniffed that night) and will not be taken into account by Corte di Cassazione, in theory will not be taken into account for extradition hearing in US Court as this only verifies there is a conviction and treaty respected. PR is another matter, but I think it is not correct to say that would be added to extradition request and may change legal course. Same goes for garage video.
5) The press conference of RS was useless, the panel of Corte di Cassazione judges has not even been appointed and, while not illegal, it is completely unusual for a defendant to hold a PC talking about an appeal (RS is not a public figure or administrator). What counts is the appeal document that we have read. The “great” point that AK does not talk about RS in memoriale is too stupid for me to discuss it here. We must conclude this was only publicity for Bongiorno, she knows she is likely to lose and wishes to make it seem it is a close call. She has minimal chances, approximating 0%.
6) RS has very low chances to succeed, and LG for AK even less, as Corte di Cassazione explained well what they wanted and Nencini gave it to them. Court presided by AN explained who the people concurring with RG in the murder are and gave clear logical explanation for such conclusion. Also, Nencini confirmed first instance, a trial that was perfectly valid for Cassazione after first appeal was invalidated.
There have been cases of a double iteration at Cassazione eg in very complex terrorism trials, evidence was scarce mostly based on witnesses who wanted to sidetrack other investigations. Here, as Alan Dershowitz said [he does not know much about case but this and a few other points he got absolutely right] all pieces of evidence point exactly in the same direction creating a good case [AD does not know it is overwhelming; maybe he did not read all docs].
One other thing AD said, most FOA and JREF and IIP tend to forget: Court is the judge, not them, Court has the responsibility to evaluate all evidence and issue a judgement that, as long as explained logically and legally in writing [something a US jury would not be required to do] using all available elements, will stand and be final after Cassazione.
So, Team Sollecito needed to phrase all of their “points” as things already said by the Appeal Court, which are now facts in law unless overturned due to failure of logic etc.
From there they must then try and make insinuations about these ‘facts’, all the while dressing it up as if it were procedurally in accordance with the pre-Cassation phase. Even though … and here one should be allowed a Pepto Bismol given all the twisting and turning… as Popper explains, it will have no effect on the outcome whatsoever.
In the real world, it was quite clear that what Sollecito was actually saying was, “Yes, she did go out in the early part of the evening, even though I’m not personally saying it, those are the Court’s words.”
He left a massive hanging dot dot dot in place of: ‘Hey everyone - Amanda went off and performed the murder with Guede, not me! No, I haven’t stated the time of her return, because it’s not me talking, it’s the court, but she was out, so figure it out for yourselves…’
Not with him in the early evening, which is not the night, we are told, that begins around 11:00 pm
The light at the end of the tunnel has steam billowing underneath it
Here, Team Sollecito run into a horrendous brick-wall of facts which lays Raffaele and Knox out cold. It’s not hard to work it through, but the world’s weary press are too fatigued by this case to even do some simple “if-then” calculations and draw the appropriate conclusion.
So, let’s do it for them here…
- Team Sollecito are saying Knox went out before she sent her SMS reply to boss Patrick Lumumba at 8.35pm. This is in accordance with the case for the prosecution from day dot. They now agree, as the prosecution have always said, that Knox is out of Sollecito’s flat sometime before 8.35pm. (In fact, we know it’s by at least 8.17pm because this is when she received Lumumba’s text to say that she didn’t need to go into work).
- Team Sollecito then pause and wink to let you do the math(s). If the murder occurred circa 9.30pm by their estimate (which it didn’t, but let’s go with this for a second) and you don’t know when she returned to Sollecito’s for the night, then he couldn’t have done it, because he was at home, but she could.
Here, the Press stop and report Amanda is under the bus. Thank heavens for that, not a stain on Raffaele’s Warren Beatty white suit and can we all go home now?
Wrong. In fact, it’s a horrendous own-goal, which ricochets in hard off the testimony of both independent witness Jovana Popovic and Raffaele’s own father Francesco.
- At 8.40pm, Popovic arrives at the front door of Raffaele’s apartment and testifies that Amanda Knox opens the front door. It has been suggested that Popovic’s self-estimated timing of 8.40pm is wrong, but this rings very hollow indeed. Popovic had done the walk from her late class ending at 8.20pm many times, and knew it took 20 minutes because she lived on the same road – Corso Garibaldi – as Raffaele himself. Both Massei and Nencini agreed with this too. Ouch.
- So Knox, who was out previously, is already back, at least 50 minutes before even the putative time of murder put by the defence and a couple of hours plus before the real time.
- In fact, Raffaele’s father Francesco testified to the Massei court that he was certain that Amanda was with his son when he spoke to him at 8.52pm that night. And this was not contested by the defence. Double ouch.
So, even if Knox went out in the early evening, she is objectively shown to have been back at the apartment well before 9pm. And, if that is the case, both Knox and Sollecito are 100% back in the frame. And this is even before they are also seen by a third person who corroborates that they were together that night – Antonio Curatolo. Triple ouch.
Confirming how three became company
Worse yet, Knox has argued for 7 years that she never left the apartment. If Sollecito now “says” she did, but we know objectively that she is back at least by 8.40pm, it supports the prosecution case.
This was that Knox left for work and walked to near the cottage, in the area of the basketball court at Piazza Grimana, around where she received the text from Patrick saying not to come to work.
This is the exact time that Rudy Guede was having a kebab, only a couple of hundred yards away. This provides the opportunity for Knox and Guede to have seen each other. Knox, suddenly at a loose end, makes a plan, which involves asking for Guede’s help.
What might that help be? Well, the resurfacing story of Knox’s link with a cocaine dealer chimes nicely with the idea that Knox asked Rudy either to supply her or help her get some sort of drugs and that they arranged to meet back up once he had secured them.
Knox then returns to Raffaele’s to fetch him, is seen by Popovic and her presence acknowledged at 8.52pm by Papa Sollecito and son, before they both head out to connect with Guede back at Piazza Grimana. (Remember, this is where Knox “saw” Patrick Lumumba, when she tried to frame him).
Guede, as was his wont, managed to get himself invited back to the cottage, perhaps for a shared line. This is consistent with Knox’s prison piece “The Story of Marie Pace”, where there are at least two++ men present in a kitchen in a “party” type atmosphere taking drugs which ends up with a hospitalised victim.
It’s only one theory and there are others. However, what Team Sollecito managed to do this week was to confirm that Knox left the flat. Objective facts and witness testimony tell us the time by which she had returned.
And, in that round trip lies the entire timing, location and mechanism for how Guede became involved, which otherwise makes little sense. Now all confirmed by Team Sollecito…
One of Raffaele Sollecito’s telling grimaces when Amanda Knox’s name is mentioned
What silence gets you
So what was the point? Face-saving for Raffaele? Hoping to key up populist support? Fat chance in Italy, where the case has been properly reported.
An opportunity to allude to a “truth” (the best one he can think of for now – other truths are available) and say that he and his family believe Knox is innocent? Pull the other one Raffaele!
It is quite clear that several members of the Sollecito clan think that Knox absolutely is guilty and their Raffaele is still too “honourable” to tell the truth. He merely aided the clean-up perhaps. Well in that case, why hasn’t he said exactly when she came back? Was it 11pm? 1am? Was it at 5am when the music starts playing. Why won’t he or you say?
Or… was it face-saving for Bongiorno, as she faces defeat and seeks to protect her valued public persona? Well, as much as I’ve tried, I have no idea what they thought they were doing.
And to be honest with you, I honestly don’t think they were entirely sure, nor did they think through the consequences of the brick wall objectivity of Popovic + Papa Sollecito.
In the meantime, a family sits in Surrey listening and watching the weasel words and once again is insulted by this “honourable” all-in-white character who knows what “Amanda Marie Knox” did that night, but simply will not say.
Which of course he could choose to do at any moment, court proceedings or not, the way us normal human beings do it: not making allusion, not tipping a wink, but speaking the truth.
But he hasn’t and I suspect he won’t, even though it actually would now be the only thing that could mitigate the length of his inevitable prison term.
And for his acts and that silence he still won’t break - and at least here it is possible to finally speak with certainty - I believe he deserves every one of those 25 years.
Archived in Officially involved, Raff Sollecito, Public evidence, Sollecito's alibis, Appeals 2009-2014, Cassation appeal, Diversion efforts by, The Sollecitos, Reporting on the case, Media news, The wider contexts, Italian context
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (31)
Friday, July 04, 2014
The Status Of The Various Computers In The Case And Whether Anything Nefarious Happened To Them
Posted by Sallyoo
1. Computer use as high-stakes evidence
There have been many arguments about computers during the case.
They began at the very beginning, and there is even now, in the final appeal by Sollecito to the Court of Cassazione, one remaining somewhat fantastical theory.
The facts surrounding the computer evidence collected by the prosecution have been obfuscated and contradicted by the defence using exactly the same techniques as have been used about the DNA and other forensic evidence in the case.
Blind the court (and the public) with hypotheses which very few people can follow, and use this ignorance to spread confusion and doubt.
Let’s try to shed some light.
2. Five key computers, plus
We know that Sollecito is pretty familiar with computers, he had two at the time, a MacBook and an Asus , both portables. His apartment had a decent broadband connection, supplied, (using the Telecom Italia infrastructure) by Fastweb.
We know that both of these computers were sequestered from his apartment on the morning of Nov 6 2007, when Sollecito accompanied a squad of policemen despatched to search his apartment.
We know that the police removed, (on Nov 7), from the house in Via Della Pergola (where there was no telephone nor broadband service) a MacBook belonging to Meredith, a Toshiba belonging to Knox, and a portable computer belonging to Laura Mezzetti.
The police also took an HP portable from Lumumba’s apartment.
There is even another computer which the police already had possession of, and that is a Sony portable belonging to Filomena Romanelli. This computer Filomena herself had taken away from her bedroom shortly after the discovery of the murder, and which the questura, in the evening of Nov 2, required her to hand over to them because it formed part of the ‘crime scene’.
3. The police HD analysis begins
On Nov 13 a postal police technician (Marco Trotta) received a box containing five computers (two from Sollecito, Knox, Meredith and Lumumba).
On Nov 15, in the presence of Formenti, (a consultant nominated by the defence) Trotta took them apart (removed the hard disks) and attempted to make copies of the data recorded on them.
This is the point at which it is alleged the destruction of three hard disks occurred.
It is difficult to believe that this is the case. Not only because the equipment used had never before (or since) managed to trash a hard disk (and it had no problems with Lumumba’s disk) but also because of the state of Filomena’s computer, which never got anywhere near Trotta.
All of the computers had of course been in the hands of the squadra mobile for some days before being consigned to Trotta, allowing for the possibility of some earlier interference by some malfeasant policeman.
This isn’t likely, not only because Trotta insists that the computers were complete and superficially undamaged, and the hard disks factory sealed when he dismantled the computers, but also because of Filomena’s computer.
4. Filomena’s Sony machine
It is now time to go a little deeper into the history of Filomena’s Sony.
This was a fairly new machine, which she kept in a substantial computer carrying case. It was working perfectly on Oct 30 when she last used it. She had left it in her bedroom, the case standing upright beside her bed, when she went off to spend the brief holiday with her boyfriend.
She found it, still in the carrying case, lying flat in a pile of stuff under the broken window of her disturbed bedroom. 
The defence commissioned a Computer Expert Report, entered during the Massei trial, which talked about the reason for the data being irrecoverable on the three computers’ disks.
Their conclusion was that the electronic circuitry controlling the hard disks had, in all three cases, suffered damage, most probably due to an electrical overtension. The circuitry had been ‘fried’.
They were unable to be certain how or when this might have occurred, or to opine on whether it was deliberate.
Filomena, in the presence of Gregori, (another communications police officer), at the Questura on the evening of Nov 2 attempted to turn on her Sony. It wouldn’t work. The hard disk would not respond properly.
When she got it back on Dec 18 and gave it to a private computer technician, he said the control circuitry on the hard disk is ‘fried’. Exactly the same fault as had occurred on the other three, which we are expected by th defense to believe was either a deliberate piece of police sabotage, or proof of police incompetence.
5. The Sollecito computers
The important computers, of course, are those owned by Sollecito because he is, even now, still trying to force an alibi out of them.
The MacBook has been accurately interrogated to death, most particularly by a defence expert named Antonio d’Ambrosio who gave very clear testimony at Massei on 26 Sept 2009.
He was even generous enough to acknowledge that the investigations carried out by the postal police were correct, and well interpreted, and that he was able to uncover a little more information simply because he wasn’t limited by forensic protocols (and could therefore reveal information not visible to the Encase software used by the police) when he examined a copy of the cloned disk from the Mac.
Basically the only ‘news’ in this interesting testimony was an interaction with the Apple website at 00.58 on Nov 2, which he did consider a human interaction with the computer.
6. Activity on the Internet
Sollecito maintains he spent the whole evening and night in his flat. At first his story was that he was sending e-mails and surfing the web. This was quickly demolished by reference to the IP log supplied by Fastweb, the broadband supplier.
It’s necessary to get slightly technical here.
Most of what we call The Internet, and certainly everything which is called The Worldwide Web, including e-mail clients, subscribe to a protocol which (in shorthand) means everything is a Port 80 request.
The individual computer, via its router, contacts the ISP (Fastweb, in this case) and identifies itself by means of a unique IP address. The ISP then directs the communication to the IP of the website requested.
This is all recorded on the Fastweb network. It is certain that no Port 80 requests were made from Sollecito’s apartment (whichever computer he may have been using) between 18.00 on Nov 1 and 00.58 on Nov 2.
There are parts of the international communications network which don’t use Port 80 protocols. The most ‘innocent’ of these are Peer to Peer (P2P) networks – in widespread use for distributing and downloading music and video files.
Sollecito certainly availed himself of these services, using a program called Amule on his Mac. He had a folder containing downloaded files, which was accessible to the program, and thus also accessible to anyone in the world who wanted a copy of something which Sollecito had in this shareable folder on his computer.
If he wished to save the file for posterity, he would move or copy it from this accessible folder into his own archive.
Video files are large, and they take a long time to download. Clearly, to download a file, or to make your publicly accessible folder available, the computer has to be turned on and connected to a router.
If you use these file sharing services extensively, it implies that you keep your computer turned on and connected all the time. It seems likely that this was Sollecito’s habit.
Clearly, you need to automate this sort of transfer – often a large file will be accessed in part from one remote computer, and another part will be located on another remote computer – so you simply instruct Amule to get you a film, or a list of films, and you can walk away from the computer.
Even D’Ambrosio is unable to be certain that a human interaction occurred at 21.26 on Nov 1, or whether a pre-requested download of Naruto commenced.
However, no IP addresses are exchanged when connecting to a P2P network, and so it is impossible (from ISP records) to trace any traffic.
It is possible though, from the hard disk, to discover what has been downloaded and saved to a computer on a P2P network, and exactly when – but to distinguish an automated process from a user instigated one is not possible.
7. Computers and Hellmann appeal
Now we move onto the Hellmann appeal, where a report from this same consultant D’Ambrosio was accepted into the case files. I haven’t been able to find this report, and Judge Hellman doesn’t even refer to it in his sentencing report.
However, the gist of this D’Ambrosio report is included in the current ricorso (appeal) from Sollecito to the Court of Cassazione.
8. Computers and Cassation appeal
We hear a bit about screensaver behaviour, and quite a lot about post Nov 1 interactions overwriting earlier actions.
The major ‘fresh’ theory now depends on asserting (more than four times in the ricorso) that the postal police destroyed Sollecito’s Asus, and that this action has meant that Sollecito’s alibi cannot be proved.
The lack of any signs of interaction on the Mac can be explained (so we are informed) by the Mac and the Asus being networked together, using a file sharing utility named Samba, and if the (broken) Asus could have been accessed it might have shown that it had been controlling the Mac.
So the Mac would have been doing things at the command of its owner, but because the owner was interacting with the keyboard of the Asus rather than that of the Mac, these actions are undetectable on the Mac.
This is what we are now being asked to believe.
9. Conclusion and way forward
I think this is an accurate summary of the relevant parts of ‘computer evidence’ discussed, or deposited, during the hearings and in the ricorso. I look forward to any comments, clarifications, corrections, but above all, to any new theories about how and when the four hard disks got trashed.
From other sources there are an additional two hints at possible new or ignored evidence:
The BBC reported, on 14.03.2009, the following sentence. “A second computer belonging to Mr Sollecito also showed no activity but the suspect had himself admitted it had been broken before the crime was committed.” 
And then we have Sollecito, in his prison diary of 11.11.2007, being rather more than aware that his computer is not going to be useful to him as an alibi.
I have been very anxious and nervous in the last few days, but to see my father who tells me “do not worry, we will get you out” makes me feel better. My real concerns are now two: the first one derives from the fact that, if that night Amanda remained with me all night long, we could have (and this is a very remote possibility) made love all evening and night only stopping to eat… it would be a real problem [casino] because there would be no connections from my computer to servers in those hours…
No connections in those hours? Hmmm.
10. My references
 This computer is sometimes referenced as an Acer. In Trotta’s testimony (he is reading from notes) it is listed as an Asus, so I have used this name. There is only one computer whether it’s an Asus or an Acer.
 There is a reference to a non portable computer in Sollecito’s apartment (in the testimony of Popovic). This is the only mention of any non-portable (i.e. desktop or tower cased machine with separate monitor). Given the position from which Popovic saw the screen (on a desk, with Knox sitting in front of it) it seems likely that she was mistaken.
 Amanda Knox frequently refers to seeing Filomena’s computer on her desk after the ‘break in’. At one point in her testimony she changes her mind and corrects herself to change the computer to camera.
 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7943828.stm I have not found another source for this comment.
Archived in Public evidence, Knox's alibis, Sollecito's alibis, The computers, Trials 2008 & 2009, The Massei Report, Hoaxes about the case, Solleci book hoaxes, Raff Sollecito
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (18)
Wednesday, July 02, 2014
A Mistake Or Lie By Bongiorno On The Location Where Knox Texted Doesnt Let RS Off The Hook
Posted by The TJMK Main Posters
1. Bongiorno’s Claim About Knox’s Location
Giulia Bongiorno claimed yesterday that Amanda Knox texted Patrick while she was away from Sollecito’s house.
Mobile-phone-tower records show that Knox’s phone received Patrick’s incoming text telling her not to come to work when she was already somewhere on the route to his bar in Via Alessi.
Knox apparently then turned around and went back to Sollecito’s house, because mobile-phone-tower records show Knox texted back, responding to Patrick, from Sollecito’s house in Corso Garibaldi at 8:35.
Some five minutes later, Knox and Ms Popovic met at Sollecito’s house so Knox was still there then. That is still three to four hours away from the best estimate of Meredith’s death.
So the time-period prior to 8:35 pm when Knox texted from Sollecito’s flat was the only time-period when there is hard proof that Knox and Sollecito were ever apart that night. In her unforced statements on 5-6 November Knox did claim she went out alone to see Patrick, but we have only her word she was alone.
It seems Bongiorno made a serious mistake or lied - and Sollecito sat beside her happily nodding his okay.
2. The Narrative From Judge Massei’s Report
− 20:18:12: Amanda receives the SMS sent to her by Patrick Lumumba, which let her off from having to go to work at the ‚Le Chic‛ pub on the evening of 1 November. At the time of reception the phone connected to the cell on Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3, whose signal does not reach Raffaele Sollecito’s house. The young woman was therefore far [i.e. absent] from Corso Garibaldi 30 when the SMS reached her, as she was walking in an area which was shown to be served by the Via dell’Aquila 5-Torre dell’Acquedotto sector 3 cell. This point of her route could correspond to Via U. Rocchi, to Piazza Cavallotti, to Piazza IV Novembre, bearing in mind that Lumumba’s pub is located in Via Alessi, and that Amanda Knox would have had to travel along the above-mentioned roads and the piazza in order to reach the pub
− 20.35.48 Amanda sent an SMS in reply to Patrick, at No. 338-7195723; the message was sent when the young woman’s mobile phone was in Corso Garibaldi 30 or in the immediate neighbourhood. The cell used, in fact, was that of Via Berardi sector 7.
3. The Narrative From Judge Nencini’s Report
At 20.18 and 12 seconds, Amanda Marie Knox received a text message sent to her by Patrick Lumumba, in which he informed her that it would not be necessary for her to go to the bar to carry out her usual work. At the time of receipt, Amanda Marie Knox’s handset connected via the sector 3 mast at Torre dell’Acquedotto, 5 dell’Aquila, as shown by phone records entered in evidence. This mast cannot be reached from the vicinity of 130 Via Garibaldi, the home of Raffaele Sollecito. According to the findings of the judicial police entered in evidence, this mast could be reached by anyone in Via Rocchi, piazza Cavallotti or piazza 4 Novembre, all locations in Perugia which are intermediate between 130 Via Garibaldi, the home of Raffaele Sollecito, and Via Alessi, where the “Le Chic” bar is located.
From this set of facts established in the case, Amanda Marie Knox’s claim, according to which she received Patrick Lumumba’s text message while she was at 130 Via Garibaldi, appears false. Given the mast connected to and the time, it is reasonable to assume that, when Amanda received the message, she had already left Raffaele Sollecito’s home and was on her way to the “Le Chic” bar. Presumably, she then turned around and went back.
Here, then, is the first crack in the account of the young woman who, in her narrative, claims never to have left the house at 130 Via Garibaldi from the moment of her entrance into the house in the afternoon of 1 November 2007, together with Raffaele Sollecito. There is oral evidence (the deposition of Popovic) and evidence obtained through phone records that, at around 18:00 on 1 November 2007, Amanda and Raffaele were at the home of the latter. Later, at precisely 20:35 and 48 seconds, when Amanda Marie Knox sent a text message to Patrick Lumumba, connecting to a mast serving 130 Via Garibaldi, both were once again together at Raffaele Sollecito’s home. This fact is confirmed by Popovic, who went there to cancel that evening’s appointment with Raffaele. In fact, the witness reported that she had visited Raffaele’s home at around 20:40 in the evening.
In essence, it can be established with certainty that Amanda and Raffaele were apart, albeit for a limited period of time, on the evening of 1 November 2007, contrary to what is stated repeatedly in multiple statements made by Amanda Marie Knox.
Archived in Officially involved, Amanda Knox, Raff Sollecito, The defenses, Appeals 2009-2014, Cassation appeal, Diversion efforts by, The Sollecitos, The wider contexts, Italian context
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (29)
Amanda Knox Left Sollecito’s House By Herself? Both Claimed It But Neither Of Their Books Back It Up
Posted by The TJMK Main Posters
1. Current Contexts Of Sollecito’s And Knox’s Books
Neither book is exactly riddled with truths.
The claims throughout Sollecito’s book are soon to be the subject of a trial in Florence and the claims throughout Knox’s book are soon to be the subject of a trial in Bergamo. So both will need to endorse or reject what they wrote.
Plus Knox will need to endorse or reject this, from the first unforced statement she insisted on making without a lawyer on 6 November 2007. This is what Sollecito is gleefully using against her now.
Last Thursday, November 1, a day on which I normally work, while I was at the house of my boyfriend Raffaele, at around 8:30 pm, I received a message on my cellular phone from Patrik, who told me that the premises would remain closed that evening, because there were no customers, and thus I would not need to go to work.
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.
2. From Sollecito’s Honor Bound (Simon & Schuster 2012)
Amanda and I smoked a joint before leaving the house on Via della Pergola, wandered into town for some shopping before remembering we had enough for dinner already, and headed back to my place. Shortly before six, a Serbian friend of mine named Jovana Popovic rang the doorbell and asked if I’d mind driving her to the bus station at midnight to pick up a suitcase her mother was sending. I said that would be fine. When she left, Amanda and I sat down at the computer to watch a favorite movie, Amélie.
We had to stop the film a few times as the evening wore on. First, Amanda got a text from Patrick telling her it was a slow night because of the holiday and he didn’t need her to come in after all. It was like getting an unexpected snow day—we were thrilled. Amanda texted back: Certo ci vediamo più tardi buona serata! Sure. See you later. Have a good evening.
Then my father called. He and Mara had just seen the Will Smith movie The Pursuit of Happyness, and he told me how beautifully it portrayed the relationship between a father and his son. My father was always making phone calls like this. It was sweet that he wanted to share his experiences, but he also made everything he said sound vaguely like an order, as if laying out the parameters of how I should react to things before I’d had a chance to form my own opinion. But he never stayed on the line for long—he is too nervy and impatient—so I listened calmly and the call was over in less than four minutes.
In the meantime, Jovana dropped by again and told Amanda that I didn’t need to drive her to the bus station after all. Now we didn’t have to leave the apartment. The evening was ours, and we couldn’t have been happier. We switched off our cell phones, finished watching Amélie, and discussed what to make for dinner…
When Amélie ended, I went into the kitchen to take care of some dishes left over from breakfast before we started making dinner. I soon realized that water was leaking out of the pipe under the sink, and I cursed under my breath. I’d had a plumber come and fix the sink just a week earlier, and he had made me buy all sorts of replacement parts that clearly were not put together properly. I suspected he had left them loose on purpose to force me to pay for another visit. As Amanda and I threw kitchen towels onto the puddle on the tile floor, I decided I was going to let my landlady deal with it from now on.
“Don’t you have a mop?” Amanda asked. I did not. She offered to pick one up from Via della Pergola the next morning and bring it round.
We cooked a fish dinner, did our best to wash the dishes again, and tumbled gratefully into bed in each other’s arms. Only later, when I lay in the dark, unable to sleep, did it dawn on me that Papà had broken his usual habit of calling to wish me good night.
It turned out he did so out of consideration. He had been about to pick up the phone when my stepmother talked him out of it. “Stop bothering him,” Mara said, as they got ready for bed around eleven o’clock. “He’s with Amanda, and they want to be alone. Why don’t you send a text instead?”
My father took her advice, but because my cell phone was turned off, I didn’t receive the message until six the next morning.
It was a desperately unlucky combination of circumstances. If my father had tried my cell and then called me on the home line—which he would have done, because he’s persistent that way—I would have had incontrovertible proof from the phone records that I was home that night. And the nightmare that was about to engulf me might never have begun.
My father called my landline a little before nine thirty the next morning to make sure we would be ready for our day trip to Gubbio. I was too groggy to talk. I’d been up several times in the night—listening to music, answering e-mail, making love—and wanted only to go back to sleep. Amanda got out of bed and said she was going home to shower and change her clothes, so I walked her to the front door, gave her a kiss, and crawled back under the covers.
3. From Knox’s Waiting To Be Heard (HarperCollins 2013)
Raffaele and I were good at being low-key together. We chilled out in the common room and smoked a joint while I played Beatles songs on the guitar for an hour or so. Sometime between 4 P.M. and 5 P.M., we left to go to his place. We wanted a quiet, cozy night in. As we walked along, I was telling Raffaele that Amélie was my all-time favorite movie.
“Really?” he asked. “I’ve never seen it.”
“Oh my God,” I said, unbelieving. “You have to see it right this second! You’ll love it!”
Not long after we got back to Raffaele’s, his doorbell rang. It was a friend of his whom I’d never met—a pretty, put-together medical student named Jovanna Popovic, who spoke Italian so quickly I couldn’t understand her. She’d come to ask Raffaele for a favor. Her mother was putting a suitcase on a bus for her and she wondered if he could drive her to the station at midnight to pick it up.
“Sure,” Raffaele said.
As soon as she left, we downloaded the movie on his computer and sat on his bed to watch it. Around 8:30 P.M. I suddenly remembered that it was Thursday, one of my regular workdays. Quickly checking my phone, I saw that Patrick had sent me a text telling me I didn’t have to come in. Since it was a holiday, he thought it would be a slow night.
“Okay,” I texted back. “Ci vediamo più tardi buona serata!”—“See you later. Have a good evening!” Then I turned off my phone, just in case he changed his mind and wanted me to come in after all. I was so excited to have the night off that I jumped on top of Raffaele, cheering, “Woo-hoo! Woo-hoo!”
Our good mood was only elevated when the doorbell rang again at 8:45 P.M: Jovanna had come back, this time to say that the suitcase hadn’t made the bus and that she didn’t need a ride after all. With no more obligations, we had the whole rest of the night just to be with each other and chill out.
After the movie ended, around 9:15 P.M., we sautéed a piece of fish and made a simple salad. We were washing the dishes when we realized that the kitchen sink was leaking. Raffaele, who’d already had a plumber come once, was frustrated and frantically tried to mop up a lot of water with a little rag. He ended up leaving a puddle.
“I’ll bring the mop over from our house tomorrow. No big deal,” I said.
Raffaele sat down at his desk and rolled a joint, and I climbed into his lap to read aloud to him from another Harry Potter book, this one in German. I translated the parts he didn’t understand, as best I could, into Italian or English while we smoked and giggled.
Later, when we were in bed, our conversation wound its way to his mother. His dad had divorced her years before, but she’d never gotten over the break. In 2005 she had died suddenly. “Some ¬people suspect she killed herself, but I’m positive she didn’t,” Raffaele said. “She would never do that. She had a bad heart, and it just gave out. It was horrible for me—¬we were really close—¬and I miss her all the time.”
I felt terrible for him, but it was hard for me to relate. The only person I knew who had died was my grandfather, when I was sixteen. I felt sad when my mom told me, but my grandfather had been old and sick, and we had expected his death for a few weeks.
I’m sure Mom and Oma must have cried, but my strongest memory is sitting around the dining room table telling funny stories about Opa. My grandmother’s message—that grieving was something you did in private; that you didn’t make public displays and you kept on moving forward—had remained with me.
Hearing the pain in Raffaele’s voice, I hurt for him. Nestling my head on his chest, I tried to be comforting.
As we started kissing, Raffaele gave me a hickey on my neck. We undressed the rest of the way, had sex, and fell asleep.
We’d known each other for exactly one week and had settled so quickly into an easy routine that one night seemed to melt happily and indistinguishably into the one that came after.
We planned to break our routine the next day, All Souls’ Day, by taking a long drive into the countryside, to the neighboring town of Gubbio. The November 2 holiday wasn’t usually observed with as much fanfare as All Saints’ Day, but since it fell on a Friday in 2007, a lot of people, including us, were turning it into a four-day weekend. I thought, Italians having a good time again. And I couldn’t wait.
Archived in Officially involved, Amanda Knox, Raff Sollecito, Public evidence, Knox's alibis, Sollecito's alibis, Diversion efforts by, The Knox-Mellases, The Sollecitos, Hoaxes about the case, Solleci book hoaxes, Knox book hoaxes
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (8)
Tuesday, July 01, 2014
Twice Today Amanda Knox’s Long-Running Interrogation Hoax Turns On Her To Bite Her In The Tail
Posted by Peter Quennell
1. Today’s Sollecito Claims
If you think Knox was in a planned police interrogation, and her framing of Patrick was forced, over some hours, by tag-teams of cops, with no food, no drinks, no interpreter, and no lawyer, then the cops look bad and Knox is maybe home free.
But in fact voluminous testimony at trial by a whole host of those present in Perugia’s central police station on the night of 5-6 November 2007 confirm that absolutely none of that is true.
In fact Knox rolled over on Patrick in a heartbeat, and it happened during a quiet session of name-listing of possible perps, a task in which Knox was pretty eager - perhaps so eager because none of them were herself and one of them was Rudy Guede.
Knox had turned up late at the police station, unwanted and grumpy, was advised to go and sleep, refused, agreed to build that list of possible perps (she listed seven), spontaneously broke into a wailing conniption over a message she sent to Patrick, was semi-calmed-down and repeatedly provided refreshments, and insisted on writing three statements without a lawyer all of which said she went out on the night of the attack, all framing Patrick, one even pointing at Sollecito.
Knox’s erratic claims of pressure were of course disbelieved by the Massei trial court, she was convicted of calunnia, her appeals failed both at the Hellmann appeal court and the Supreme Court, and she served three years in Capanne Prison. Knox still owes Patrick a major payment and she herself continues to propagate the interrogation hoax repeatedly - in her book, on TV, in her email to Judge Nencini, and in her appeal to the European Court of Human Rights.
Sollico is now taking advantage of those three statements, and a claim that Knox’s text message to Patrick was sent from outside Sollecito’s apartment, to hint that Knox told the truth there, and he was not with her at the time when Meredith was killed.
2. Why This Might Resonate In Italy
This might lead to some review of “new evidence” though it cannot happen before Cassation confirms conviction.
Not so much because of the hard facts, which belie him, but because of the growing recognition of the enormous damage done to Italy’s reputation by Curt Knox, Chris Mellas, and the paid thugs of their campaign.
And the threats to fight extradition, and the appallingly large sums of blood-money.
3. The Curt & Edda Defamation Trial
In a double whammy, a judge ruled in Perugia that Curt Knox and Edda Mellas must go on trial in the hard-line Florence court for their role in propagating that same interrogation hoax.
That is the same court that is already staging felony trials against Frank Sforza and Luciano Aviello and will soon stage defamation trials for the ironically titled Honor Bound against Raffaele Sollecito and Andrew Gumbel.
This is from Andrea Vogt’s latest website report (Update June 30, 2014) which as usual leaves in the dust all other non-Italian reporting except Barbie Nadeau’s and John Follain’s (though that is sadly behind the UK Times pay-wall).
Amanda Knox’s biological parents, Curt Knox and Edda Mellas, faced a trial hearing in Perugia Monday on charges of defaming the local police with allegations in the international media (and reported in Italy) that their daughter was abused during questioning during the 2007 investigation into the murder of Meredith Kercher.
The case Monday came before Perugia Judge Noviello, who opted not to hear witness testimony, but instead moved the case to Florence. This because the judge reportedly noted that the Perugia prosecutor was also defamed, even though he did not make any official complaints, therefore it is a case that should be handled outside the sphere of Umbrian influence.
Amanda Knox was convicted on appeal in January in Florence, but still faces another trial there – that of allegedly slandering the police (calumny) with false accusations on the stand, which in Italy is a more serious charge than just defamation\libel. Knox and her parents now both face decisions by Florentine courts about the outstanding charges
The claims being targeted for trial were made in 2010 so the Florence court has another three-plus years before the statute of limitations cuts in.
And this (tick tick) is from a TJMK post by Jools in January 2012.
The name of Amanda Knox was included in the list of trial witnesses that the defence for Kurt Knox and Edda Mellas, lawyers Dalla Vedova and Luciano Ghirga intend to call to testify in court.
So Amanda Knox could want to testify under oath on the interrogation hoax - either that or see her parents go down. (Knox will probably also face trial in Bergamo for extensive defamation in her book. Amanda Knox could again want to testify under oath on the interrogation hoax - either that or see herself go down.)
We understand it was Knox lawyer Dalla Vedova who first asked for the Knox-Mellas trial to be moved to Florence. That was when Dr Mignini was the subject of a phony prosecution in Florence and Dalla Vedova seemed intent on embarrassing him.
Now Dr Mignini is riding high nationally, and is maybe having a few grins at Dalla Vedova’s predicament.
Archived in Officially involved, Amanda Knox, Police and CSI, Public evidence, Knox's alibis, Diversion efforts by, The Knox-Mellases, Hoaxes about the case, Knox book hoaxes
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (6)
Monday, June 30, 2014
Apart From Cassation’s Unyielding Mandate, More Problems With The Belated Sollecito/Bongiorno U-Turn
Posted by The TJMK Main Posters
1. The Appeal’s Grounds For Separation
That bizarre infatuation of Bongiorno’s with Knox as Jessica Rabbit is clearly long-gone.
Now the poor boy was home alone and the absent Miss Rabbit had reason and opportunity. Tiziano posted these ten translated points from the new Sollecito appeal to Cassation, which seems to have the highly nervous Knox camp’s tongues tied.
Among the numerous flaws the proceedings appealed against present, the one linked to the claimed impossibility of differentiating between the two accused stands out.
On this point the Appeal Court denied any in-depth analysis at all of the individual roles - an investigation urged by the defence - avoiding taking any position about alternative constructive hypotheses.
10 points are enumerated by the defence in this regard:
- AK’s memorial referring to events at via della Pergola was in the singular
- AK reported receiving SMS not to go to work from Lumumba, but went out just the same
- AK admitted having lied to RS
- RS did not calumny anyone: the accusation against PL was never confirmed by RS
- AK in her memorial positioned only herself at the crime scene at the time of the scream
- only AK’s blood was on the knife blade
- no mixed traces RS/MK were found and highlighted by luminol in the house
- Quintavalle claimed to have seen AK the morning of November 2nd, not RS
- RS did not know RG and had no reason for wanting MK’s death
- the alleged bad relations and the question of disappearance of money regarded only MK and AK
2, Popper Explains Why They Will Go Nowhere
Popper the highly informed Italian commenter on TJMK and PMF has explained on a previous post why this will fall on deaf ears in Cassation.
if RS said something he has not said before it would make no difference now. No more evidence can be admitted at the trial.
Fase istruttoria is over as judgement of merit. Cassazione can only respond on points appealed and they must be points of law otherwise they are not admissible. Defendants do not talk in hearing.
Once they are convicted, for example, if he had new information on the case and new evidence that proved (in a convincing way) he is not guilty, he could ask for revisione, basically a review of the trial.
He clearly has nothing to say though ... if he said she went out, judges knew that already. If he said that night he was in Milan and could prove it conclusively, that could trigger a review of a final sentence.
We are clearly talking in theory, no such thing will happen.
3. Could The 10 Points Have Worked Previously?
If Judge Nencini was still in the saddle could the ten points have had merit?
Our continuing Interrogation Hoax series has been hammering on the fact that on 5-6 November 2007 quite unpressured Knox herself did state that she went out alone without Sollecito on the night Meredith was murdered.
But these ten cherrypicked points above and a claim that RS was not even at Meredith’s house that night are self-destroying over-reach. They would not have caused a win or partial win for Sollecito. Not one of them stands up as a get-out-of-jail-free card upon close readings of the reports of Judge Massei and Judge Nencini.
The lower courts did NOT deny analysis of the individual roles - the two themselves opted to be tried together, while Rudy Guede, fearing two snakes, chose to be tried separately.
WHEN did the defense urge investigation of their differing roles? What did the Massei trial court miss? It had many months of the sight of Sollecito - sitting there sulky, saying little, not taking the stand. Yes, not assisting Jessica Rabbit with an alibi, but that was not so obvious.
The wounds on Meredith and the evidence points in Meredith’s room point overwhelmingly to three attackers. They prove the use of two knives from opposite sides. It was Sollecito’s knife that was used for the fatal blow; that remains unshaken - actually, more confirmed by the Carabinieri.
See Ergon on the implacable knife evidence. Sollecito was the knife fetishist, and the one who was already into the cocaine or crystal meth that Knox was probably on judging by her telling smell the next day, her bizarre behaviors through the week following, and her odd money trail.
See the implacable evidence against him on the bathmat by SomeAlibi and Yummi. That footprint had to have been imprinted within a few minutes of the end of the attack on Meredith.
After the hijacked Hellmann appeal in 2011 Sollecito was deeply craven to Knox and her family and entourage on the US west coast. Craven to the extent that his own family (which despises the Knox-Mellases and blames Knox for his predicament and their lost name and enormous expenses) once hurriedly hopped on an aircraft to Seattle to enforce their separation.
Sollecito’s hapless book-agent Sharlene Martin and shadow-writer Andrew Gumbel both live on the West Coast and Knox’s radioactive FOA obviously provided most of the malicious fantasy that constitutes his defamatory book.
Playing chicken with the Italian justice system is notoriously suicidal. The crazy aggression of the Prestons, Fischers and Moores did not help Sollecito at all at the Nencini appeal (though it helped Knox even less - she got handed the longer sentence.)
The gods-in-their-own-minds in the FOA got Sollecito no US job and no US viza. The email to Judge Nencini and the appeal to ECHR and the promised fight against extradition for Knox are to him merely insults, and attempts to separate Knox off.
So, back in Italy, he is confused, let-down, disgruntled, and loaded for bear. Knox was the loose canon in 2007, Sollecito is the loose canon now.
Here is a key exchange between our main posters SeekingUnderstanding and Hopeful from previous threads.
4. Take On RS Now By SeekingUnderstanding
[t does seem so very sad and frustrating that Raphaele did not open the window of opportunity, as Judge Nencini tried to nudge him to do, just before Christmas.
He is less easy to read than Ms. Knox , for a number of reasons - more introverted, less articulate (certainly in English; but he also doesn’t seem expressive in his own language), and because of the psychology itself.
You may remember I suggested AK finds it unbearable to acknowledge her darker side, to own her projections; unbearable to be thought of as ‘a monster’, to be unlovable, or indeed hated by people. This may be a strong component in her lying.
I believe Raphaele also finds things unbearable, but whereas Amanda appears to turn this unbearable feeling into lashing out to others, - I think in Raphaele, he finds himself and ‘what has happened to him’ (passive aggression) unbearable. His judgement has not only been poor, but catastrophically poor, - and he must know this. One wonders why the self-destruct.
He knows his life is ruined, and he knows his appalling judgement was instrumental. He truly doesn’t have confidence in himself, but bluffs anyway. His ‘ex’, by contrast,has too much. If only she could have self-doubt, and feel shame.
He is not unintelligent, by no means, yet his choices and decisions at times have seemed near idiotically stupid. So there must be something else going on, something deep in his psyche that causes such confusion in his mental and emotional universe.
He seems unable to organize his emotions. He appears to want or expect or need a woman to ‘sort them out’ (sort him out). His relationship with his mother would probably reveal the source of this. How did she manage her emotions? Or did they rule her? . These are the sort of questions I might be asking. He seems overwhelmed, swallowed up by the juggernaut that AK set in motion.
Was his mother easily overwhelmed by life’s problems? Something has gone wrong (drastically) with a healthy model for his ‘anima’.
Where Amanda is the arch manipulator, he is highly manipulable. He seems to copy. Like her, his self-identity is weak, but for different reasons. Drug use, I would suggest, has been both crucial and disastrous for his mind. From this point of view, prison will be a constructive environment for him, (as AK too). Perhaps without the distorting and illusory aspects of drugs he might begin, over many years, to experience true spiritual (and therefore moral) issues.
I always think drugs give a delusion of spiritual experience (‘the highs’), - wanting them can be (for an introvert) indicative of longing for something more spiritual, but using them will actually prevent such an experience, emphatically.
So then there is bitterness and emptiness, as well as despair and, still, confusion. Thus the addiction which starts as a cycle in the mind.
I knew a psychologist who worked with highly motivated and successful people in the Arts - people who would have burn out, creativity, and performance issues. He was extremely clever. But he was adamant that there had to be a hierarchy for dealing with problems.
That is to say, if someone was using drugs and/or alcohol to the point of misuse (extremely common in the performing arts), - this problem had to be mastered and dealt with FIRST, before anything else could even be addressed. This may seem irrelevant (as Sollecito hasn’t shown he is creative), - but I would
say the signs are that his past (and current?) drug use needs to be sorted before anything else can possibly be.
Such a destructive shame that this has all dragged on for 7years.
I don’t think he has any idea as to how to give a ‘press conference’ - even supposing , by a miracle, he was going to tell the unadulterated truth. He is way out of his depth. I doubt he has sufficient communication skills in his own language, let alone In English for the American media.
5. And The Take Of Hopeful On RS Now
As he is back in the spotlight for the July 1 press conference, your observations about him are timely. He does seem more introverted than Knox, and less articulate. Correct me if I misinterpret what you said about him, that rather than lash out at others aggressively like Knox does to disperse and blame others for her awful feelings about her dark side, Sollecito does the opposite and feels the weight of shame but turns the unbearable feelings inward. He is poster child for passive-aggressive.
I also believe he does have a sense of deep loyalty and faithfulness to his family, since his father has never abandoned him nor did his mother. He has misplaced loyalties at times, and combines a stubborn streak with false sense of need to persevere after he has made wrong steps.
This comment is mainly a review of what you conclude about Raf, but bears repeating. He is ashamed of his “catastrophically bad judgment.” I agree, his pride is wounded, his vanity more than his love for Knox.
I believe Raffaele sincerely regrets what he realizes he has done to his own family, but still can’t quite confess it. Maybe part of him is sorry but part of him is secretly glad he is controlling his father’s destiny, in punitive action for divorcing his mother. He also sent his sister’s career down the cliff. His sister is really to blame for that so with true passive-aggressive deceptiveness he can hide his responsibility for it while causing it.
His wanky emotions have made a trainwreck of his intelligence and caused him to do “idiotically stupid” things and self-destruct.
His drug use to relieve inner confusion caused by lack of self-identity is a coping method that does more harm than good. His patience is more of a drug stupor that makes him slow to act, than real gritted teeth patience, which may be why we’ve waited this long (6 years) for him to reveal the truth about Knox.
He stayed in a cloud of marijuana until she came along. She liked the drugs, too. He allowed her to set the course of his life because he needed or wanted a woman to sort out his emotions. Maybe he was competing with dad with a new hot blondie, too. He didn’t fathom that Knox would become so extreme and so terrifying.
He underestimated Knox, and she saw she could manipulate and destroy him with one hand tied behind her back. She reveled in the besotted weakling, and she felt superiority over Guede too, and soon despised them both. She wouldn’t fall into some darkened room or quiet void of depression like Raffaele’s mom had done giving up on life. The insulated quiet Italian boy raised scrupulously did not see that with Knox he would be “swallowed up in the juggernaut AK set in motion”. He wanted her power and excited vision, but he couldn’t understand her mental illness that went with it. Love is blind.
As long as he could blame her and not himself maybe he was OK with it, especially with drugs to dull the pain, until he felt the full impact of her punishment and years later her treachery. Finally he grew a brain and saw it was Knox who betrayed him, not vice versa. Maybe the press conference is to set that straight.
His drug use got him through much of his first year of prison when he lost all sense of time and space. He was a basketcase. He probably used meds his last 3 years behind bars as well. Perhaps Dr. Sollecito saw that his son got legal prescriptions for him, maybe even purchasing prison favors that way, who knows?
Maybe Knox scoffed at Raf’s crutch, and she continued to compete with him behind bars. She scoffed at her mom for taking antidepressants. Knox had no room to talk as she herself was reportedly a massive drug user at UW and in Italy found a job where liquor flowed.
Has Raf continued the drug use? Does Greta his new girlfriend use drugs? Or has he sworn them off motivated by anger and determination to clear his head for his legal fight?
The concept of “anima” is unknown to me, although the term is familiar. I will research it online, thank you. Your insights are always valuable, thank you for sharing them. Thanks for educating us in the short comment format which can’t do justice to your full knowledge of the subject, but does shed a lot of light and points the way.
Raffaele’s mother and her sad demise seem to be at the root of her son’s depression. Raf has lack of confidence and the need to bluff where he feels no real power. He and Knox are still learning tricks from each other.
I think Knox may have been a father-figure to him in a twisted way, because Amanda is energetic and adventurous and for a short while in Perugia seemed to have it all together and be a hard worker like his dad. Raf met Knox at the peak of her exhileration with her new life in Italy. Like a drug high, it might not have lasted. He was completely deceived.
He may have felt he could never compete with his older sister who might have seemed to him like Amanda and his dad: energetic, capable, feet on ground. This is probably what Raf needs in his life.
Raf commented on Knox living life as if in a dream, there was no reality in her mind, she lived only for pleasure. Maybe he did not like this side of her. This was his wakeup call and he spoke about it openly because it was something he didn’t like, having thought at first glance she was a strong American. He didn’t know whether to attribute her odd mental impracticality to her nationality, her genetics, her femaleness, or her unknown religious upbringing. He had no clue, and maybe it even made him feel stronger and more grounded by comparison since he had formerly thought of himself as a tetherless dreamer but he didn’t want another spaced out confused dreamer like himself for a partner and was having second thoughts. He preferred her rough kick-butt side. She was the brother he never had, a wild West type, a cowboy to climb trees with and roam the range, the key to a new country after his launch to Munich didn’t work out.
In early childhood Raf maybe got labeled or saw himself as “slow” or “dumb” and began to live a self-fulfilling prophecy. He might have felt misunderstood knowing that he did have a lot of intelligence, but that he did not have the same personality as his dad or sis, and not wanting to be equated with his pushed aside mom. He must have felt very alone.
He also may be carrying a lot of shame about his MPD Psycho habit and his secret fantasy life of violence.
Raffaele may have been turned off yet partly tantalized by his father’s profession. A doctor sees a lot of blood and gruesome things with the body.
Raffaele may hero worship a father who can face such grotesque things without wincing, and a sister who had power with the police and saw crime victims.
You mention the Arts and a psychologist who treated performers with burnout and creative types who needed help or a life coach. Maybe Raffaele does see himself as more that artsy type of person, someone wanting to create computer games, sci-fi fantasy, or be an “Experience Teller”. He did write a book, so maybe he does fall into the category of artistic temperament, which often needs a guide or an infusion of stiffened backbone to face the realities of life in a business sense.
Knox seems to be struggling with math, yet her mom is a math teacher and her dad an accountant.
Archived in Officially involved, Amanda Knox, Raff Sollecito, The defenses, Diversion efforts by, The Sollecitos
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (12)
Sunday, June 29, 2014
Sneak Preview Of Giulia Bongiorno Making Silk Purse Out Of Sow’s Ear At RS Media Nonevent This Week
Posted by Peter Quennell
What is the Sollecito lawyer and politician Giulia Bongiorno most famous in Italy for?
Well it sure aint her grasp of the finer points of Italian law. Or her ability to win in court without over-the-top PR and peculiar tricks. Or her accuracy on those pesky facts of the case. Or her foolish tongue before a very key judge.
Most of all, what Bongiorno IS known in Italy for is being shrill, bullying, and high-key - most especially when yet another of her hapless clients is going down, or when she is on the political stump.
Watch this spot-on satirical impersonation by the terrific Italian impersonator Dario Ballantini which was aired nationally on Italian TV and made a lot of Italians laugh. You can hear the audience there.
It doesnt need a grasp of the Italian language to amuse long-suffering Bongiorno skeptics seeing her taken down a peg. Meredith, the name of the victim here: does Bongiorno even know that? If the victim’s suffering family was Italian and regularly on Italian TV would Italy tolerate her callous, cruel act?
Here is an Italian woman one really can admire.
Archived in Officially involved, Raff Sollecito, The defenses, The wider contexts, Italian context
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (7)
Saturday, June 28, 2014
Sollecito Suddenly Remembers He Wasnt There But Cannot Speak For Knox Who (As She Said) Went Out
Posted by Peter Quennell
1. Today’s Development
Sollecito is said to be standing on Knox’s shoulders there… Sollecito is becoming intent on digging himself out (really). Bu there are problems.
Let us start by considering the last two public performances by Raffaele Sollecito’s defense, both in Florence. They consisted of:
- 1. Giulia Bongiorno in her summation back in January, in Florence, at the tail-end of RS’s and AK’s appeal, ranting on foolishly about Perugia and Rome justice officials, in an apparent attempt to outdo even the nastiness of Amanda Knox’s earlier email which also ranted on foolishly to Judge Nencini.
2. Giulia Bongiorno fooishly taking strong offense to Judge Nencini wondering why Sollecito remained so bound to Knox and so little forthcoming, and then Bongiorno foolishly having her political allies advance a complaint to the Supreme Council of Magistrates, dropped after a brief investigation.
Now guess what?
An apparent u-turn, or at least a blink and slight deviation, in the suicidal game of chicken the Knox and Sollecito camps have long thought to be so smart.
Bongiorno or others very close to Sollecito, probably including his father and an aunt, seem to be shooting for a teeny bit of separation.
This loosening of bonds with Amanda Knox is hinted-at in his appeal to Cassation (which frankly we find boring, repetitive and childish) over the Nencini finding.
Today it is made slightly more explicit by Sollecito in a magazine interview. And next Tuesday the Sollecito team will stage a press conference.
2. Fraught With Problems
The Sollecitos would be wise to bump up their plea to Cassation about 100-fold. If this new bid is to go anywhere it MUST be referred back down to Judge Nencini.
Yes that is the same Judge Nencini who already reacted firmly to abrasive pressure from the Knox camp. And the same Judge Nencini who early this year felt the abrasive pressure described above from the Sollecito team.
Substantial evidence that Sollecito was at the house still looms like an 80,000 pound gorilla - see a listing of it in one of our next posts.
And one key thing about the Italian system: it has immense capacity to hit back very hard in response to out-of-court pressure and attempts to poison public opinion.
As we have explained previously, these strong powers originate in the endless fight against the mafias, which have long used defamation of justice officials as a way of seeking some relief for their guys.
The reason why Knox is sentenced to 28 and a half years on top of her three years served for calunnia doesnt yet seem to have sunk into the slow minds of Knox or her family or her vigilantes..
But Sollecito is increasingly alive to the ability of Italian justice to hit back very hard when the justice system and its officials are impugned.
Yesterday Sollecito and his lawyer Alfredo Brizioli were being interviewed for the multiple false charges of crimes in Honor Bound The book is pretty horrific and new charges seem certain.
The foolish shadow-writer Andrew Gumbel has surfaced, and appointed a lawyer, and is expected to join him.
Our guess? Sollecito will need to tell all, and make a major plea for forgiveness from the Kerchers, if any grownups are to listen to him.
Archived in Officially involved, Amanda Knox, Raff Sollecito, Public evidence, Knox's alibis, Sollecito's alibis, Diversion efforts by, The Knox-Mellases, The Sollecitos
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (16)
Wednesday, June 25, 2014
The Knox Interrogation Hoax #8: Testimony Of Edgardo Giobbi From Police HQ About 5-6 November
Posted by The TJMK Main Posters
1. What Really Happened on 5-6 November
The intros to Posts #1 to #7 explain what really happened at Knox’s recap/summary session on 5-6 November 2007.
In a sentence: Knox was there unwanted and grumpy, was advised to go and sleep, refused, agreed to build a list of possible perps (she listed seven, including Rudy Guede), spontaneously broke into a wailing conniption over a message she sent to Patrick, was semi-calmed-down and repeatedly provided refreshments, and insisted on writing three statements without a lawyer all of which said she went out on the night of the attack, all framing Patrick, one even pointing at Sollecito.
Posts #1 to #7 also included testimony from three police staff (Ficcara, Zugarini, Donnino) who sat with Knox plus some from Monica Napoleoni who was mainly off with Sollecito as in relative calm he destroyed Knox’s alibi-of-the-moment.
2. Roles of Dr Edgardo Giobbi
Dr Giobbi is from the Serious Crimes Unit at Police headquarters in Rome. He was assigned with a squad to Perugia. An expert in, among other things, behavioral indicators, he encountered Knox and Sollecito as much as any officers prior to their arrests and claimed he observed several instances of atypical behavior which to him set alarm bells off.
He testified to being at the central police station on the night of 5-6 November, processing interview information from front-line investigators. He did not join the Knox or RS discussions or observe systematically but he said he kept himself informed. This transcript below is a new translation by the professional translator ZiaK. “GCM” below is Judge Massei who watches over Knox’s legal interests but who also seeks to clarify.
A word of caution here. Our Italian lawyers are suggesting we read some of Dr Giobbi with a pinch of salt. Some things he claimed don’t tally, either (to be fair) with Amanda Knox, or with the single picture testified-to by so many others present on 5-6 Nov. Even the defenses seemed to smell a rat. This could still be a legal situation, so the other cross-examinations will be left off.
3. Relevant Testimony Of Dr Edgardo Giobbi
1. Initial Examination By Prosecutor Mignini
Dr Mignini: You carried out the investigations on the death of Meredith Kercher.
Dr Giobbi: Confirmative.
GM: Tell us what you saw, at what time you became involved, what activities you carried out.
EG: I don’t work in Perugia. I work in a central investigative office that has its headquarters in Rome, that among its various competencies has also that of participating as a back-up, in support of the Flying Squads, any time that events of particular seriousness and prominence occur. On the basis of an evaluation carried out by my superiors, as soon as we had the news of Meredith Kercher’s murder, it was decided to send me here to Perugia with an investigative squadron from my office, and I came in as backup and support for the activity carried out by the Perugia Flying Squad, which at that time was led by Dr Profazio. I arrived [in Perugia] in the late afternoon of 2 November, and I recall that when I arrived at the little villa, you were already present, there was Dr Chiacchiera, there was the Forensics personnel, the Flying Squad personnel. To start with, after having put on shoe covers and gloves, I entered in order to get a certain, to obtain immediately an impression of the crime scene in the little villa.
Subsequently, that same evening, still in agreement with you, who were there, I devoted myself a great deal to studying the perimeter of the villa, in other words, to verifying whether there might have been any immediate answers, or not, on the fact of whether a burglar had entered inside the little villa, or rather if on the contrary some persons with an acquaintance with the victim might have penetrated or entered. The first, very clear, particular [was] that the door of the house had not been subjected to forcing. A second particular was that of the [fact that] the easiest entry for any potential burglar, namely the window immediately in front of the victim’s room, the one that gives onto the little terrace, was perfectly untouched.
GM: Just so we understand each other: the one [window] that is hidden from the street.
EG: The one that is hidden from the street. Shall we say, the little terrace that is precisely over the entryway to the little apartment below. There, [in] carrying out a careful examination also from the outside – so not only from the inside – I established that any given person who [sic] would be able to climb freehand [sic] and get up there, break that window and enter the house. A second particular that was in accordance with this [fact] was the fact that the broken window, [when one] entered in the first room on the left, seemed in short [to be] broken in a rather particular manner: not – on the basis of my investigative experience, by instinct, I held that it was not the work of someone coming from outside: but this, I repeat, in this very early phase were simply deductions that enabled me to establish investigative leads, because we arrive and we start from zero. We must nonetheless start from somewhere. Having established, shall we say, from this very careful examination of the outside, it was not possible, that is to say, anyone who had entered, according to my feelings, somebody who was known to Meredith: we have immediately focused attention on the people who frequented that house, and also at the same time have immediately [focused] on persons and on subjects of male sex, the young men who lived on the floor below.
For that matter, with regard to the apartment situated on the ground floor, below – because in reality it was a basement with regard to the storey that was almost at street-level – when we entered there we immediately had those very strong images of blood shed throughout the house, which obviously to me, just arrived as an investigator, obliged me to establish priorities with the Forensic police, of the type: that I had to know immediately if the blood that was down there was the victim’s blood, or why there was all that blood. We’re talking about blood below that was splattered in all the rooms: there were stains on the wall, there was a bed-cover, a duvet, that was completely soaked. Also because it would have led me to grasp immediately that the investigative plans [NdT: i.e. how the investigation developed] – I mean to say, one explanation is that the homicidal action took place only in the apartment above, another explanation obviously [is] that it began on the lower storey. Because this then changed, in short, all the considerations. These were, shall we say, the immediate actions, the first activities that we carried out.
Subsequently we began to listen to all the inhabitants of the house, both of the upper level as well as the lower level: this [was done] in order to check immediately, obviously, the alibis, with the conviction that someone had entered that house who was known to the victim. [So] of necessity we had to check the alibis of the tenants of the lower level, the alibis of the inhabitants of Meredith’s apartment. So it was a frenetic activity of checking/comparison that then led us in a very short time – I remember in short that we slept very little [during] the first days – to check that all the young men, the inhabitants of the lower level, nonetheless had an alibi. Because they were not, it seems to me that at least three of the four were not present in the town, and the alibis were all checked/compared, for some in the Marches. In short, they were in order. Because there were confirmations and situations. Then there was all, shall we say, I call it a cognitive behavioural investigation, that is to say, an investigation based very much at that point on the observation of all the subjects and on the psychosomatic reactions that these subjects may have had as the investigations advance. This was what that phase was.
GM: Let us dwell on this aspect. What did you note about the subjects who frequented the house, or about those who lived in that house?
EG: Let’s say that from that very evening, I was told about a series of behaviours of the young folk on the whole. Now I don’t know. Certainly, shall we say, the couples that were formed by the inhabitants of the house above with their respective boyfriends, the different behaviours that they might have – it seems to me that they were called Mezzetti and Laura Romanelli – they had a much more moderate behaviour, in short, compared that displayed on that very evening inside the Questura by Sollecito together with Magda [sic], who seemed a bit less struck by the episode. But I repeat that I held this to depend very much on the type of character that each of us has, that, in short, [we might] experience the various feelings [to a] greater or lesser [extent]. At any rate, one thing that really struck me, that for me was important, it seems to me that the day after – the 3rd, I believe – still in your presence, we returned to the villa, especially in the outside parts, to do a sort of crime-scene inspection together with Amanda Knox. On that occasion, I recall that at a certain point, I asked you to allow her to enter the lower storey, in order to ask her if she had noticed anything.
Because in the meantime, the young men had told me that there was a cat that was bleeding from one ear, a cat that regularly visited the house and who was bleeding from its ear. In that moment, I recall that I gave the plastic “spats” as I call them [NdT: i.e. shoe-covers] to Knox, and I put my spats on watching Knox to see if she had in fact put them on. Knox looked at me, and made that move, that famous move with swaying hips and pelvis, and saying “voila!” and laughing. I was left perplexed for a moment, since the situation, since I was about to make her enter inside an apartment where there were bloodstains, since we were on the site of a crime. There, something went and made a further piece [of the puzzle] for me then, regarding what the girls from the upper [storey] had declared, and regarding what my men had told me, that had seen this type of behaviour in the evening in the Questura. And I said at that point, this type of behaviour allows me to have an investigative intuition and to go pay particular attention [NdT: Giobbi here uses his own coined word “attenzionare” similar to “attentionise” or “attentionate”] to Amanda Knox. Other than this, I recall that one evening, now I cannot be very precise in the dates, however thus there were all the minutes/transcripts [i.e. the witnesses who were being taken down for minutes] who were going to give testimony [NdT: again, Giobbi uses “testare” = “to make one’s will” to signify “testimoniare” = “to give evidence”] during those dates, one evening then, we decided to call only Amanda Knox to the Questura to listen to her [i.e. hear her evidence].
I remember that there was a series of phone calls from the guardroom to say that there was Mr Sollecito at the entry to the Questura who was insisting, even with rather forceful behaviour, on seeing Amanda – in short, even with a certain insistence in a rather forceful manner, they said to me down in the guardroom – which he was then, it seems to me, actually permitted to do, I believe he actually was. He was brought up and was present, in short – he remained there near his girlfriend inside the rooms of the Flying Squad. On the one hand, there is this. On the other hand, the one that then led me – I am still speaking at this point of feelings/sensations, because I would like to remind [you] that we are [sic. i.e. “were”] in an initial, very early, phase, we are at the beginning. That is to say, at the beginning we do not have the DNA that tells us something. The first two or three days we don’t have the scientific/forensic evidence/comparisons, so as investigators we nonetheless have to progress with the classic investigations that are also formed of sensations/feelings, they are also formed of the answers given in a certain way, of a review, as I repeat, of the behaviours and of the psychological reactions.
I remember very clearly that in the afternoon, I heard my colleague Profazio telling me “Fabio [sic], there’s a very interesting phone call”, and it was the intercepted phone call, that was going on between the father of Sollecito and Sollecito himself. In the course of this phone call, the father was talking about organising the degree-graduation party. I remember that he was saying that relatives had to come, and they had to be put up/housed, and they had to sleep at [his] home, and so on. At a certain point, the father asked him if he had been heard [NdT: i.e. questioned], interrogated, and he beseeched Sollecito not to take with him the knives he said he was, in short, obsessed with. Especially when he went to the Questura to not take them because he said “this is a very serious thing”, and so on and so on. It seems to me that Sollecito replied to him “I’ve already been there. They didn’t find anything of the sort on me”. But other than the content of the phone call, what really struck me was the distance that he had during the conversation with his father, that Sollecito demonstrated during this conversation…
GB: At this point the contradiction begins. These phone calls will now be transcribed, even this one that is part of a longer phone call. And then others followed. Otherwise I would have to ask you what there is before or after this phone call, and at any rate, your sensations do not interest us.
GCM: On the content of the intercepted phone calls, you cannot report. They will be the object from [sic] where the relevant transcriptions are requested, respecting the related formalities, they can be acquired and used. Certainly if this listening-in gave you an input for your investigations - otherwise we will not be able to identify and to understand – to explain it. But this, in the limits of this, as far as the sensations are concerned … especially the reasons for investigative activity, maybe if you could look briefly on the investigative activity itself.
EG: This is the investigative activity, President, that I was telling you in the light of these acquisitions, that are then also considered on the basis of [our] professional experience, we decided to hear [i.e. question] the two, Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, inside the Questura on the evening prior to the arrest warrant issued by the Public Prosecutor. This is, shall we say, in broad outlines, the investigative path that I personally carried out, together with colleague Profazio, in support and assistance to the Flying Squad.
GM: Do you recall that night of 5 to 6 November, what the various passages/phases were, without entering into the merit of the declarations, but what were the developments, and what then led to the arrest?
EG: Above all, we began – as judiciary police – with witness summaries/recaps [NdT: “sommarie informazioni]. These summaries/recaps were carried out at the same time in two different rooms by two different teams of investigators. I and Profazio did not participate, but we remained, shall we say, like a sort of control panel in order to try and understand what the contradictions were. Because we reached [this point] also on the basis of contradictions that emerged during the course of the various witness summaries/recaps.
There was this evolution. There was, shall we say, the possibility during the development of these witness recaps/summaries of asking questions to study more deeply, of putting [someone] at their ease. In short, it was a very ordinary thing, I would say, in the ordinariness of things. After which, when the declarations emerged that went against our feelings/sensations, beyond the aspect [sic: perhaps a typo, “aspetto” instead of “aspettative” = “expectations”] of our competence, thus, that they no longer seemed to us to be witnesses, but that they had a completely other position, we – as you well know – in short, we called you and you can, and then it went as …
GM: Do you remember what the behaviour was of the two at that moment, and afterwards?
EG: During the SIT [“sommarie informazioni testimoniali” = witness summaries/recaps], I cannot say.
GM: Outside of the minutes [sic: i.e., the witness questioning/written recording], what happened in that moment in the Questura, especially [to] Amanda?
EG: Yes, shall we say, Amanda was the one that had a little bit more of a display of behaviours, I don’t even know what terms to use. I could describe them, the displays of the two behaviours were completely different: very easy: Amanda was more emotional, she had much stronger reactions. I remember clearly great wails, great cries, great emotional howls. But this [was], then, shall we say, during the phase when she was giving Lumumba’s name above all, because I associated it to the fact that she recalled in that moment the specific episode. I should say that Raffaele Sollecito was, according to me, he had an absolutely gentlemanlike behaviour. He always replied. He was put completely at ease. We, in short, however, we did things, giving him water often. However, also he, at a certain point, the answers necessarily required closer examination because even in defence of the same witness, because if we have answers that are contradictory or answers that do not match up with our investigative acquisitions.
GCM: The behaviours.
EG: The behaviours, I’ve outlined them. Mr Sollecito was, shall we say, to my mind, because I did not participate, as I said at the beginning, I was a sort of intermediary control panel, that is to say Profazio and I, who were those who were in actual fact leading the inquiries, we got the information from the operators and investigators who were physically carrying out the summaries/recaps. However, I must say that Amanda’s howls could be heard in the corridor of the Questura, even though the room was closed. Mr Sollecito did not have the same attitude, a much more gentlemanly and calm/even-tempered manner.
GM: Going back a few days, you were present in the Questura on the evening of the 2nd, from the 2nd to the 3rd?
GM: Do you recall, because then too there was a series of interrogations, do you recall what the behaviour of the two was on the evening of the 2nd November? You spoke of the evening of the 5th to the 7th [sic].
EG: I, as far as I can recall – so much time has passed – however, it seems a little bit overstepping the lines the behaviour that Mr Sollecito had, it was only on the occasion when we were hearing/questioning Amanda Knox without his presence inside the Questura. Amanda always had the attitude that I don’t know how to define, because I am not a psychologist, however it seems to me [to be] an out of place behaviour. That is to say, [it is] not a well-situated behaviour inside [i.e. in the context/framework] of the fact.
GCM: The evaluation of the behaviour, [can] you describe it? What did it consist of?
EG: The problem is finding the correct terms, according to me. On many occasions she was casual/carefree/impish/gamine, on other occasions – there you go – for example [in] an interrogation, she was desperate, but always unusual/particular/singular sensations/feelings. The thing that really struck me was certainly the episode of the move [NdT: the “voilà!!”, hip-shaking move], because in short the move, to me, it was a bit strange in that moment.
GM: The day after, in effect.
GM: What activities did you then carry out? Did you do crime-scene inspections?
[Describes examinations of Knox’s and Sollecito’s apartments; a full translation along with the others will be posted on the Wiki]
GM: I have no other questions.
2. Sabrina Scaroni , Counsel for Patrick Lumumba
SS: I wanted to know if you can tell me whether in those first days, up to, shall we say, the arrest of Messrs [sic] Sollecito and Knox, so from the 2nd to the 6th, you and your collaborators who were doing, in short, who collected the summaries/recaps, had occasion to tell the recap/summary-givers any particulars about the murder, about the criminal event in general, about how the events took place? Did you ever say to the recap-givers, “so, the event, this took place, the throat was cut, there was …”?
EG: One of the two [sic] tenants [female] certainly communicated something.
SS: No, I’m not saying what they told you, [but] what you communicated to them, that is to say ....
EG: Whether between themselves, you say?
SS: No. So, you and your collaborators, shall we say that you did not gather the recaps/summaries.
EG: I also did so.
SS: Also you. You, or anyone acting for you, in gathering the summaries/recaps, did you sit down [with] I don’t know, Filomena Romanelli, and say to her “listen, Miss Romanelli, so first you tell us what you know, we’ll tell you that Meredith Kercher died in this way … she had this …”. I wanted to know whether you ever reported particulars…
EG: No. That, no.
SS: Regarding the behaviour of Miss Knox, you said that how much [sic: typo, “quanto” = as much/however much/etc. should be “quando” = “when”] she was interrogated, you were doing shall we say, you were a sort of control panel, so you were not present. However I wanted to know whether you had a means of observing the behaviour of Miss Knox in the Questura in the moments of, shall we say, breaks, in the various moments when …
SS: You didn’t see her, so you don’t know.
EG: I never went into that room.
SS: No, in the room where she was being interrogated. But maybe when she was waiting?
EG: On the occasion of the summaries/recaps in the evening.
SS: Outside of the summaries/recaps, maybe when she was in the antechamber/waiting room, waiting for her turn to be heard.
EG: I would have seen her maybe a couple of times while she was having a little break in the antechamber of the corridor of the Flying Squad, where she was drinking water, maybe this.
SS: In those moments, then, you were able to observe particulars/details of the young lady’s behaviour.
EG: No. She was drinking water. And then, in that moment, I had other [things to do].
SS: You don’t remember.
EG: No, it’s not that I don’t remember. I didn’t have time to see behaviours in that specific moment. We are talking about the moment of the summaries/recaps the evening before the arrest.
SS: Only that, no. I was talking also about the previous days.
EG: The previous days I saw her, as I said earlier, loads of times often [sic].
SS: Apart from the episode of the “move”, I was saying, other episodes that, I don’t know, the fact that she was doing yoga, was doing …
EG: No. That episode remained impressed on my mind. There are no others.
SS: I have no other questions.
Archived in Officially involved, Amanda Knox, Police and CSI, Diversion efforts by, The Knox-Mellases, Hoaxes about the case, Interrogation hoax
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (19)
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
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?
GB: All the preliminary hearings, some?
LZ: Almost all.
GB: Even the one when Stefanoni was heard/questioned?
GB: In the one when Kocomani was heard/questioned?
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 …
GCM: Please. Continue, Attorney.
LG: I am referring to this thing that you precisely reported: Sollecito returned [sic] the alibi to Amanda.
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.
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.
Archived in Officially involved, Amanda Knox, Police and CSI, Diversion efforts by, The Knox-Mellases, Hoaxes about the case, Interrogation hoax
Permalink for this post • Tell-a-Friend • Case Wiki • PMF Org Forum • PMF Net Forum • Comments here (13)